Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

UKIP - A party without real policy?

UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s confirmation that he will be standing as a candidate in the Kent seat of Thanet South came as no surprise for those who follow the travails of the UK’s fourth party. In a week, where Mayor of London Boris Johnson confirmed that he too was looking for a seat ahead of the 2015 election, the House of Commons may become a more colourful place if the votes go the way of these two gents next year.

Yet, while the papers may cover firstly where Boris may stand and secondly, whether he will make a serious stand for the leadership post-2015, what of UKIP and has their bubble burst since the European elections? No doubt, much of the party’s success has come off the back of general antipathy towards the three main parties, but many commentators have said that May 2014 will be the party’s apex.

Will Farage finally be elected in Westminster? (Spectator picture)

Indeed, some point that the momentum was lost when the charismatic Farage decided not to stand in the seat of Newark, following the resignation of Conservative MP Patrick Mercer. In the following months, the UKIP leader has reshuffled his pack and arguably strengthened his frontbench with the appointments of Patrick O’Flynn and Steven Woolfe. Yet, the party remains relatively quiet in the press. After sustained attacks on party candidates in the run up to the EU vote, UKIP has dropped off the radar and most publicity has dissipated.

This is partly down to the fact that both Parliaments in Westminster and Brussels are in recess. Additionally, this UKIP are now regrouping and setting their strategy for 2015. Farage’s announcement is the first in this news cycle, but the second is the fact that the party is planning to host its party conference at Doncaster racecourse. Doncaster’s MP being the Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Polling from Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft continues to show that UKIP voters continue to affect the overall performance and possibility of a Conservative majority, but it is and should be alarming to Labour MPs too. While their policy agenda is by no means concrete and partly feeds off the uncertainties of voters, as well as the general backlash to incumbent parties, UKIP is able to tap into the concerns of what we may call traditional Labour voters. White working class voters, who feel politicians have ignored their concerns on immigration, welfare and jobs. UKIP is having an impact in Northern communities where Conservatives gave up the ghost a long time ago.

So with these announcements, should we expect much come May? There remain serious questions to whether UKIP has the concentration and funding to sustain support across 650 seats. Nigel Farage says the party will be putting candidates in every seat, but is this a sensible idea? Surely the leader would be best advised targeting particular seats and finally putting UKIP’s flag in the likes of Kent, Essex, Rotherham, Portsmouth or Boston? There remains a question also of follow through. Will those voters who ticked the UKIP box last May, make the same decision come the General Election? By no means can the three main parties sit back and take this attitude, the Conservatives must continue to knock-on doors and reiterate their own message and the holes in the UKIP message too. It would be foolish to simply think that voters will revert back accordingly.

Naturally the question about the UKIP is whether they are serious political force? Are they a party full of interesting ideas that could change the economic fortunes of Britons up and down the country? Or are they simply a group of basket cases, who will continue to give the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour Party a bloody nose at by-elections? The scrutiny will continue to grow and when the majority of voters come to decide a month before the polls, the question is whether UKIP’s lack of credibility shines through or if they really are a party they can trust. 

I’ve just got to get a message to UKIP: what is your communications strategy?

If you were to ask the British public who they think the most recognisable British politician was in this country, then I’d guess there would be an argument between Prime Minister David Cameron and Mayor of London Boris Johnson. You may agree or disagree, or indeed wonder where the inimitable, tweed wearing, lager-chugging UKIP leader Nigel Farage would place in such a poll.

Farage is known to like a cigarette and tipple

Beyond the YouTube videos of his performances in the European Parliament and appearances on Question Time, the UKIP leader has made a name for himself in recent years. From taking his party to a second place finish in the 2009 European elections and a near-victory in the Eastleigh by-election in 2013, Farage’s star continues to rise. Despite press criticism about holding an offshore account in the Isle of Man as well as an incident in an Edinburgh pub, Farage currently upholds the notion of being the Teflon politician. Beyond Boris, it’s hard to think of anyone as popular.

However; while the polls may position UKIP well ahead of this year’s European elections and next year’s General Election, there remain questions about UKIP’s party organisation, as well as its ability to create a coherent communications strategy.

Reports of former BNP members standing as UKIP candidates as well as MEP Godfrey Bloom getting into hot water over his ‘sluts’ comments have not only put the party on the front pages for entirely the wrong reasons, it has highlighted the weakness in its communications and legitimacy as a new player.

Farage remains an asset, yet at the same time, his dominance highlights the party’s weakness. When he stood down briefly as party leader in 2009 to be replaced by Lord Pearson, the party failed to generate a coherent message in the Westminster elections and win any seats. Since his re-election, the party has been quick to put forward the likes of Paul Nuttall, Gerrard Batten and Diane James as spokespeople, partly to cover the media demands for comment, but also to show the party is more than one person. At the start of the year, Daily Express lead writer Patrick O’Flynn confirmed that he would not only be standing as an MEP, but is to become its director of communications.

O’Flynn’s experience and pedigree may be welcomed by party members but does it really resolve anything in the long term? The Express may sympathise with many of the party’s ideas, but can it be transposed elsewhere? Will he be able to co-ordinate a clear structure and effective strategy beyond the EU elections and into 2015?

The problem so far has been that greater success has led to greater scrutiny. Voters may like the alternative approach of the party and see them as a vehicle to protest against the traditional big three, but what will happen when they see their abysmal voting records in Brussels and Strasbourg. Or ask what their policies are beyond Europe and immigration?

Questions will have to be asked whether politically UKIP’s poll ratings can be sustained and whether ultimately it can put up a decent challenge in Westminster. It does not mean that the London-elite should brush UKIP off. It would be stupid and frankly naïve. Politicians should focus on their own policies before they make sweeping statements about UKIP.

If O’Flynn and Farage have one target to make real noise, it won’t just be winning the European elections in May, it will be placing Farage in the leaders’ debates before 2015. If they can do that, then my word, how it could reshape the political landscape. 

Prism: A Catcher in the Spy

The headlines over the past few months have demonstrated to politicians and the public alike that the world of spying has very much evolved. Gone are the days of Harry Lime of The Third Man or a Cold War Le Carré thriller. We now know that whilst spying remains as secret as ever, it is done on an enormous and technologically driven scale.

The exposé in The Guardian over the summer, through the leaking of data by the now exiled American contractor Edward Snowden, demonstrated the amount of secret information absorbed by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the US and UK’s respective intelligence agencies. The newspaper revealed how both governments have the capacity and indeed routinely monitored the emails, social messaging and top secret correspondence of foreign governments and individuals.

The ‘Prism’ as it is now known, facilitated these agencies to mine and monitor every single email or online message between any two individuals on the planet. In mainland Europe, governments have been up in arms. The Belgian Government has demanded answers to both the US and UK to whether they spied on its national telecoms company. It is the same with Germany, who also learned that the NSA was snooping on its citizens’ emails and online messaging. France is now pushing for consumer protection regulation in Europe that would alert any individual to potential NSA surveillance. Yet, in Britain, it has been brushed under the carpet. There was indeed coverage of Edward Snowden’s subsequent asylum claims and minimal coverage about the Guardian destroying hard drives demanded back by GCHQ, but beyond that very little more.

Edward Snowden: public enemy number one?

Indeed, this week there were allegations from Westminster questioning whether The Guardian had been irresponsible in exposing national secrets. Conservative MPs, Dr Liam Fox and Julian Smith asked for an investigation into the newspaper’s behaviour, which indeed was subsequently granted by the Prime Minister and will be led by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

So the question is why? Why is there such little outcry? What makes Britain a different case and is The Guardian irresponsible?

The nature of terrorism and evolution of cyber-warfare nowadays, means that government agencies are no longer monitoring huge movements, but a handful of targeted suspects. In their eyes, for the protection of innocent civilians, they need to monitor all their email traffic and other communication channels of those individuals. The question for Britons to answer is whether they feel safer in the knowledge that the Government is tracking potential terrorists who may be looking to repeat similar Nairobi-style attacks on the streets of London or Leeds? Most would no doubt say yes and would find it difficult not to endorse. But if they were asked simply, do you find it acceptable that Government can monitor everything you do and say online? Then they are more than likely say no.

The question is ultimately philosophical, but also cultural. For those in the UK, there are memories of Russian spies, Irish Nationalists and of late Islamic terrorists. The dichotomy between spying and citizen safety is less obvious for Brits because of this past. Yet for the likes of Germany, who lived with a cruel and omniscient secret police, the Gestapo and latterly the Stasi, the liberty of individual is primacy. Indeed, in America, libertarians are just as suspicious of the role of Government. Snowden was by no means of the same mould as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a man with a huge distrust of Governments on the left. Snowden is very much libertarian and believed that it was not in the government’s mandate to spy on its citizens. His motives were seen to be in the defence of the individual.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: Hero or villain?

Yet there appears to be no such vocal libertarian political thinking in the UK. More questions are being asked of The Guardian because politicians now feel that their actions have jeopardised the nature of how spy agencies conduct their work. The Guardian has indeed argued otherwise, but as other newspapers have argued the actions of Guardian journalists may have threatened ongoing operations. Have potential threats now disappeared under the radar?

The question in the grand scheme of things, which is difficult to answer, is whether in the loss of liberty we become safer or indeed, the loss of liberty itself is not a price worth paying. There is no right answer, but whilst we may now have an idea of what government can do. Will it make us safer?

Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

Michael Owen: Good, but never great

Michael Owen, perhaps one of England’s greatest ever strikers announced his retirement this week. The Stoke City striker decided that at the age of 33, it was time for him to ‘hang up his boots’ at the end of this season. Owen, whose record will show 40 goals in 89 caps, as well as numerous titles including an FA Cup, two league cup trophies, a Premier League winner’s medal, a UEFA Cup winner’s medal as well as winning the 2001 Ballon D’Or; the last Englishman to do so.

Yet, whilst the trophy cabinet and his goals count may lie favourably, it is unlikely and perhaps unfairly to some, that history will suggest Owen was a great.

As a precocious teenager at Liverpool, he made his name with his stunning speed and his ability to simply pull away from the side of the last defender. Liverpool, a club that has welcomed and glorified many fine strikers including Ian St John, John Aldridge, Ian Rush and Robbie Fowler, saw Owen as another player of that same quality. His record of 158 goals in 297 appearances demonstrated his ruthlessness and the terror that opposition teams felt when dealing with the young Englishman.

For his country, Owen will be remembered for many moments, his goal in the 2002 quarter-final against Brazil, his hat-trick against Germany in Munich and of course; his wonderful goal against Argentina in 1998 that announced his arrival to a global audience.

Dancing past Argentinians in the 1998 World Cup in St Etienne.

Owen had everything, yet he just never lived up to what we believed he would end up being.

It is true that injury curtailed what once destroyed Premiership and international defences. Owen’s speed was debilitated by serious hamstring injuries, so much so that Owen once said on record that he effectively played with two in his right leg. Later on in his career, he snapped his cruciate ligament during the 2006 World Cup, as well as persistent ankle injuries in the latter stages.

To some extent Owen never recovered, his goal scoring record was still relatively strong, but the player that he evolved into simply never adapted to the changing game.

Pure and simple, Owen’s talent as a youngster was running onto through balls and being able to ease past defenders. His ability to finish in front of goal, never declined; alas his ability to get to that stage was a vestige of the past. It was injuries that forced Owen to adapt his game and the stockier player was not in the bracket of player that won the European footballer of the year award at the beginning of the millennium.

Owen, who had made his living from scoring in a certain way, and had Liverpool built around him to provide those goals, never had the tactical capacity to develop into something that would allow him to flourish. When Rafa Benitez joined Liverpool and asked him to make runs across the defenders, which Owen wasn’t capable of doing, a move to Madrid for Benitez allowed Liverpool to play a different way and freed up Steven Gerrard.

Owen scored goals at his time in Madrid and subsequently Newcastle. Yet, at United and currently, Stoke, goals have not been as forthcoming due to both opportunities and unfortunately injuries. However; even so, when one compares the strikers in the Premier League at the time then it shows how much his worth had diminished. The likes of Drogba, Rooney and Berbatov, though never had the finishing ability of Owen, were simply in a different technical and tactical league to Owen. When Rooney cruelly broke his metatarsal against Portugal in the quarter finals of Euro 2004, it was Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard that England relied on, not Michael Owen.

As I conclude, it feels almost harsh to suggest that Owen was not the player his goal record proves. He scored goals and his was greatly admired, but never loved. Yes, he was clinical, but perhaps too corporate. He did not mean as much as Robbie Fowler to the Kop and left St James’ Park maligned. Manchester United fans will remember his injury time winner against City, but beyond that, no more.

The headlines this weekend suggest that Owen has not ruled out going into management or coaching. Whilst it would be irrational to turn down someone with his experience and leadership qualities, I find it difficult to believe that Owen’s tactical ability could prove successful at the highest level.

It is difficult because I feel that injury unfairly dealt Owen an ability to move on his career; however he was unable to adapt unlike a Giggs, a Ferdinand or even a Dwight Yorke. He was more than a precocious youngster and made many England fans happy as he sped away from Robert Ayala or put the ball past Oliver Kahn with ease, he unfortunately flourished for not long enough. Owen could’ve gone down as a great, but sadly he will never will do.