West Ham wrap up comfortable victory over Southampton (3-1)

West Ham 3-1 Southampton

West Ham ran out comfortable winners of this game against Southampton.

Manager David Moyes has clearly put a lot of work in on the training ground over recent weeks,  getting this team to work for each other and play as a cohesive unit.

New signing Jarrod Bowen caused problems for the visitors all afternoon with his pace and ability to find space. The game was a quarter of an hour old when Bowen latched onto a perfectly weighted through ball from Pablo Fornals to fire home across Southampton keeper Alex McCarthy.

Southampton though didn't take long to equalise with Michael Obafemi clipping home a ball into the box from James Ward-Prowse.

West Ham defender Issa Diop then saw his header from a corner go narrowly wide.

West Ham though were back in front before half time, with Michail Antonio looping a cross over that saw Sebastian Haller head over the keeper, then following up squeeze home.

The second half was only eight minutes old when a chip from Fornals put Antonio through on goal to finish driving his shot under the keeper.

Haller then sent Antonio away again but with only the keeper to beat he fluffed his lines, allowing McCarthy to push round the post.

West Ham manager David Moyes was pleased with the contribution of man of the match Jarrod Bowen. "I want him to play his game, he did well," said Moyes, who hopes Bowen will be a top Premier League player for West Ham over the next six or seven years.

There was also praise for Haller and Antonio.

The manager felt his team should have been more than one goal ahead by half time. "We had a few chances to make it a bit easier," said Moyes, who praised the supporters for the backing they gave the team.

Southampton manager Ralph Hasenhuttl was disappointed by the lack of fight shown by his team. "We saw a West Ham team fighting for everything," said Hasenhuttl, who felt the physicality of the West Ham team made it difficult.  "The way we defended is not the way we should. If you make it that easy to score."

Labour Party must unite behind new leader

The recent general election was the third such contest in four years. Inbetween, there has been the referendum on the EU and local elections. Now, there is the London Mayoral and Assembly elections coming up in May.

However, before we reach that point, there is the small matter of who will be the next leader of the Labour Party. The field has been narrowed down to three: Rebecca Long Bailey, Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy.

The process to elect a new leader has been long and drawn out – some feel unduly so. There have been endless hustings, TV interviews and analysis.  Much of the media do not seem to realise that this is not the US or the X-factor. We are not electing a president, with a programme.

Labour members and affiliates are electing a leader who is mandated to carry out the party’s programme as agreed at the annual conference. Leadership candidates can express their personal positions but the actual programme is decided by the party.

This was one of the things that confused people about the position that the Labour Party took on the EU referendum. The conference decided on the position which was to be for a Labour government to negotiate a deal with the EU to leave and then for that offer to be put alongside the remain option in a second referendum.

The leader obviously has a big input on the decision but the final say was with the conference. Frankly, the party got it wrong.  The big difference between the party position at the 2017 and 2019 elections was Brexit.

At the earlier election, there  was a commitment to implement Brexit, in the last election there  was not. It cost the party dear, especially in the north, but it was as a result of the democratic workings of the party, that the final offer was made to the electorate.

There were other contributory factors to Labour’s defeat, not least the relentless attacks on the leader Jeremy Corbyn from the moment  he was first elected in 2015. These attacks have often carried more weight due to some in the party supporting them – particularly the Parliamentary Party.

The program being offered in 2017 was popular. It very nearly led to a majority Labour government. No doubt those in the Conservative Party and their supporters in the media saw that the program was popular and that their best chance was to double down on the vilification of the leader. This they did, and it worked – we now face a Tory government with an 80 majority, effectively able to do what they like for the next five years.

The program offered by Labour in 2019 was really an extension of the earlier offering. It could have been communicated better and putting in add-ons during the campaign did not help but the program was still popular. So the idea that the new leader, whoever it is should renounce the program is ridiculous. It needs to be develop and evolve. Features like the New Green Deal will prove to be ahead of their time.

What is needed now is unity. All parts of the party must get behind the new leader, if Labour is ever to form a government again. The sort of undermining that has been going on  for the past five years cannot go on – it is a betrayal of the public and those members of the party who strive selflessly year in year out to get Labour politicians elected at all levels.      

West Ham experience reveals how football is losing its soul

There has been growing dissatisfaction over recent months from the fans of West Ham United football club.

The volume of criticism has coincided with the 10th anniversary of the present owners David Sullivan and David Gold taking over the club. A revealing statistic is that the club stood at 16^th in the Premier League when Sullivan and Gold took over in 2010, the very same position they found themselves in on the anniversary date last month.

So to the objective onlooker it looks as though the club has made little progress on the pitch in that time. Meanwhile, off the pitch, the club has moved from the old Boleyn Ground in Green Street to the Olympic Stadium (renamed the London Stadium). The crowds have gone from 35,000 to 60,000.

Prior to the move, West Ham chief executive Karen Brady promised a world class stadium and a world class team. The fans now question both claims. The team is certainly not world class, sitting as it does now in the relegation zone.

Many fans will question, where the team might have finished over the past four seasons, had the team remained at the Boleyn rather than moving to the London Stadium. The new home has certainly never resembled a fortress in the way that the Boleyn did, with the failure to get results there becoming the club’s achilles heel.

The owners have invested in the team to the tune of £210 million over the past four years but the returns have not been good. Managers have been changed regularly, with the latest move seeing David Moyes return to take over from Manuel Pellegrini. Previously, Moyes had got the team out of relegation trouble in 2018, only to be passed over for Pellegrini, when it came to a permanent appointment in the job.

Things had seemed to be on the up with Pellegrini last year, playing exciting football and securing a top 10 finish. But all seemed to come apart this year after a promising start, that saw Pellegrini sacked and replaced by Moyes in December.

The owners and fans now need to get behind Moyes and the players if they are to survive in the Premiership.

However, events at West Ham betray bigger problems with football in the modern age. Fans it would seem are becoming more and more sidelined in the game. Television money dictates all in the Premiership. The TV companies select the games, which can then be on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays or Mondays to suit the schedules. Take the TV money away and football is a very different game.

West Ham have made efforts to make football cheaper for fans but the game still remains incredibly expensive. The average prices to watch football of £50 plus make it a very expensive pursuit. Given the billions flowing in from TV, the game could easily be made more affordable for the average person.

The players are paid incredible sums of money to kick a ball around a field. West Ham’s wage bill is over £135 million, with many players earning upward of £80,000 a week. Whilst the players are due their cut of the huge TV money, surely a bit of readjustment toward the fans would not go amiss.

Put simply, football has tipped too far away from the fans toward TV companies and corporate interests. It is only in the lower leagues that the fundamentals of football, including the bond between fans and players remains strong. At Premiership level these links are being broken, amid a game that is rapidly losing its soul.

Planetary survival depends on human beings retruning to a simpler and less wasteful way of living

One of the great challenges for humanity today is to use less and recycle more.

The economic model that has been in operation over the past century is prefaced on human consumption.  No need to preserve or re-use, just dispose and throw away. This approach then created more demand for goods, that workers produced and so it went on.

It is surprising that only recently with the environmental emergency have humans begun to wonder about their behaviour. They have started to realise that the world is a finite resource.

If everyone is to live the life of the average American or Brit, then the resource of five planets, not one, will be required. This approach is totally unsustainable.

The destructive practices of human beings have brought the planet to the brink. The behaviour of humans make us more like a virus destroying the world, than a cause for good.

Climate change is accelerating, biodiversity is being wiped out and the pollution is poisoning humans and the other living creatures on the planet.

There are moves to bring about change but the wheels of progress move mightily slowly. At an individual level, we all need to waste less. The days of buying something, using it a few times (or in some cases once) and throwing it away are over.

Waste has to reduce by creating less in the first instance and recycling or re-using things that we do possess.

We need to create virtuous circles. So, take the recent effort of Redbridge Council to cut the amount of waste produced and encourage more recycling. This will only work if other elements are added in, like community composting schemes. So waste vegetable matter can be collected, composted and returned to enrich the soil. This will mean those black bags are not being filled up with green kitchen waste.

Restaurants and cafes produce this type of green waste that can also be composted. There is so much that at present is just being thrown away but can actually be turned around and put back into the local community.

More people need to grow their own food, whether that be in individual/community gardens or allotments. Growing your own creates a real link with the earth, as well as a much healthier way of living.

On travel, there is rightly much emphasis on sustainable forms of travel but maybe people need to ask whether they need to travel quite as much.

The environmental damage done by all activities should be factored into the cost. It is one of the idiocies of Britain that often the cheapest way to get from one end of the country to the other is by plane, the most expensive the train. These variables need to be reversed.

Overall, there needs to be a revolution in the way we live, returning to a more village/community based way of existence. A way of living that operates in a circular way, with people using reusing and putting back into the community where they live. Living simply,  so that others may simply live.

Film, 1917, should start a debate on the futility of war

The film 1917 is a very vivid depiction of the brutalities of war.

The life in the trenches, death all around, the corpses of humans and animals (mainly horses) in the fields.

The kill or be killed attitude that was needed to survive in such situations. But maybe above all the feeling of a total waste of life.

Literally, millions of people were caught up in the prcess of killing - in most cases not knowing what it was all about, other than being for King and country. 

1917 like many fims before it concentates on the more honourable and valiant elements of individual actions in war.

It would though be interesting one day to take a different view.

Not everyone did buy into King and country.

There were the conscientious objectors, who opposed war in all its forms on moral and religious grounds

There were those that didn't want to go over the top. The officers often stood with weapons drawn making it clear that there was no other choice than to go. Those who deserted were treated harshly, with often very young soldiers, shot at dawn for such actions.

The Second World was a no more popular venture with many. A rarely mentioned occurence was the number of planes that put down in neutral countries, rather than face combat.

After both World wars, there were the after effects of conflict. 

The recognition of resulting mental problems, like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is relatively recent. The number traumatised in such ways, receiving no help, and then finishing up in the prison system was a national disgrace. There is more recognition now but for too long government was in denial, too concerned about legal liability and potential compensation claims that could result.

One has to wonder what the true cost of the World wars was in terms of the damage done to mental health. Shell shock was the term used to describe those who got flashbacks etc.

I am sure the true cost in terms of damage to family life, domestic abuse, suicides and incarceration for resulting crimes due to PTSD caused by the World wars has never been calculated.

1917 and other films begin to show the suffering of war but there is still much to be done to provide a real view of the total futility and moral bankrupcy of such conflicts as a means to resolve differences.

Poor defending and VAR cost West Ham two points against Brighton (3-3)

Wes Ham 3-3 Brighton

 

West Ham supporters will be wondering why the club did not buy any defenders in the transfer window after this abject surrender to Brighton, 

Two up at halftime, then three one, somehow West Ham threw this game away to the extent that in the end they were hanging on for a point.

Brighton had a couple of early headers just wide from Aaron Mooy and Glenn Murray before West Ham took the lead on the half hour.

A Robert Snodgrass free kick from the left saw Issa Diop slide in to force the ball home.

West Ham were then unlucky not to extend the lead when a full blooded goal bound effort from Mikhail Antonio was blocked by a Brighton defender.

The home side though doubled the lead just before half time, when Snodgrass picked up the loose ball and drove home. The deflection off Adam Webster ensuring Brighton keeper Mathew Ryan had no chance.

The problems started for West Ham in the second half, when first Lukasz Fabianski saw his punch bounce back off Ogbonna's head into the net.

The two goal advantage, though, was quickly restored when a Snodgrass shot from 25 yards deflected into the net.

The comedy of errors really began in the 74th minute, when a misunderstanding between Ogbonna and Diop saw Pascal Grob get between the latter and Fabianski to poke home.

Things got even worse five minutes later when West Ham failed to clear a cross, enabling Glenn Murray to control and fire home. VAR ruled that Murray had not handled the ball as referee Michael Oliver had first ruled.

In the 90th minute Fabianki tipped over a Solly March free kick.

A surprisingly up beat David Moyes felt the West Ham performance was in the main very good. "We made a couple of silly mistakes, which gave them a leg up,"said Moyes, who felt his side were suffering fatigue from Wednesday night's game against Liverpool."We are all gutted because we gave away two points."

Brighton manager Graham Potter was pleased with "the quality and character" his team showed.

Potter was pleased with the way his players responded to being down, claiming in the end "we could have won the game."

Academisation - if it isn't broken why fix it?

The struggle of Catholic schools in the diocese of Brentwood (East London and Essex) to resist plans to academise continues to gather strength.

Last year, parents at Our Lady of Lourdes Primary school in Wanstead struggled to get what they regarded as a proper consultation on the question of academisation. The dispute ended, when the parents had to abandon their legal challenge, due to prohibitive cost.

So Our Lady of Lourdes joined St Peter and Pauls in Ilford, St Josephs in Barking, St Josephs and St Teresas in Dagenham in the first round of schools to join the Good Shepherd Trust. Palmer Catholic Academy and St Aidens Catholic Academy were already members.

Meanwhile, resistance has stiffened. In Newham, St Angelas has abandoned plans to become an academy after teachers went on strike. Staff at St Michaels in East Ham  recently held a strike  over plans to academise.

In Redbridge, parents at St Bedes are gearing up to oppose plans for their school to academise. There is also resistance at St Augustines in Barkingside and St Anthonys in Woodford.

So it would seem there is a growing opposition, mainly made up of teachers and parents, to the idea of academisation. Many want to stay with the local authority, not dive out into the unknown.

Academisation amounts to taking the school away from the local communities. In the case of church schools it has often been that community that helped raise at least part of the money for the building of the schools in the first place.

When a school becomes an academy it gains a sort of independence (mainly from local authority oversight) but then is beholding to new masters. The funding link is direct with government, whilst resourcing and the running of the school comes down to the trust. Experience thus far suggests this is not a great route to take education down, with cuts to teaching staff sometimes occurring, whilst those highest up the managerial ladder do very nicely thank you

The schools that academise don’t see a great deal of change in the early days. Terms and conditions of employment are protected, at least in the short term. However, these guarantees soon run their course and the changes begin.

It is great to see these community based schools standing up and saying enough, we do not want to academise. Why should they, the one question that those seeking academisation have consistently failed to answer is if it isn’t broken why fix it?

Published - Wanstead & Woodford Guardian - 30/1/2020