We Don't Think Much of Yours

The World is Amazed at the Lack of Choice Being Offered to Electors in the UK

News broadcasters in the Americas, Europe and Asia are united when it comes to one thing about the forthcoming UK elections: nowhere else in the western democratic world, is the electorate being offered a choice between such similar parties in terms of policy. This is all the more remarkable in the case of the UK, because three, not two, major parties are contesting the election.

In last years’ US elections the population had a genuine choice between Obama’s Democrats and the Republicans, in terms of foreign, economic and social policy. In contrast, the UK parties are desperately trying to give the appearance that they have something setting them apart from each other, but in the total absence of this, the glare of public attention has had only one place to fall, that has been perhaps inevitably on the personalities of the politicians themselves. “Oh, he’s such a good speaker” people said of Clegg after the first debate. Well, if running a country was about speaking well on TV I’d vote for Jack Nicholson. Instead, I want to know who’d have the guts to take Putin behind the bicycle sheds and deck him one if need be. Alas, the campaign is more presidential than ever, yet without a degree of charisma between them.

And boy oh boy, are these really the grand finalists in ‘Who Wants to Lead the UK 2010’? Brown-just admit that you hate the job and can’t figure out why on earth you were so desperate to get it for all those years. Does he have a reflection in the mirror? CaMoron, you’re so lacking in substance you must weigh less than a feather. Somebody weigh him just to prove I’m wrong. Nick whatsisname, you tried to make out you were the man to upset the establishment, that was until it become clear to anyone reading your biography in wikipedia that you’re very much part of it and have been since your days as a £23,000-a-year student at the select Westminster Boys’ School. Oh dear.

I’ve never been able to understand why a population such as the British, who are so well informed about politics (I’m not the only one who says it, we’re renowned for it the world over) are willing to accept such poor quality politicians. Brits moan about this and that, saying that the war in Iraq was unjust because undertaken as a result of a group of Saudis attacking the World Trade Centre in 2001, and that the war in Afghanistan was unjust as undertaken following of attacks on the London underground by British Moslems in 2005. I respect the opinions of people on both sides of public opinion regarding these wars, but other events lead me to believe that as a population the Brits are remarkably, yes remarkably naive when it comes to judging their politicians.

Let me explain. The Brits like to think that they’re tough on their politicians, expecting high standards of ethical behaviour. “We’d never let our politicians get away with corruption, like they can in southern Europe or south America” they say, quoting Joseph de Maistre, who famously stated in 1811 that in a democracy people end up with the government that they deserve. I have an alternative view. I actually feel like the UK is a kind of paradise for politicians, where they can get away with things that politicians cannot get away with elsewhere. I should probably back up such a claim, so here goes.

For many years, politicians in the UK have had to declare donations to their campaigns or personal payments received. “There you are” say the Brits, “It’s all above board now”. But is it? Why do the politicians receive the money in the first place from these individuals like Lord Ashcroft or multinational companies? “Oh, it’s because these companies and wealthy people support the party’s policy plans” say our naïve Brits. Oh, right. And I was thinking that maybe the businessman and multinationals said to the politicians “Look Browny, if you promise me to enact that new law in the next Queen’s speech, I’ll give you £1 million towards the campaign”. But of course things don’t work like that in UK politics, only in southern Europe and South America. In the UK, wealthy businesses say to the major parties “Look chaps, fair play. Here’s £1 million for your campaign. Then after you win, if our interests conflict with what you believe to be right for the country, go ahead and do what you think is right. No hard feelings. Just see the £1 million as a gift towards justice, freedom and democracy”.

Of course, the reality is that donators exact a VERY high price for their contributions and govern the policies of the next government. I remember 13 years ago watching Lord Branson at Tony Blair’s victory party. “It’s time for a change” he said. Last week I saw him on TV saying that the UK Government should pay him money as damages for having closed UK airspace due to safety fears following the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Now, he’s after millions and who does he want to pay? Not Gordon Brown, but YOU. The money for Lord Branson (he needs a few bob after all) will come out of funds for hospitals, schools, kit for soldiers in Afghanistan or just be added onto the already crippling debts the Brits are building up for their much loved grandchildren.

The second mistake that UK citizens make is that they still believe that the politicians run the UK. If there was any doubt about where the real power lies in Britain, the rescue packages set up for the banks in the wake of the Lehman Brothers crisis showed that it is they, the banks that call the tune. Already they are making giant profits again, thanks to the money provided by Mr & Mrs Average in the UK, the taxpayers who propped them up. Business runs the world and politicians are their puppets. The only reason that big business and the politicians themselves don’t come out with it and tell us straight is that it doesn’t sound very democratic, and might start people asking if we do actually live in a democracy in which we’re all equal under the law or not. We couldn’t have that, so let’s continue giving the plebs the idea that the politicians are in charge, OK?

The third mistake that UK citizens make is that they pay their taxes. Just think. Why does this taboo exist in the UK about paying taxes? Everyone rounds on ‘cheats’ who don’t pay, without thinking for a moment: Who does this belief system benefit most of all? The fact is that most money that the public contribute in recent years has been spent on:

1) Wars in Asia.
2) Saving a right load of Bankers.
3) Paying pensions, which is a noble and generous activity when we consider that the people making the tax contribution will almost certainly never live to see a government pension of any real value in 30 or 40 years time.
4) Building up one of the largest debts of any country in the world which will be left as a present for your grandchildren to pay.

If British people launched a tax strike, maybe government would think again about how they spend all the money that they receive. But that won’t happen.

Finally, the Brits have a relationship with their leaders like the Jews with the Mesiah. They’re always waiting for the savior to come. They make near deities of their leaders. Most people are still fed up with Blair because he turned out to be human after all. What a cheek! We thought he was going to be out savior! Instead, the Brits should be angry with themselves for having placed him on a pedestal.

Will the Brits learn? I’m not sure and the smart money’s against it. Why? Because as someone said in 1811, “People end up with……”

Photos from the Andes

Easter in Mendoza and the Andes

"Mendoza...." our Argentinian friends had told us, "...es hermosa. Es la ciudad mas limpia en todo el pais!" So we decided to go there and see if it really was this: a beautiful city and the cleanest in the whole of the country.

Hermosa, meaning beautiful, is quite a strong adjective in Spanish, also used to describe., amongst other things, beautiful women. Therefore, I was expecting another city to rank alongside the lovely ones that I've been fortunate enough to visit in my travels, such as Bath in the UK, Venice in Italy, Salzburg in Austria and Munich in Germany. Even my Lonely Planet guide book sung the city's praises, saying it was one of the most beautiful in the whole of Latin America.

So we set off on a two-hour internal flight towards the 'ciudad hermosa'. The landscape below had been transformed by agriculture into a kind of grid, and our trip carried us first two up, and then eight across on the giant gameboard that is the Argentinian 'interior', a term which corresponds with the Australian term 'outback' and the Devonian term 'middle of bloody nowhere'.

Soon the landscape was looking more and more parched and we caught a glimpse of the Andes rising behind the city and landed in Mendoza. Would it match up to its billing?

The answer soon became clear. As we left the airport in our hire car, we noticed that the roads had massive potholes and no signs whatsoever, making it easy to damage the car or get completely lost. Ahhh, hermosa thought I. Not since I was in Munich have I seen such lovely, well maintained and logically organised streets.

Next of all, our trip into the delightful city carried us past twin shanty towns, favelas, on either side of the road, surrounded by open air rubbish dumps on which children scavenged for something that they could later sell. Ahhh, hermosa. Not since I visited Bath have I seen such a architecture.

Then, when we'd found our hotel we decided to go out for a stroll. The city centre had a river running through it, which was running more or less dry, which unfortunately was not the case for the open sewers by the side of the road. How it made me remember the Danube in Vienna.Bloody Hermosa.

Finally, after finishing our meals we were sitting down outside a restaurant drinking a beer when local children came up to us, not begging for money, but asking us if they could have the scraps of food that we'd left on our plates. We happily gave them our food. Judging by the look of the poor kids they hadn't eaten or washed in days. It was yet another one of those 'hermosa' moments, demonstrating the unqualified success of the Argentinian government's welfare problem.

Fortunately, we knew better than to trust lonely planet and had arranged to drive up to the border with Chile to see Aconcagua, the highest mountain in the world outside of the Himelayas. The 200km drive from Mendoza was phenomenal, the mountains gradually growing in size and multiplying their shades of pink, red and grey as we headed up to 3000 metres in altitude. Here Daniela started to feel a bit of altitude sickness, so we explored the plateau and took some great photos. We visited the 'Puente de los Incas' where minerals contained in thermal hot water create multi-coloured rock formations. The surrounding colours were wonderful, as was the wind, which seemed to be talking to you, telling stories of far-off places. Here, a lungful of air was so pure that it almost made you drunk. A sign on the roadside said that we were 1,222kms from Buenos Aires, and only 150kms from Santiago, Chile.

This experience, us alone with the landscape, the whispering wind and sheer vastness of the Andes was, without doubt, hermosa.

Could Mountain Building Be the Solution to Climate Change?

Those Scientists who actually acknowledge that climate change is, at least partly, a result of human activity have, over recent years, split into two different camps when it comes to how the problem should be addressed. The first group consists of those who believe that a large-scale change in human behaviour is necessary, for example through individuals reducing their carbon footprint, governments utilising renewable energy resources and increased levels of recycling. The second group is comprised of scientists who believe that large-scale changes in human behaviour are difficult to bring about, and who instead focus their attention on developing technological solutions to global warming, whilst accepting that humans will continue polluting, creating more and more rubbish and carbon as countries such as China and India industrialise.



This group of scientists has already produced numerous, hard-to-believe ideas for future macro-engineering projects, such as massive machines which could capture carbon in the atmosphere and bury it underground, or even giant mirrors which could be positioned in space between the earth and the sun and used to reflect some of the solar rays away from planet earth.



Support for this approach has gained ground in recent years. Indeed, the recent Copenhagen conference underlined just how difficult it will be to produce reductions in emissions in a world in which economic growth is seen as highly desirable and 200 countries at different stages of development and with different interests find it impossible to agree a common position towards the care of our biosphere. Maybe, just maybe we should give up once and for all on trying to modify peoples behaviour by creating armies of environmentally aware recyclers and instead look to technology for the solution.



Why has nothing yet been done to implement any of these macro-engineering projects? Well, the major problem has been the large costs involved, which in a period of global economic crisis has rendered their implementation impossible.



However, the good news is that a solution is at hand and that it comes from the most unlikely of sources: pre-Colombian South American technology!



Let me explain. In western Argentina, in the dry, desert-like foothills of the Andes, lies the city of Mendoza. It was founded two thousand years ago by the Incas. In the 19th century scientists were fascinated as to how the Incas could have created a city in such a dry, hostile environment. They discovered that as long ago as 500 A.D,, the Incas had already constructed a network of canals to carry water from the peaks of the Andes, towering over 5,000 metres above the city, down into the desert below. These channels meant that in the areas surrounding the city, where less than 5 inches on rain falls each year, agriculture thrives, producing high quality olive oil and vineyards stretching to the horizon which produce some of the most sought-after wines in the world. In short, the irrigation channels built by the Incas produced a land of milk and honey where otherwise there would have been a desert.



Scientists with the Argentinean government climate change action unit, having heard about the work of the ancient Incas, starting speculating. “We thought”, says Abril Pez, head scientist of the group, “that if we could construct similar, man-made peaks in dry, desert regions, that these peaks would attract rain and snow, as the Andes do above Mendoza, and that specially designed channels could carry the precipitation down to ground level, to produce high-quality conditions for agriculture”.



The group discovered that the major problem would be finding materials which could be used to construct such artificial peaks, which would need to reach at least 5,000 metres in height. “We thought long and hard” continues Abril, “before hitting on the solution. Mankind today produces so much rubbish that the landfill sites are overflowing. We just don't know where to put all the rubbish that we produce. We will use this rubbish, which previously went into landfill sites choking our towns and cities, to construct man-made mountains in desert and semi-desert areas where agriculture or cities need more precipitation, such as in Australia, the western USA, the Sahel zone in Africa and the Middle East. Engineers will build irrigation channels into these constructions and hey presto, ice, snow and rain falling onto the peaks will flow down into the deserts below, making them bloom”.



Pez’s group has already received funding from the Government’s of Western Australia and California to continue their research, and they are conducting research into suitable locations to commence building before 2020.



Buenos Aires, 1st April 2010, 8.57 am

The Sorry State of English Teaching Today

After nearly a year away from my blog, it's time for me to return and put pen to paper (or finger to button) and pontificate about a theme that's close to my heart.

Things are definately better here now for us. I don't know whether I've managed to build a life of sorts here precisely because I've been away from the blog or whether I've consciously neglected the blog in order to build a life here for myself. However, one thing that is for sure is that I feel those creative energies flowing and you, yes you, are going to be the unfortunate victim of my scribbling.

Let's start with a question. What's my job? That's right, I'm one of the army of UK citizens living abroad and teaching English.

Now, you may not know that I'm doing a teaching diploma course here in Buenos Aires, which is called the DELTA (Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults). I started it last year and finish in December, pass or fail. In their course blurb the providers, Cambridge Uni, in their customary snobbish way state that "candidates are informed the DELTA course is at master level". Now, I must admit that this made me feel intimidated, which knowing Cambridge Uni was certainly intended to be the case. All the same, it also made me feel very proud, having left school with three CSEs and never even imagining I'd even get to have a degree, let alone the chance of studying for a master's.

After months of burning the midnight oil studying flashcards with linguistic terms such as paradigmatic, binomials, trinomials, soprasegmental elements of speech, fricatives, plosives and cataphoric referencing, I was over the moon when I passed the first teaching theory exams last year. Got a merit to boot. As the year began, I was eagerly awaiting the second stage of the course, which would see experienced writers and tutors flown in expecially from Cambridge Uni, providing stimulating lectures to motivate us to reach even higher levels of inspired teaching. Halleluyah!

Unfortunately, I was to be deeply disappointed. I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that TEFL, or teaching English as a foreign language, is an industry in a crisis and becoming ever more intellectually one-dimensional.

Why do I say it's in a crisis? First of all, Cambridge Uni have always emphasised the value of the native, mother-tongue English teacher rather than the local teacher who is not a mother-tongue speaker. For example, fictitious John Smith, 21 years old, unemployed from Barrow with a degree in IT can do a one-month Cambridge Uni TEFL course and fly off to Japan, where without speaking a word of Japanese he can earn more money than Sachi, a qualified Japanese teacher whose studied English all his life, knows the works of Dickens off by heart and has probably got a degree in it as well. I think this preference is politically motivated. In my opinion often the most effective teachers are those like Sachi, who share the students own first language and had to learn English in a highly conscious, meticulous manner themselves rather than the glorified backpackers who travel the world boasting only a poor knowledge of grammar owing to a second rate UK secondary education. Cambridge Uni cannot admit that the native speakers such as Sachi (who often don't have Cambridge Uni qualifications) are superiour to their own qualified teachers because they want to perpetuate the myth that the native, mother-tongue teacher is always best.

This myth is also reflected in initial teacher training courses which tell novice teachers that they should NEVER use the students' first language in the classroom. Why exactly is this, when all the recent research shows that giving students a swift initial translation in their first language of new words is the quickest, most efficient and most effective way to help them on the way to understanding? The answer is that once again, Cambridge University want to protect their newly qualified teachers from English speaking countries who, possessing TEFL qualifications travel the world like glorified backpackers and, like 75% of the UK population, have great difficulty in stringing two words together in any foreign language. They often have little or no knowledge (or even interest) in their students' languages.

Another myth perpetuated by Cambridge University is that language lessons are the most effective way of learning a language. I believe that this view is utter nonsense. I couldn't speak a word of Italian until I was 32, have never had a lesson in my life and yet possess a knowledge and ability in the language that a graduate in the language would envy. Why? The reason is certainly not an excess of intelligence, but rather long-term, intensive exposure to the language in a natural environment over eight years living in Rome. Any institute that really wants to help its students learn a language should be finding them short and long-term work placements in English speaking countries rather than flogging them costly courses or Cambridge exams.

Again, Cambridge Uni wants to spread the myth that lessons are the best way to learn foreign languages because it has business interests in teaching teachers, producing and running examinations and not in the travel industry!

Wait a minute, even the British Council is spouting nonsense as well!

The British Council, which offers courses in English in centres all over the world, recently produced figures stating that the number of people in the world outside of English speaking countries who are learning English will peak this year at about 1.5 billion before steadily declining over coming years, as learners across the globe move onto other languages, such as Mandarin Chinese and Spanish. The British Council also state, in a piece of research obviously produced by yet another linguist in an ivory tower in some windy university complex in the UK, that the number of adult students worldwide will apparently decline dramatically in coming years as the length and quality of English instruction for school age children around the globe improves.

I think that the British Council have got it all wrong here too. Probably, like most so called 'linguists' who have made academic careers for themselves writing about TEFL, they've never ever seriously sat down and tried to learn a foreign language. Instead, they've put all their energy into writing about how to learn and teach English. If they'd ever learned a foreign language to a reasonable level they'd know that for anybody living outside of an environment in which the language is used on a regular basis, the very act of maintaining one's level of knowledge and skills in the language is a daunting task. For example, even if Italian teenagers are going to speak English better at 16 than Italians of the same age did ten years ago, they're not going to miraculously maintain this level for the rest of their lives without regular practice. Suggesting otherwise, as the British Council do in their pessimistic forecasts for future trends, is like assuming that someone who studied the piano for ten years during their teens will be able to sit down and play a perfect waltz at their 40th birthday party.

The fact that the British Council haven't considered such factors in making predictions about the future trends on teaching English to adults is because, on the whole, they don't know what it's like to speak another language at a high level and need to maintain that level over periods of years.

The future of English language teaching for adults, in my opinion, is producing flexible, often short-term courses of study to prepare students for specific objectives, such as foreign travel and job interviews. They will need to have their scholastic English polished-off for just such things. Also, lessons will need to be seen as just one service that can be offered to help students perfect their language skills, together with conversation groups, work and study placements in English speaking nations where learners can probably learn more than they ever will in an artificial classroom.

Finally, in the same way that every investment portfolio should be balanced, no new school should open up only offering English. Instead, intelligent directors will offer English, together with Mandarin Chinese, Spanish and other languages, so that they can easily adapt to changing demand over coming years.

Any thoughts? You don't have to be a teacher to comment. The next entry will probably be slagging off Argentina or talking about football.

Times they are a changin...

Today there was a different feeling in the air in Buenos Aires. For a start, it was raining. The temperature was 10 degrees below the previous hot, humid days, signalling the start of autumn. Secondly, it was quiet and traffic free because it was a national holiday, which commemorates the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas as they call them here).

Interestingly enough, I read here in the paper that ‘nobody in Argentina thinks of the Malvinas any more when the name of Great Britain is mentioned’. Certainly, the President Cristina Kirchner is trying desperately to avoid upsetting Gordon Brown too much, because they share the same objectives in the economic crises, that is to make credit more readily available to their near-bankrupt nations. As such they’ve become allies.

Probably the most meaningful proof that things have changed was provided here in the city last week during a performance from the British veteran heavy metal group, Iron Maiden. During one song, ‘The Trooper’, the bands singer, Bruce Dickenson always waves a giant union jack on the stage. Seven years ago the band played in Buenos Aires, Dickenson brandished his flag and was booed. This week he did the same and was enthusiastically applauded by 40,000 head banging Argies.

So, today being a national holiday, I lazily turned on the TV and saw the news coverage of the burial of Raul Alfonsin, who had been Argentina’s President immediately after the return to democracy in the 1980s. Thousands of people lined the streets and military guards accompanied the coffin.

Alfonsin was one of that rare breed, a universally respected politician. A brave left-winger, who spoke out during the 1978-1983 military dictatorship against the ‘Death Squads’ who rounded up and killed thousands of left-wing activists, he went on to serve as President. He then stood down having lost democratic elections, with the economy in freefall. In a great show of humility he was reported to have said “There are limits in a democracy to the suffering which any politician can inflict on their people”.

Only a true believer in democracy could be so philosophical after loosing at the ballot box. Many people tell me, and they might well be right, that I’m extremely critical of my Argentine hosts in this blog. Well, I’m going to surprise you now by paying the Argentineans a compliment. Following defeat, they are capable of great humility. Like in the case of Alfonsin, he didn’t look for someone to blame, or make excuses. He’d lost, fair and square.

The wake-like atmosphere in town was compounded by yesterdays’ incredible football result, in which the Argentina national team, managed by Diego Maradona and packed full of superstars, was thrashed 6-1 by Bolivia in La Paz in a World Cup Qualifier. After the match it was Maradona’s turn to display commendable humility, refusing to blame the effects of altitude for the result-the Bolivian capital lies at an altitude of 3,600 metres-but instead complimenting the winners for their performance and underlining that they had been superior in every department. He had previously made a point of going up to each and every Argentinean player and kissing or hugging them as they trudged forlornly off the pitch, certainly not taking a leaf from the Brian Clough book of how to treat your players after they get thrashed.

I’ve greatly enjoyed the South American World Cup qualifiers. I had been feeling depressed about the lack of quality in the Argentinean league, and even finding the Copa Libertadores-the South American Champions’ League-devoid of interest. However, the World Cup Qualifiers have renewed my interest in South American football.

It seems that just about anyone can beat anyone. For example, Columbia played Bolivia in Bogotá last Saturday and the Colombians were dreadful and the Bolivians even worse. It was like watching Exeter City in a bad year. Colombia just about deserved to win 2-0. Meanwhile, a Messi-inspired Argentina were thrashing Venezuala 4-0 in Buenos Aires.

Four days later, this form was turned on its head. Venezuela put up a gritty performance to beat Colombia 2-0 in Caracas and Bolivia played like world-beaters in handing Argentina their worse defeat in 60 years of internationals.

Four teams qualify automatically with the fifth placed team going into a play off. Presently Paraguay , Brazil, Chile and Argentina fill the top four positions, with Uruguay in the play off spot closely followed by Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Venezuela who all still hope to qualify. Peru languishes in final place.

Should be interesting.

Lehman Brothers 2 Inter Milan 0

So, England 3 Italy 0. Or should I say the Premier League 3 Serie A 0. The UK press is full of that British Bulldog spirit, we're the greatest, Mourinho go home, four clubs in the last eight of the champions and all that. Three clubs in the last four last year. The Italian sporting press instead is engaging in navel gazing, self-analysis and trying to figure out what went wrong.

Yesterday's Guardian said 'United's special ones in different class', the Daily Mail 'No Way, Jose', as 'stylish United brush off the special one'. La Gazzetta Della Sport instead gave lavish praise to the English teams. In his article, Arrigo Sacchi, former Milan and Italy manager, refused to believe that luck had been against Inter, Juventus and Roma in their games against Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal respectively. He said that the English teams didn't just owe their success to money, but to "the civility, general knowledge and fair play of the British people which is on a different level to ours". Arrigo's obviously never beenout on a Saturday night in Barnsley then. He concluded that the gap between top English and top Italian clubs was now 'enormous'.

Having watched the three games between Italian and English teams this week, I disagree with both Sacchi and 'The Guardian'. United weren't in a different class to Inter on Wednesday night. They took their chances whilst Inter missed theirs. Mourinho's team totally dominated the twenty minutes before half time and created scoring chances at will. Juventus also came close to beating Chelsea during a spirited performance in Turin and if Mirco Vucinic hadn't made a hash of his effort during the penalty shoot out, my favourite Italian team Roma would have probably sent my father's beloved Arsenal out of the competition.

However, the Italian press is certainly being sporting in its praise of the 'superior' English teams, which considering that the country are reigning World Champions must count as a remarkable demonstration of humility. I think Roberto De Ponti's article in La Correire Della Sera probably gives the best analysis. He identifies three factors in the success of the English teams: Money, debts and long-term planning.

He underlines the incredible balance sheets of last year's two Champions League finalists, Manchester United and Chelsea. United are 770 million Euros (about 700 million pounds) in debt, whilst Chelsea owe creditors a staggering 935 million Euros. They are the two most indebted clubs in Europe. De Ponti likened these debts to cheating, calling them 'Financial Doping'. The number of trophies won by the wo clubs in recent years does seem to suggest that access to credit is giving them an unfair advantage.

Would it be entirely a surprise if one or both of these clubs found themselves in severe financial difficulties in the near future? Who knows, maybe United will be nationalised like the Northern Rock bank!! 'We can't allow a priceless national asset like them. a multinational company, go to the wall!' the politicians will say, as taxpayers complain that their hard earned money is being used to help Cristian Ronaldo pay for repairs to his Ferrari.

Well, as a England fan I'd like to think that even if United and Chelsea go to the wall, at least our English players are gaining priceless experience of playing at the top level which can only help us to mount a real challenge for the World Cup in South Africa next year. Unfortunately, the facts don't give me any grounds for optimism in the chances for my 'Three Lions'. Analysing the teams playing in the last sixteen of the Champions League, there were 21 Italian players on display, 27 Brazilians, 27 Spaniards and guess how many Englishmen? Only 9.

So my message to Manchester United and Chelsea fans is this-enjoy the success while it lasts and maybe, just maybe you'll get to renew your rivalry with Leeds United before too long. And if you're an England fan, hope against hope that Aston Villa develop their present team of largely English players into the strongest in Europe over the next 12 months.