Blog 28 - Follow the Leader

The passing of the great Nelson Mandela has been met with various tributes this week, from the humbling and affectionate words of his friends and family, to the expected soundbites of the various world leaders. Watching these, and remembering the huge impression his book "The Long Walk to Freedom" made to me as an idealistic teenager, the thing which struck me most was that this was a man who had achieved so much, locally, nationally and globally, and yet he was not a man with a thirst for power. Power had found it's way to him. His first forays into politics with the ANC were not because he wanted to get into politics for politics sake. He found the subject of politics boring as a young man and he was happier being Jack-The-Lad and chasing women. Apartheid however, was something that needed to be fought, and Mandela, a strong, intelligent, educated man, knew that he was needed. Quickly, he became the figurehead of the party and the struggle. In prison, on Robben Island, this continued, and any peaceful protests against the guard's treatment of prisoners were led by Mandela, his behaviour mirrored by the others. The guards quickly came to the conclusion that to achieve an end with the prisoners you had to talk to Mandela. Upon gaining his freedom, already an old man, he took upon the mantle of leading the ANC in South Africa's first free elections, not because he was keen to be involved in affairs of state, but because he felt it was the right thing to do for the country and to bring a peaceful end to apartheid. He left the position after only one term, with his task achieved, to concentrate on his family and charity work, using his iconic status to highlight global issues such as poverty and aids. At each step he had power placed in his hands rather than him feeling the need to reach for it.

If we contrast the leadership of Mandela with modern politicians, the differences could not be more acute. The recent entertaining shennanigans of Russell Brand on Newsnight highlighted, in his charming loquacious urchin manner, the reality of political opinion for a generation of voters. We have no genuine leaders. We have a succession of people who are essentially from the same stock, who wear the same suit, reading similar words by similarly educated speechwriters, and who will tell us anything, truth or fiction, to gain a vote on election day, and then happily ignore every promise they've made once elected. These are people for whom gaining power is the objective. The destination and not the journey. Find a bloke who looks good on tv, looks potentially charismatic but will happily say what he's told by the spin doctors instead of, god forbid, his own thoughts, slap him in the right colour tie and he can lead the nation. Doesn't matter if he's clever, or intelligent, or has any social or morale compass. As long as he says what he's told, does very little so he can't make a visible mistake and lose votes, he's golden.

In this country, Gordon Brown was a very successful Chancellor and by all accounts a hugely intelligent and capable public servant, but his Gollumesque desire for the "Precious" ring of Prime Minister has made him a by word for political incompetency. At a time when we experienced the first televised pre-election political debates, Brown could not have performed any less favourably. Whilst Cameron robotically punched out his message, and Clegg twinkled his underdogs smile, Brown clumsily lurched through his scripted answers with all the charm and wit of a flatulent corpse. He committed gaffe upon gaffe in the run up to the election and unsurprisingly was well beaten. The depth of his fall from grace really hit home to me recently when he was asked to give a speech on the economy at a Labour Event in Scotland and it had to be cancelled because not one single ticket had been requested by the public. A recent Chancellor and Prime Minister and nobody wanted to hear him speak. 

In any intelligent organisation, this man would still be playing a key role. Not public facing obviously, but behind the scenes, using his knowledge and experience to help the economy. Whatever your views on the Labour government, or his role as Chancellor or PM, it can't be argued that there are few people if any, in this country, who are more qualified to help plan a way out of the recession. Similarly, there are previous Tory Chancellors who could equally prove useful in this regard. But due to the political system, we are obliged to play a 5 yearly game of musical chairs and if you're wearing the wrong colour tie at the wrong time, you're not allowed to help the country, you have to sit on the other side of the room and criticise those that are trying to fix the problem whilst they're doing it, until it's your turn to have a go again. Good people whose abilities are lost to the country because of an outmoded political system. Brown's consuming need for the top job, cost him a reputation for considered and competent decision making as Chancellor which he actually deserved. 

The United States is no better. George W Bush was staggeringly ill-fitting as the leader of the free world, ticking virtually no boxes as a leader. A unifier of the nation? Charismatic? Intelligent? He had a name that Republicans knew, but he had no ideas of his own and no concept of conducting himself as a competent international statesman. Yet he was elected twice. Sort of. Whilst his opponent Al Gore, a politician who has really grasped and embraced key global challenges such as the environment and the economy, was shuffled off the political landscape for the sake of a handful of questionable votes. How much more could have been achieved if he'd have been given a key position in the government aimed at tackling global warming?

To succeed as a political leader over the past 25 years or so you needed to be seen as a "Safe pair of hands" for the party to elect you. After a series of bland men, promising much and delivering little, the public are tired of the game and crying out for someone to lead. The most obvious figure in this regard in Britain is Boris Johnson. Styling himself almost as a British Bush, his cartoonesque buffonery has created a media personality that the British people recognise immediately, which is unusual for a nation that increasingly hits the mute button when politicians mumble things they don't mean at us. He also chooses deliberately not to appeal to everyone. His right wing opinions, his unadulterated adulation of all things Margaret Thatcher, his unabashed love of greed, would usually be the kind of ideology that a politician would avoid at all costs. But it works for him. People love that he stands for something, no matter whether they agree or not. You know what you'll get with Boris. Obviously by voting for him you'd be handing a Clouseau-esque pantomime villain the keys to the nuclear button and effectively the survival of all mankind, but hey, politics would no longer be boring. The power of warts and all honesty is seductive in election times. Of course, cynic that I am, I don't believe for a second that Johnson's entire image hasn't been carefully planned by a Tory think tank and sold to the nation piece by piece since the day he came to prominence on "Have I Got News For You" bumbling about "falling into a massive elephant trap" as Ian Hislop publically disembowelled him. Whilst he may not have made a particularly good impression that night, the fact was he made an impression. And if the viewers noticed you can bet the spin doctors noticed as well. But as much as I can see the seductive voter appeal of Johnson, equally, whilst he may represent boldness and a committed stance as a leader of the country, he's just another actor playing the part of a real leader. If he were elected, who genuinely believes he would make any decisions himself? He's not going to be the brains of the organisation, just the face and the mouthpiece. He's the Tony the Tiger on the Tories Frosties box. And the people making the real decisions behind the scenes will be the same Eton clique running Cameron and Osbourne now. The people we don't see and don't know we're electing to the real positions of power. 

I recently read a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and one of the key reasons for his success as a President, and the remarkable amount of change he was able to achieve whilst also fighting a civil war, was that when he took office as President, he appointed those who were his fiercest rivals within the party, to the key jobs in government. Those whom he fought for the parties nomination became his closest advisors. There were even some Democrats appointed to key positions at the expense of Republicans because they were better qualified. He wanted the best, not just those that agreed with him on every point. But he led himself. He would, on occasion, veto entire amendment suggestions raised within cabinet by himself if he felt them wrong. Equally he was capable of great concessions on points that mattered personally to him if he felt that others reasoning was stronger than his own. The success of the nation was the only consideration in his mind. I need not labour the comparisons to Mandela in this regard. 

Lincoln and Mandela understood the need to work with people and not against them. They are true leaders, worthy of following. I doubt I will see any leaders of such integrity and gravitas again in my lifetime. But these are the men we must seek to fix our ailing civilisation. Not just someone who looks good in a suit and spins promises they can't and won't keep. Attracting men of such character to a dishevelled political system hellbent on power for power's sake will be the problem we must solve.

Blog 27 - Judging

I was watching something on TV the other day, I forget what it was, but it had real people in so was either a documentary or reality tv.

One person said to the other "You're judging me!", and this grabbed the attention of the assembled bystanders. There was an almost visible intake of breath.

"I'm not judging you because I'd never do that. Ever", was the reply from the alleged judge. Correct answer apparantly. The bystanders relaxed. She was back in the game.

This seems to be a big thing from what I see these days, both myself, and increasingly in the teeny programmes my girls are starting to get into. Judging is a big no-no. Judge not lest thouself be judged.

This is of course, contrary to human nature. We judge EVERYTHING. From the unconscious like "How far do I have to hop so I don't splash in that puddle?", or "Can I make it before that light turns red?" to the more considered "Can we afford to buy a new car?", or "Can I drink one more pint and still make the last bus home?".

Why then is it considered bad form to judge people? I judge everyone. If you're reading this and you know me, I've made a judgement about you. I've probably made lots of judgements about you. And I'd be shocked to shit if you hadn't done the same about me. If you've made the effort to read this then you probably don't mind me as a person. Either that or you're planning to sue me and looking for ammunition amongst my paranoid ramblings. If so fill your boots, there's probably plenty to go on. But if you are one of those that don't mind me, you probably like some things about me, but could happily forego other aspects of what passes for my personality. You might find me devilishly attractive but at the same time think I have a grating sense of self-righteousness. You may think I'm kind but overbearing. We all have pro's and con's.

I think the idea about judging someone being a bad thing come from the notion that if you are judging someone you are setting yourself above them. "Who are you to judge me?" is the cry. But if you judge everyone based on the same criteria, regardless of who they are, then why should you not have an opinion? Regardless of whether it's a friend, or a politician, or a footballer or a boss at work, if a man, say, cheats on his wife I'll have the same opinion of him and his actions in that context. Equally, he may have other characteristics that I do approve of. After their wives kick them out, the friend may put her through a messy divorce and upset the kids, whereas the politician may come clean and spend all his time trying to win back his wife's trust (unlikely I know but work with me). Either way I'm still judging them on their actions. If my friend's actions really disappoint me, I may stop being his friend. I may judge that he is not the type of person that I want to be friends with. And yes, in this context, that would be because I think I'm better than him in some ways. Important ways. At least important to me.

When people say "Who are you to judge me?" what people are really saying is "Who are you to have an opinion of me that I don't like?". Nobody complains about being judged if someone says "In my opinion you are a lovely person". What they're almost certainly saying is "Please don't voice a judgement because it will paint me in a negative light as even I'm aware that I'm behaving badly". They infer that judgement is a bad thing because judgement will place the judge above them morally. But if that feeling of superiority is justified, that judgement is valid.

I judge people. I always have and always will. If you do something I don't like or don't agree with I may tell you.

"Who are you to judge me?" you may say.

I'm just me and it's just my opinion. You may not care about my opinion. If so, bravo.

But beware the person that squawks "Who are you to judge me?". They're probably behaving like an arse at the time.

Blog 26 - Let people who say nothing be in charge

I am going to talk about politics.

I'm sorry.

I'll try to be brief and not scare you too much.

I've just found out that Andrew Mitchell has resigned as Chief Whip or whatever the hell he is in the Tory government or Coalition or United Nations or patrons of Twitter or whoever the hell runs this damn country now.

Now I'm not a fan of the Tories, never have been, never will be, never voted that way and probably never will. But what the hell are we doing forcing a man to lose his job for letting his guard down for one minute and getting arsey with someone who annoyed him? If we did that to everyone nobody would have a bloody job.

The tabloids say he called a policeman who stopped him riding his bike through a gate a pleb. He said he asked "Arn't you guys supposed to be fucking helping us?". He may be lying to make it sound better (and given the amount of play the pleb line has got that sounds likely) or he may be telling the truth. Either way, he got annoyed. He later apologised and the policeman accepted.

Now, following newspapers banging on about the non-event, and the Twitchforks coming out on social media, weeks later, he's given into pressure and resigned.

What in the name of God are we doing as a society? Are we saying that only people who are on their guard 24/7 should be employed? Only people who have exactly mainstream ideas can be allowed to speak to anyone? Maybe we should put a pre-programmed computer in charge of the country. It can make no decisions of any consequence but parrot them out in monotone inoffensive soundbites that nobody could object to. Or is that what Cameronbot 2000 is already doing?

Every day we make our world more bland, lest we share an opinion that may not be to everyones cup of tea and therefore offensive. Every company now has a Facebook or Twitter policy to prevent their employees mentioning their work or colleagues. No good things, no bad things. Just say nothing. We are a society of saying nothing out of fear of the consequences.

Mitchell, whoever he is, or whatever he does, is just a bloke. He may be rubbish at his job, or really good. He may be a total arse or the salt of the earth. I have no idea. But he's just lost his job because he got a bit snippy with one person for 30 seconds. And not because anyone was really "offended", but because they just banged on about it until the point where everyone got so fed up that it wasn't worth the bloody hassle any more.

Well done Britain.

You twat.

My friend Jon

This week I lost one of my oldest and closest friends.

When I first received the call to say that he had passed away I was hit initially by shock, followed swiftly by tremendous guilt that I hadn't done more and spent more time with him in recent months. I think it's an uneasy feeling that a lot of people who knew Jon will share as well at this time.

However, even as I type this, I can hear his voice in my head saying "That's bollocks Heady", and as with Y'Army articles, condensing an entire paragraph of my rambling waffle into one succinct soundbite.

I share some of Jon's demons and I had the late night chats with him when things were bad and we both agreed that this illness doesn't get better or go away. You just go through different stages of tolerance. Jon loved his friends and his family and I know for a fact that he wouldn't want any of us feeling guilty or responsible for things we had no more control over than he did. For all the darkness he encountered he remains one of the most positive people I have ever known and I know that this is how he would want us to feel when he is in our thoughts.

By now, with his editorial hat on he'd be telling me to get on with something funny. As he told me once when he had me constructing a leaving poem for a colleague at N.U. "Try and get some laughs and applause Heady. You deserve the clap."

I first met Jon 13 years ago. He was my first proper boss in my first proper job and when I arrived there I had led a relatively sheltered life and was a shy and nervous kid. As those of you who know me will testify I'm now the most horrendous gobshite, and a startling amount of that change was down to Jon's partly sage and partly dubious influence. As well as my boss, he became a friend and a mentor.

Inside of work he taught me not only how to do my job, but how to be better than the job I was in. I learned so much about how to behave as an adult and an individual from Jon. Outside of work, the lessons were more based upon how I could disgrace myself but get away with it. He shanghaied me into pubs I would have never dared to have gone into before. Curry houses that no human being should have gone into, ever. And he showed me what happened in those buildings that have signs with three "X"'s outside. In short he helped me grow up. Those years in the EPT, are some of the happiest times of my life and Jon was a huge part of that. He looked after me and metaphorically deflowered me all at once, and I include that mangled metaphor because I know how much Jon would chuckle at it. It was a few years of ridiculous nonsense and mischief.

To my lasting regret I wasn't in Manchester the night that he and some accomplices on a departmental training trip who shall remain nameless, were evicted from the hotel that backed onto the Old Trafford cricket pitch. They'd climbed down from their balcony which led into the stands and were caught by the security guard pretending to bowl and bat on the wicket in the pitch black whilst slightly hammered and stark bollock naked. A typical night out with Jon in many ways. Only a 2 a.m. chorus of "Jerusalem" in a residential street away from being textbook.

This was what was great about Jon though. He was a human catalyst. He had an unbelievable randomness and spark and when you were with him he'd end up talking you into doing things and going places that you'd never normally consider. And they'd end up being great memories. A typical phone call from Jon would be: "Heady, you're not doing anything today are you? We're going to Boston/Dagenham/Cambridge/Some random football ground we've never been to before" and we'd be in the car and on our way. Or we'd go down to London on the train and find ourselves in Hamleys lobbing cuddly toys at each other. As you do.

Y'Army gave me some of my favourite memories and again, Jon was the catalyst. Jon and Dave came up with the initial concept and I got on board to add in some additional content and it was one of the best things I've ever done in my life. I look back on the fanzine with great pride as I know Jon also did. Dave was fantastic at putting the publication together and I hammered up sufficient articles to give us enough for people to read, but without Jon the project would never have got off the ground. Endlessly positive, he drove the fanzine from being a pipedream into a reality. Whatever challenge came up, Jon would rise up to meet it.

I've played football at Colney because Jon set it up. I've seen a song I made up sung to Darren Huckerby on tv to convince him to stay at Norwich City because Jon organised it (Look East didn't think it could be done. Jon thought differently and made it happen). I've been part of so many wonderful things that are the result of Jon's hard work, and his gift of the gab, and just Jon being Jon. I don't know if I ever properly articulated to him how much this meant to me. I hope he knew.

The most telling thing of all in this however, is that I am by no means one of the people closest to Jon. As we both got older and since I've had kids we naturally grew apart. We always stayed in touch and checked in regularly to see how we were both doing, but we lost a bit of that closeness that we once had. However, I know that there are hundreds of people who feel just like I do about Jon. People that in recent times he spent far more time with than me. He made friends wherever he went. I'm tempted to say that he had a close friend on every continent except Antarctica, but there's probably a penguin that's had a beer with Jon who loved the guy. He mixed with so many different people from so many walks of life. I can't imagine how many lives he touched. How many people his energy and enthusiasm have lifted.

Jon was only 37 when he was taken from us, but in that time he lived a life and a half. If a man is made up of the friends he makes or the joyful memories he creates, then he has have lived a fuller life than many of those who make it to 100.

Jon, I will miss you greatly. I know I'll see you again one day, and at that point you'll take the piss out of me for blubbering like a little girl on more than one occasion over the past couple of days, and I'll respond by saying that if all angels look like you I might consider an alternative destination. But I know you'll be waiting my friend.

And for the love of God, find a more palatable class of curry house for us to go to by the time I get up there...

Blog 24 - Norwich v Leicester, a few words on the game and a quick stocktake.

I haven't blogged about Norwich for ages, simply because I haven't needed to. It's all been going swimmingly and there's been nothing to add that hasn't been said already.

With the defeat against Leicester in the cup today it seemed like a good time to take stock as effectively it ends our season. Only the biggest cynic or the most ridiculous optimist can see anything remaining for us but a mid-table finish, which in itself is an enormous triumph for us, and the rest of the season is going to be a preview for next season and a challenge to see how high up the table we can reach.

Today we lost to a team we really should have beaten. Leicester were well organised but they didn't play out of their skins, and as much as the knee-jerk reactionists try to scream that all our players were rubbish and they were trying to lose so they can concentrate on the league, that wasn't true either. The reality is that Paul Lambert lost the game by picking the wrong team and the wrong tactics.

There. I've said it. St Paul was fallible. And it's ok. We can say it. The spell will not be broken and he won't turn into a bad manager because of it, or run to another club outraged at the audacity of one fan thinking this. Christ knows he's allowed one bad day at the office. I love Paul Lambert as our manager. He is without doubt the most tactically adept boss we've had in my thirty years of following the team. But today he got it wrong.

Today, we set out to play a system that was simply too heavily weighted in terms of attacking players and we convincingly lost the battle for midfield. The shape was that of a wide diamond, with David Fox playing the quarterbacking role just ahead of the back four, Pilkington wide on the left, Bennett wide right and Wes sitting close behind Morison and Jackson up front. The intent behind this was admirable. Jackson has been brilliant in recent weeks and on current form alone is probably our best striker. If he is to play though he needs someone to play off, whether that be Holt, Morison or Wilbraham. That's fine. So we have a back four and a front two. The make up of the midfield was the problem however. There was simply no presence in the middle of the park. Fox was so deep and Hoolahan so advanced that combined with the wide men operating with chalk on the boots Leicester had the centre of the field to themselves. As the game wore on, Pilks, Wes and Benno all tried at various times to move inside and help out, but even then there was still an enormous gulf between them and anyone they could pass to, and our passing game never really showed signs of getting going as a result.

So why did Lambert pick such a team and formation? I think partially it was an experiment to see if it would work. The competition being an obvious secondary consideration to Premiership priorities and the opposition being a league below us it was an ideal opportunity to tinker tactically, and Holt, Ruddy and Surman were all given a break despite good current form. Bennett played superbly in the second half against Swansea last week, Pilkington has become an increasingly important influence in recent weeks and Wes and Foxy are our two most technically competent players so Lambert gave in to temptation and played them all. Had it been Premiership opposition I don't think for a second he would have tried it. This selection is the reason we lost the game.

The selection though does highlight one obvious problem with our squad now. The attacking players picked today are the ones you get the impression that Lambert is always trying to find a place for. They are flair players, who when in form can terrify defences and create chances and excitement. And today he picked them all regardless of the fact that it left us light in midfield and he knew that when he picked the team. The real issue though is that there were not players of similar calibre in the middle of midfield he would have equally wanted to shoehorn in. Jonny Howson, when fit, may change that situation, but aside from Fox there is only Johnson, Crofts, Lappin and Surman to pick from and Surman is the only one with any current form. This may well be an area that Lambert will look to improve in this summer.

So to the stocktake. PL will undoubtedly look to take us to the next level next season and set our sights higher than simply avoiding relegation. He's shown before that he's not averse to upgrading players that have performed well for him previously, and one of his key skills has been to keep those players involved and keep competition for places high.

Ruddy has had a good season. He still lacks a little confidence, particularly in coming for crosses but his shot-stopping has been excellent and Lambert's faith in him has been well founded. Rudd and Steer have not let themselves down at all when they've had chances and I can't see us investing in a stopper again any time soon.

Kyle Naughton has been exceptional and I think Lambert will do everything he can to persuade the board to pay Spurs their asking price come May. Quick, good on the ball, defensively sound and adaptable he's done everything asked of him and more. Russell Martin has at times looked every inch a Premiership player, and despite the odd poor game or costly mistake, when you consider the journey he's been on from Peterborough reserve in League One to playing a full Premiership season in just two years, we have to be delighted with him. Martin will continue to be a part of our plans going forward. Marc Tierney had been in good form prior to injury, and although Lambert may look at the position in May, Tierney has certainly done nothing to warrant replacing. The fact is that with every successful stage of our upward journey, Lambert upgrades and my gut says that this could be an area, regardless of whether that's hard on Tierney. Adam Drury has performed stoically in recent weeks, but he'll know as well as anyone that he's winding down his career now and that he's lost a little of the sharpness he once had. He may stick around in some capacity as a positive influence but the days of Drury being a regular on the teamsheet are gone. George Francomb is a good young player but he may prove a casualty of success and still be a little way off what Lambert considers is needed as we progress.

Centre-Half has been a carousel position this season with everyone stepping up to have a go. Ryan Bennett is obviously expected to be a big part of our future at the position if the reports of a £3m fee are accurate. Either way it's certainly the biggest fee we've ever paid for a defender, and as an England U21 regular he's a crucial component of Lambert's next generation. Whitbread, when fit, has been a collosus, and if he can just stay healthy, he's one of the best centre halves I've seen in the Premiership all season. Ayala, is young, calm and composed and if he and Bennett get together, you can see a partnership in the heart of the defence that could keep us solid for years to come. Elliott Ward has returned from injury as if he'd never missed a game and his presence is greatly reassuring at the back. With these four in place I can't imagine we'll be looking for further replacements at centre back, especially with Russell Martin as a further option. Unfortunately I can't see a future for Leon Barnett whose days appear numbered. At one point he and Russell Martin were getting a good partnership going having been thrown together by injury, but a number of lapses in concentration saw the big man lose his place and drop down the pecking order. His confidence is obviously low right now, and he had a bad game today, responsible for Leicester's second goal and looking uncomfortable against opposition that he would usually have no problem with. He's a lovely lad and a top player on his day, but he may be another victim of the Lambert upgrade.

In midfield, Lambert has revolved his tactics around the opposition with generally an excellent success rate. David Fox has enjoyed the extra time afforded to him at this level and remains a positive influence on the passing game when selected. Bradley Johnson has been a huge plus in terms of being much better than we anticipated he would be. He remains inconsistent but he's a presence in midfield with his ability to pick up the second ball a definite plus. Andrew Crofts unfortuantely has not made the transition to Premiership player. Whilst he'll always give 100%, he doesn't have the skill set for a top level midfielder and as I've already stated, I think Lambert will look for better players in midfield. Korey Smith and Tom Adeyemi will return from their loan spells better players and may be given chances to show this, but their futures are obviously in the balance along with Simon Lappin. Lapps is one of those silent heroes that Lambert loves who trains well and never complains and is always there if we need him and if he continues to be content he may just have a squad place again next season. Andrew Surman was anonymous for the first half of the season but since getting a run of games he's been much improved and his tactical flexibility has been key to him slotting into the varying systems that Lambert applies according to the opposition. Anthony Pilkington began the season as a flashy sod, desperate to shoot from anywhere and get his name in lights. However, as he's matured throughout the season and become more of a team player he's shown exactly why PL paid handsomely to bring him from Huddersfield. His work rate has increased, he looks to help getting the passing game going, and his runs are no longer just to get himself in position to score, but are often to help out colleagues and provide options for keeping posession as a team. He's another that will grow with the side. Elliot Bennett has probably not made as big an impact as he would have hoped but he has been involved in nearly every game and he always offers something positive when he's on the pitch. I expect him to get more starts before the season is over and be looking to cement a place next term.

Grant Holt continues to be Grant Holt, and that doesn't change regardless of the opposition. If there's a ball to be won, it doesn't matter to Holty if it's John Terry or Troy Archibald Henville, he'll plough through them anyway and this is why we love him. Holty will be here next season, just being Holty. Steve Morison's development is less clear. He has certainly scored some good goals for us and contributed as much as we could hope in that sense. However, there appear to be two versions of Steve Morison that do or don't show up in matches. There have been games where he has scared the bejeesus out of defenders and bullied them with his presence (Newcastle at home and his goal against Arsenal being prime examples), and other times, such as today where he had a shocker, where he looks disinterested and lazy. I'm sure he's neither of these reasons really, but either way, he remains an unpredictable element and if PL looks to aquire a striker, Morison would be one player who would need to watch his back. Simeon Jackson has worked his socks off whenever he has been given an opportunity and although you got the feeling at the start of the season that PL wasn't fully confident that Jackson could step up, he's currently playing so well that he can hardly leave him out. As much as I think Lambert will look to add firepower next season, I think Simeon will remain in the plans and deservedly so. James Vaughan remains an unknown quantity and hopefully we'll see him more before the end of the season. Aaron Wilbraham is starting to win round the doubters finally. To be fair his performances this season when called upon have been good. Last year, many people, myself included to be fair, doubted he had the ability to play at Championship level, let alone Premiership, but he's aquitted himself well in his brief cameos. With his contract up in May I'd be very surprised if we saw him again next year though.

All in all it's been a fantastic season. Really enjoyable and a positive experience for all of those who were worried that we'd gone too far too soon. With Ryan Bennett, Ayala, Pilkington, Elliot Bennett, Jackson, Howson, Vaughan, Rudd and Steer all coming through and developing apace the future looks solid, and if we can add Naughton permanently along with a few more quality additions to the existing experienced lads, there is no reason why next year we can't go even further than we have this. The sky is still the limit for this club.

Blog 23 - Gary Speed, depression and how people can help.

I'm writing this having just heard the terrible news about Wales manager Gary Speed committing suicide in the early hours of this morning aged just 42.

If there is one word that dominates the news reports and discussions it is shock. Every friend, colleague, pundit and fan seems dumbfounded by the news.

Gary Speed is a man everyone liked. With his good looks attracting a lot of female attention, as a young Leeds star he could easily have become a "Spice Boy" like so many others and allowed the lifestyle and money of a Premiership Footballer become more important to him than actually playing the game. But he didn't. He gave 100% week in-week out and served every club he played for with honour and commitment, and he was a man that every neutral fan had respect for as a result.

He seemed to have it all, a lovely family, financially untroubled, a successful playing career, and now a promising spell as manager of his country, the highest honour one can be given in football. He had it all. So why would he want to end it?

I don't know, because I'm not Gary Speed, but as someone who has suffered with depression and been to some very low places, I can certainly see how the seemingly perfect life could have become more of a prison than a paradise for someone with depression.

With everything Gary Speed had going for him it's clear that in life he has made some very good decisions. As a manager that's his job, and as a player it was one of his strengths. So when you spend all day every day making good decisions in your professional life and in your personal life, what happens when you find that the right move still leaves you feeling hollow and empty every time?

This is what depression does. It strips the joy away from everyday life. It makes the positive seem bland and uninspiring (at best). So if the right moves make you feel like shit, what's the alternative? Deliberately make the wrong moves? Run away? Quit and start again from scratch so you can do it all again? When you are a father, a husband and someone shouldering the burden of a nations footballing hopes it isn't that simple. If you make the wrong decisions those around you suffer. You can't and won't run away from those you love, no matter how much you may want to be alone. And you can't quit as manager of a national football team because all you want is some peace and you'll be hounded by the press forever and a day. You're trapped. You're on a treadmill that you can't get off of. Logically the best thing you can do is just to carry on as normal but when every fibre of your body is screaming for rest and change, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Speed's very success could have been his biggest downfall.

Gary Speed, due to his fame and position, has today become a symbol of all that's hidden about depression, but his situation is replicated by normal, everyday people every single day of the year. The challenges are different, but the reasoning will usually be the same. People who feel desperately unhappy, but who feel powerless to change their situation. I feel like this regularly to varying degrees, but have never, even at my lowest point, acted on it. However given how prevelant depression is, it's amazing that statistically more people don't.

So how can we stop this happening to the next Gary Speed? The next person who is backed into a corner with only one way out? The answer, however unhelpful, is that you can't. Depression is an illness and whilst it varies greatly in seriousness and symptom, there is no cure. You may feel better for a while, you may consider yourself "cured" even, but once a person suffers from depression it will always be part of them. Something you always have to remain aware of. And people will always be pain and a lot will kill themselves. There's no magic formula.

The one area that can be addressed is that of changing attitudes towards people with depression. When I was first diagnosed with depression my first reaction was to keep it to myself. I was ashamed by what seemed like a terrible weakness for a bloke in his early twenties to be suffering from. I thought it was only something for people who had been through a massive trauma in their life, and that my feelings were fraudulent. Surely I was just being a wimp? My sunconscious was sulking about something and wanted to hide away from the real world for a while like a child. It took me a long time and a lot of lost sleep and mental strain to acknowledge the validity of my condition.

Imagine how much more difficult it is to accept for someone who has never experienced depression. If your only contact with depression is that someone at work buggers off on full pay for months at a time with it whilst you have to come in every day and pick up their slack, then your opinion of it is not going to be good. The invisible disease that anybody can claim to have.

I think as a society, we do accept that some people suffer from mental illness, but that we have all experienced one or two people who claim to have depression but seem to be fine. Depression is regarded with the same skepticism as ADHD. Some kids may genuinely need meds, but every naughty kid at school these days gets told he has some vague disease because it's easier for parents to blame illness rather than a lack of parenting. Hence, for every 10 people who claim to have depression, we assume 7 or 8 are just making excuses. As someone with depression, you feel this skepticism acutely, often because you still feel this way yourself to a large extent.

If I found coming to terms with depression hard, imagine what Gary Speed had to deal with. Football is an old-school male community, with embedded attitudes when it comes to health. The team is everything. The individual must put the team before himself. He must play through the pain barrier, fight to his last breath, leave everything personal in the dressing room and live for the moment with his teammates. A national football manager who quits because of depression? Unthinkable. A large proportion of the country, and more importantly the footballing community would see it as tantamount to treason. You don't quit a job like that. You're honoured to have been asked in the first place you ungrateful sod. And depression? Well just cheer up a bit, there's nothing wrong with you. I doubt very much that Gary Speed told many people in the game about his illness, which would have added to the pressure he was already feeling.

I can only hope that Gary Speed's tragedy can change this attitude. That people see a model professional and a successful man and now understand that one man's perfect life can be another man's prison cell, and that depression is a potentially lethal illness and not a weak persons laziness. And I hope that the next Gary Speed feels like they can ask for help, or a way out, and that more people will now understand rather than turn on them in ignorance.

I feel for his family and friends, but most of all I feel for him, and the incredible pain he must have been feeling.

RIP Gary Speed.

Blog 22 - What I did on my honeymoon - Houses of Parliament

*As you'll probably know I got married the other day. Part of the reason we got to getting around to getting married after 11 years is that we were going away for our first ever night away from the kids because Kerry was attending a Cybermummy conference in London, and so we combined this event with a wedding. This meant that I had a day in London doing some touristy things before meeting up with Kerry after the conference and then doing some more touristy things the next day with her before coming back to rescue my Mum and Dad from our kids. I've decided to blog about some of the things I/we did in case anyone was thinking of doing them next time they're in London.*

Houses of Parliament Tour

Cost - £15 for a single adult

Time taken - 2hr 15m from arrival at venue to being back on the street afterwards.

I got to Westminster at 9.30 a.m. and as soon as you leave Westminster tube station the HOP are straight in front of you, so it's an easy find. However, when you get to the series of check-in desks which you would assume would be there for you to buy your ticket you are then redirected across the road to the back garden of a house behind Westminster Abbey. You then have the bizarre scenario of an old stone building which has had plexiglass dividers rammed into it's three small windows manned by HOP sales staff. Once you manage to obtain a ticket (they were struggling with complicated computer systems and a lack of English as a first language and managed to take 10 mins to sell me one adult ticket for a tour in English) you then go back to the apparantly redundant check in booths at the HOP. A word of warning, I was able to get through this process relatively quickly because I got there early before the real crowds arrived but later in the day I saw the queues to get tickets stretching for a good 100 yds outside of the normal queueing area. Once inside you are immediately whisked through the most thorough security check I've ever encountered, which is to be expected given the high value of the venue as a terrorist target. You get taken through scanners, have your picture taken, have your baggage x-rayed and your pocket contents examined. However, the security staff are very personable and try and make this experience as painless and swift as possible. Then, you're in. From ticket-buying to security clearance and ready to start the tour took 30 mins only, although as I say, this was helped by my arrival time, so I definitely advise early arrival if possible.

The tour begins in an enormous stone hall which legend says Henry VIII used for tennis, and which, as one of the very few non-specific area to British politics in the building is where foreign speakers such as Nixon and the Pope have addressed Parliament. It was also used in days gone by as a court of law which saw the execution ordered of Anne Boleyn and the place where Churchill was laid in state before his funeral. It is also the only area in the HOP where photos are permitted, again for security reasons. There you meet up with your tour guide. Everyone has to go round with a guide and you are counted at regular intervals to make sure nobody has wandered off with anything ticking to leave as a present around the building.

One thing you are advised immediately is that as you go through the building, you will see a number of things with the "Wow" factor and the tour takes you around everything in time, but because of the number of tour parties going around it's not always possible to stop at the item of interest, but whatever you miss on the first pass, the tour guide will make sure you get to see them on the way back. Unfortunately this doesn't always filter through to the other members of thr group for whom English isn't their first language. Our tour guide, a formidable lady of a certain-age named Elaine, who spoke in beautiful crisp English but with a brusque undertone that made it clear you didn't mess about on her tour, was patient with some of the questions but there were a couple of eye-rolls aimed towards the few Brits in the party when she had to explain yet-again why we weren't stopping at an obvious point of interest because there was already another party there, but that we would stop there eventually. She was fantastic in her knowledge of the building and it's history and protocol and her manner was perfect for a tour of this nature.

Our first stop in the main building was the staircase the Queen uses to enter Parliament and give her annual speech to the House of Lords. You really feel the history all around you, with the busts of Prime Ministers past such as Wellington overlooking the corridor, and the architecture and the splendour are exactly what you would expect from a building with such a past. You then pass through more anti-rooms, each with a history and a tale to tell, from a threadbare throne which has been in the building since it was used by Queen Victoria, to the more modern lounge used by members to entertain visitors.

Then you're into the House of Lords which has the very practical wood and leather seating and modern addition of wall mounted cameras and hanging microphones contrasted to the majesty of the golden throne reserved for the monarch on her rare visits to the House of Lords. It's a place of great solemnity and history, so when an Italian girl of 17 or so passed by the throne with another tour with a skirt so short you could tell what she'd had for breakfast the look of mortification on our tour guide's face was worth the entrance fee alone.

Following this, you then move from the Lords into the House of Commons and you pass by the dented door that Black Rod knocks on every year and then go into one of the corridors that MP's use to vote "Yes" or "No", stopping to see the famous "Gladstone Bag" which was finally retired from budget duty. Then you come to the highlight of the tour, the House of Commons, with the famous benches used by politicians of the day to debate great issues and squabble like children in equal measure. My first thought was that it was much smaller than I expected but you do get drawn into the history when you realise that it's not just todays brand of faceless, tv-friendly Eton clones that use this chamber, but you are looking at the seat that Churchill ran our country from, and the room he made so many of his great wartime speeches in and then you get a real sense of the majesty of the room. The tour then takes you back into the original stone hall where the tour began and allows you to visit the obligatory coffee shop and giftshop before leaving. Ducking those options, I left and was on the street again at 11.45.

Overall, I would highly recommend a visit to the HOP to anyone interested in either politics or history. I definitely felt that I got my moneys worth and it satisfied my curiosity about one of our nations great buildings and what goes on there. I definitely wouldn't recommend it for young children or even elder children who aren't interested in history. Because of the tour nature and the carefully managed security you can't listen to the tourguide and try and entertain a bored child at the same time and simply wandering off or letting them play by themselves for a minute or two is not an option. I wouldn't take my kids in there, and I wouldn't advise any other parents or children under the age of 10 or so to either, because they won't appreciate it and to be honest unless your children are in the 1% of kids that are content to stand quietly and listen on a slow walk around an old building for an hour and a half, they'll spoil the experience for you and everyone else on the tour. For adults though, if you haven't already been, I personally think it's a must see.