published in www.politics.co.uk  7 May 2012

In 1956 Britain’s prime minister took this country into an unlawful and unprofitable war in the Middle East, and misled its parliament and people about its origins and purpose.

Anthony Eden’s Suez adventure was the first time I went on a political demonstration. As an eight-year-old, I heard Nye Bevan’s brilliant and passionate denunciation in Trafalgar Square. It did far less harm to Britain, or the world, than the Iraq war, but it cost Eden his job and his reputation. Once an international icon, he disappeared into political oblivion. He collected an earldom and produced some well-written memoirs, especially about his early life, although he continued to think that he was right about Suez. His name occasionally appeared in high-minded uncontentious newspaper articles. (It also survived as the name for a dapper Homburg hat.) He took pleasure in raising Hereford cattle.

That was Eden’s life for 20 years after Suez. He did not hawk himself round the world for money. Although a vastly more experienced diplomat than Tony Blair he was never offered any international appointment. He did not set up any foundations in his name. He did not have a spin doctor or a retinue of any kind. Above all, he abandoned any hope of a political comeback.

Eden’s afterlife was a sign of a Britain with high standards in political life. Politicians were penalised for error, failure and dishonesty. If Tony Blair returns to a frontline role in British politics, it will show that those standards have finally collapsed.

Blair seriously believes that he is entitled to such a role and that the British people should be grateful for his wisdom. Once again, he has demonstrated one of his terrifying strengths as a politician – he is never embarrassed by himself. Tony Blair has religion without shame. The Anglican Prayer Book invites congregations to examine their hearts. When Tony Blair examines his heart he always gives it an A-Star.

Anyway, Blair now thinks that the time is right for him to “re-engage with the British people”. He has appointed an experienced spin doctor, Rachel Grant, to ease the way for him. Clearly Blair is seeking some special and personal avenue for this re-engagement, because he has always had the option of standing as an MP, as ex-premiers used to do routinely. Sir Alec Douglas-Home fought two general elections after being defeated as prime minister, and loyally served his successor, Ted Heath, in opposition and government. Standing again as a by-election would “re-engage” Blair automatically with a selection committee and local voters and guarantee the maximum exposure for his current views. Blair could also ask for a life peerage and contribute in the House of Lords without the risks of facing a voter.

There is one major problem with either of these comeback routes: he would undergo scrutiny about his murky finances. The Lords arrangements for this are lamentably weak (as I wrote here some weeks ago) but they would still force an ennobled Blair to say more about his money than he has done so far.

Significantly, Rachel Grant has been given the specific responsibility of covering his business interests. She should begin her job by explaining precisely what he does for the government of Kazakhstan and how much he gets from them for doing it. If nothing else, this would establish the going rate for other British ex-premiers who want to sell themselves to foreign powers.

If she also covers the Tony Blair Faith Foundation she might also explain why it has never taken any initiative against faith-based oppression of gay people or women. Because it hasn’t.

Tony Blair has let it be known that he has “things to say” to the British people. He may have to say some of them to the Leveson inquiry, on his relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Eventually the endless Chilcot inquiry will have “things to say” about him and Iraq. It would have been seemly for Blair to await the judgment of Chilcot and Leveson before seeking a comeback, but perhaps he knows already that he will get an easy ride.

For millions of British people the one thing that they want to hear from Tony Blair is “I’m sorry” and it’s the one thing he never can bring himself to say. Of course, he is not alone in this attitude. No one with authority or status in modern Britain ever apologises for their conduct – whether bankers or bosses or footballers. No matter how badly they mess up or offend people or even wreck lives they still expect admiration and money. Even in this depressing context, Blair’s return to a frontline role would represent a very special nadir.

Eden’s afterlife seems harsh by modern standards but it was part of a better era of British government. I commend to Tony Blair the joys of Hereford cattle.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

published in the Yorkshire Post 7 May 2012

The UK Independence Party have lodged themselves like sea urchin spines in the soft flesh of David Cameron’s Conservative Party. UKIP’s advance in the local elections is far more painful to Cameron than Labour’s. He can comfort himself that Labour did not win over many Tory voters: they managed simply to disenchant fewer of their own.

However, UKIP are now an existential threat to him. Their key policies at the local elections, withdrawal from the EU, immigration control, restoration of grammar schools, tougher sentencing, ending green taxes, appealed directly to traditional Tory supporters. The 700 seats UKIP contested were mainly in Conservative territory. They won 13 per cent of the vote and instant analysis suggests that at least half came from Tory voters in 2010. Repeated at a General Election such a performance would wipe out dozens of Tory candidates.

The UKIP surge gave Cameron’s party critics a perfect excuse to demand a shift to the Right. Two Tory heavyweights, David Davis and John Redwood, are cheekily presenting their own traditionally Conservative Queen’s Speech in advance of the real one next week. Most galling for Cameron, UKIP made no dent in Boris Johnson’s vote as London’s Mayor, proof to critics that a flamboyant radical can see off the UKIP menace.

However, Cameron would be mad to lurch to the Right. It would be a gift to Ed Miliband and free him from his painful task of reinventing the Labour party. It could break up the coalition and force a premature General Election. Above all, it would destroy the whole point of Cameron’s leadership, which was to change his party’s image and appeal. For Cameron to lead a right-of-centre Tory party makes as much sense as giving the new ball to Fred Trueman and asking him to bowl off-spin.

More practically, Cameron has been advised to correct his methods in government. He should stop taking refuge in foreign affairs and focus on the domestic agenda. He should drop boring and time-consuming legislation, such as Lords reform, and stop talking about vapid and fluffy ideas like the Big Society. He should ruthlessly sack any embarrassing ministers. He should be candid and contrite about his own mistakes, especially over the Murdoch empire. He should widen his circle of advisers and find a new Willie Whitelaw to stifle bad policies before they happen. Sound advice, but none of it will remove the UKIP problem.

Some Tories think there is a quick-fix solution: promise a referendum on continued membership of the EU. But after recent history from both parties, would it be believed? When would it happen and what choices would be offered to voters? Logically there should be three: leaving the EU, the status quo (in the EU but out of the eurozone), joining whatever eurozone is in being. But how does one decide who has won a three-choice referendum if none of the choices gets more than half the vote? Would a European referendum come before or after one on Scottish independence? If the Scots, in a European referendum, made a different choice from the rest of the UK would that represent a vote for independence? Suppose this also happened in Wales and Northern Ireland?

These are huge complexities, which will bring new tensions with the coalition, require negotiation with all the opposition parties, devour Parliamentary time and spook financial markets.

Rather than face all of these hazards, Cameron would do better to set out a personal vision for fundamental reform of the EU. That would set him apart from every British Prime Minister since Harold Macmillan. Each has either begged to be admitted, or else, once admitted, sought some kind of exemption or stay of execution from the rules. None has tried to set a European agenda. If Cameron offered Britain – and Europe – a better way to make political and economic decisions he would make history and get marks from all British voters for trying.

As a small but popular beginning Cameron might announce his plan for the complete repatriation of fishing policy – which the EU has shown itself unfit to manage. The next step might be the comprehensive Cameron reform of European agriculture – promising lower food prices for all European consumers, help for small farmers instead of giant agribusinesses, and rewards for sustainable and humane farming methods instead of indiscriminate industrial ones.

After these opening dramas, Cameron could call a new European Bretton Woods conference to prepare for the orderly restoration of national currencies for countries unwilling or unable to live with the euro. At this, he would table the “Cameron plan” to restore democratic sovereignty for all EU nations over economic and fiscal policy.

All of this should silence UKIP and Cameron’s party critics. It would leave Liberal Democrats and Labour dazed and confused. It would make Cameron a leading figure in Europe instead of a peripheral one. Above all, it would turn Cameron into an exciting Prime Minister, perhaps a great one, instead of what he is now – a beached swimmer full of sea urchin spines.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

Published in the Yorkshire Post 16 April 2012

The Americanization of British politics took a big step forward when David Cameron and his Cabinet promised to publish their personal tax returns.

Cameron was following an ancient rule of American politics: do the right thing when it makes your opponent look bad. He clearly aimed to prolong the discomfiture of Ken Livingstone. Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London had overtaken the incumbent, Boris Johnson, in the polls, largely by talking about his most popular policy, lower fares on public transport. The row over Livingstone’s personal tax arrangements (stoked by some well-chosen expletives from Johnson) drove transport off the agenda, and Johnson is now ahead again.

Personal tax issues invariably force candidates away from their chosen issues and make them discuss things they would prefer to keep quiet. That is what makes them so delightful. In the United States, the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, has already stumbled in his party’s primaries when asked to reveal his tax returns. President Obama’s campaign team renewed the demand after Romney saw off Rick Santorum, his last serious Republican challenger. Obama’s team want to remind American voters that Romney is a very rich man, whose tax plans would make him and people like him even richer. They also hope to expose other issues where they think Romney vulnerable, including use of Swiss and Caymans bank accounts and contributions to the Mormon Church.

Ironically, Romney is a victim of his father’s transparency. George Romney, competing for the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon, released 12 years of personal tax returns. Romney’s campaign collapsed after an honest but ill-judged comment on the Vietnam war, but his tax initiative has been followed since then by almost every major American candidate. It established a set scene in American political theatre: candidates publish their tax records to their best advantage, look for embarrassments in their opponents’ records and accuse them of concealment if they cannot find any.

If Cameron fulfils his promise, this American ritual will inevitably become a lasting feature of British politics. Many critics – and not only politicians – are worried by its implications. It would overturn a major principle of British tax policy, that all individual records are private. It could deter talented people from entering British politics and reward mediocre goody-goodies. It could distract British voters from the policy choices on offer from the parties and encourage the media to focus even more intently on politicians’ personal lives.

All of these arguments have some force but there is an overwhelming argument in favour of making politicians publish their tax returns.

They provide information for voters which is not under politicians’ control. In a tax return, politicians have to answer the same questions as everyone else and meet the same standards as everyone else in their replies. A tax return has to be honest and comprehensive, under penalty of law. A tax return represents trustworthy news for voters. Unlike a speech, a policy statement, an off-the-record briefing, an election stunt or scare, a photo-opportunity, a soundbite, a well-rehearsed answer to a prepared question, a tax return conveys information which has not been manufactured or doctored by politicians themselves. Unlike Internet gossip and rumour, the information in a tax return is reliable and verified.

British voters have a right to know how rich their politicians are, and where they got all their money. Particularly at a time of national austerity and sacrifice, they should also be able to see the effective tax rates which their politicians are paying on their full incomes, and whether they have organized their affairs to minimize tax through devices beyond the reach of working taxpayers on average incomes. Tax returns can help to provide all of this information. Politicians should be made to publish them in full (not selected highlights), and they should publish returns over several years, to let voters pick up significant changes.

Even when disclosed on these terms, tax returns will often fail to tell the full story of politicians’ money. They may miss income from trusts or partnerships or routed through private companies or co-operative spouses or relatives. For that reason, there is a good case for combining their publication with a general obligation to disclose all relevant financial details. If Cameron wants to import American practice into our country, he should study the information requirements for American Presidential candidates under the Ethics In Government Act 1978.

British voters certainly deserve full information about their politicians’ money, but no one can be certain what conclusions they will draw from it.

The conventional wisdom is that disclosure harms rich politicians, but this has never been conclusively established. It is equally possible that voters admire politicians who have been personally successful and trust them to achieve the same success running their country. Mitt Romney might test that theory in the United States, and if he wins on that basis, it would have an interesting effect on politicians’ tax returns. Far from underdeclaring they will start to overstate their income. That may not do much for democracy, but it would certainly help to cut the deficit.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

Any attempt to change the sexual orientation of a child is futile and cruel and abusive – an outright ban is needed.

By Richard Heller [published in www.politics.co.uk 23 April 2012]

For over ten years the Christian organization Care (not to be confused with the international anti-poverty group of the same name) has supplied interns to MPs of all parties. In 2000 it had a spat with Ben Bradshaw about alleged discrimination against gay MPs, such as himself. But since then the programme has continued without controversy.

Not anymore. In the last two weeks, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs have fallen over themselves to disavow the organisation of which they had previously been satisfied customers. Care had jointly promoted the controversial “ex-gay” advertisements which were hastily withdrawn by mayor Boris Johnson from London’s buses. The MPs in question were also informed that Care had sponsored a conference on so-called “reparative” therapies to convert gay people into straight ones. This conference actually happened in April 2009 and it might seem a bit late for MPs to get angry about it, but they did and they helped to make the murky and generally unpleasant story of gay therapies front page news.

Labour’s Chris Bryant, one of the angry MPs, drew attention to the pressures put on gay children to convert. He was right, and I hope other MPs will follow his lead. They should act urgently to protect children from any attempt to induce a child to change his or her sexuality.

One can argue about the merits of gay ‘therapies’ for adults. I believe that in principle these are wrong, since same-sex attraction is not an affliction, and that in practice they are almost certain to be a waste of money. But adults are presumed capable of making their own decisions and unless a gay conversion practitioner is manifestly fraudulent I do not believe that an adult should be prevented by law from consulting one.

But it is a very different thing to try to change the sexual orientation of a child. I have no direct interest or experience of the issue: I stumbled on it in researching my recent novel. Since it is meant to be a light novel I did not incorporate it into the plot, but my research led me to believe that all such attempts, including attempts by words alone, such as preaching and exhortation, are futile and cruel and abusive. They are based on the Orwellian premise of thought crime. They condemn and punish children not for behaviour but for thoughts and feelings. A child can never give informed consent to any such attempt, and whatever its form or setting it is likely to expose him or her to stress, isolation and mental and physical bullying. Victims typically have little means to resist them or complain about them. I believe that an outright ban is the best way to protect them.

I felt this even more strongly after reading about the experience of gay children who have undergone attempted “conversion therapies” in the United States, including isolation camps where they were starved of food or physically punished for continuing to harbour “inappropriate” feelings. Such ‘therapies’ seem disturbingly commonplace in the United States and at least one of the ministries that offers them is already active in this country. An early ban is necessary to head off any more of them.

Last year I put all of these arguments repeatedly by letter to Michael Gove, the education secretary, and several of his officials. It took me six months to persuade them that the protection of gay children was any part of their responsibilities! I have made almost no headway since then, except a promise that the government might look at the issue in the context of an ongoing review of children who have been subjected to exorcism. (I do not believe that any child should be exorcised for any reason, but that is another debate). I have had no comment from the department on the general issue: why should any child be forced to undergo any attempt to change his or her sexuality?

However, I made equally little headway writing to the official opposition. After initial interest, Michael Gove’s shadow Stephen Twigg passed me to his deputy Kevin Brennan, and he eventually told me that parliamentary procedure prevented him from taking up the issue and I should go through my local MP. I had already done this, without result, and parliamentary procedure says no such thing. I have better hopes from the new shadow children’s minister, Catherine McKinnell, since she is one of the MPs who have recently disavowed Care.

I put the issue to the main party candidates for London’s Mayor, and to the independent candidate, Siobhan Benita, who has made much of her plans to empower London’s young people. No reply from any of them, except from Boris Johnson who said that it was not part of his responsibilities. However, Boris has never been afraid to talk about all sorts of issues which are not his responsibility and this is one which affects an untold number of London’s children.

There is one obvious reason for the hesitancy of politicians to get involved. Many of the pressures on gay children to ‘convert’ – and almost all of the people who actually attempt to ‘convert’ them – are religious in origin, and all the parties have become afraid of confronting religious groups.

It is time for politicians to recover their nerve and put the rights of children before the rights of religion. No child should be coerced into ‘therapy’, still less threatened with hellfire or forced into exorcism, for having feelings.

Richard Heller is an author and journalist and a former adviser to Denis Healey. His would-be light novel is The Network.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

Notes and Glossary to The Network (for non-devotees of cricket)
Some ex-friends think them funnier than the novel itself

I hope that The Network can be enjoyed by non-devotees of cricket, but there are passages where an explanation of cricket terms may be helpful. Baseball devotees need to know that the basic contest in cricket is between batsman and bowler. They are separated by 22 yards, with a set of three wooden stumps at each end. The bowler runs up alongside one set of these stumps and hurls a hard red ball, overarm, at the batsman. He aims to hit the pitch in front of the batsman and then hit the batsman’s stumps. The batsman has a flat-faced bat to prevent this. The bowler may use out-and-out pace (the fastest have managed 100 mph) or swing (curving the ball in the air) or cut or spin (making it change direction off the pitch). Spin bowlers bowl slowly and have the additional weapon of flight – varying the trajectory of the ball.

In match play, a pair of batsmen face a pair of bowlers. Each bowler bowls a sequence of six balls at one end and then the bowler at the other end takes over and bowls six himself.

The bowler is supported by a wicketkeeper (catcher) behind the batsman’s stumps and nine other fielders who can be placed virtually anywhere he and his captain decide. The batsman can hit the ball anywhere he likes (there is no foul zone) and he does not have to run when he hits it. This feature makes the game generally slower than baseball. If he decides to run, he exchanges ends with his partner. One such successful exchange produces a run, but they may take two or three or as many as they can manage. There is a boundary line. If a batsman hits the ball over that line along the ground he obtains an automatic four; if he achieves this without bouncing (home run) he gets an automatic six.

Apart from hitting the batsman’s stumps, the bowler and fielders have several other ways to dismiss (retire) him. Once out (retired), that batsman is finished. Ten batsmen out and the team’s innings is finished.

There are many other rules, which often require arbitration. This is done by two on-field umpires, who give decisions on appeal from the bowler and his supporting fielders.

That is probably enough of the basic rules. Cricket has many strange terms, which I explain in the glossary below.

My apologies to the many female cricketers for using male pronouns only, for convenience. RKH

Glossary and famous names
Fielding positions mentioned only when important to plot: full list at end

all out: Ten batsmen out (dismissed/ retired) – a team then stops batting.

all-rounder : A player who can both bat and bowl.

appeal:A request by the bowler and/or any fielder to an umpire to judge a batsman out (dismissed).

arm ball:  a ball by a slow bowler with no spin, which follows his arm. A surprise ball, usually quicker.

average: Cricket is a highly statistical game, which awards averages to batsmen (total runs scored divided by total completed innings) and bowlers (total runs yielded divided by total dismissals). 35+ is a decent batting average, 25- is reasonable for a bowler.)

back foot/front foo: t The back foot for a batsman is the one farthest away from the bowler. All batting shots are played with the weight predominantly on one foot or the other. Batsmen are generally encouraged to move their feet to facilitate this. Steve frequently exhorts himself and others to do this.

bails:Two small pieces of wood fitted into the top of the stumps. One at least must touch the ground for the batsman to be out.

beamer: A ball which reaches the batsman head high without first bouncing. Dangerous and illegal.

block:A stonewall defensive shot by a batsman, with no attempt to score.

boundary: The perimeter of the playing field, indicated by a white line or a rope or a series of markers. Also used to describe a hit by the batsman which reaches or surpasses this perimeter, worth 6 if it achieves this without bouncing and 4 otherwise.

bouncer: A fast ball intended to bounce into the batsman’s head or upper body. Dangerous but not illegal unless done to excess.

box:   US, cup. Protection for the genitals.

break-back: Ball which moves back sharply into the batsman after bouncing. In combination with outswinger (qv) a classic formula for fast bowlers.

bye:An extra run, not hit by the batsman, conceded by the wicketkeeper (qv).

call:  A batsman telling his partner whether or not he wants to change ends with him to score a run.

captain: The captain of the side decides when his players bat, where they field and which of them bowl and when. If he wins the toss (qv) he decides whether his team bats or bowls first. If he bats first he might also decide to declare (qv) to get a better chance of winning.

catch: A means of dismissing a batsman (compare baseball fly ball). A catch can be made anywhere inside the field but not if the catcher is in contact with the boundary (qv). Catches to the wicketkeeper (qv) and those taken very close to the ground are generally appealed to the umpire(s) unless the batsman chooses to walk (qv).

century: A score of 100 or more by a batsman. A huge achievement.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul:  A great contemporary West Indian batsman who marks his guard (qv) elaborately.

chinaman: A ball spun with the wrist rather than the fingers by a slow left-arm bowler. It bounces sharply back into a righthanded batsman. As the name might suggest, a chinaman is an exotic, mysterious delivery.

crease: A white line on the pitch used to decide whether a batsman is in or out of his ground (qv) or whether a bowler is bowling a legal ball or a no ball (qv).

crimson traveller…wooden lance… wooden castle: Very old-fashioned jocular terms for ball, bat and stumps.

cross bat: Any shot, usually aggressive, in which the bat is used horizontally or at an angle to the trajectory of the ball, antonym of straight bat (qv).

cutter:A ball in which the bowler uses the seam (qv) to make it dart back into the batsman off the pitch (off cutter) or away from him (leg cutter).

declare : A batting captain choosing to end his team’s innings ahead of time to get a better chance of dismissing all the opposing batsmen.

deep: Fielding positions a long way from the batsman.

delivery:  A ball from a bowler.

dismiss: Getting a batsman out (retiring him).

dobber:  A bowler of no great pace or spin who relies on accuracy and subtle variations. Usually unglamorous and unsung.

dot ball:  One off which no run is scored off the bowler.

draw: A timed game in which the side batting second fails to overhaul the side batting first but has fewer than ten men out. Neither side wins.

edge:  An involuntary batting shot off the edge of the bat rather than the full face, which often results in a catch (qv) but can also negate an appeal for leg before wicket (qv). Synonym nick.

figures:  Statistics of bowling performances, kept by the scorer (qv). “Good” figures mean that a bowler has dismissed many batsmen (the maximum possible is ten) without yielding many runs.

first-class:  A very high level of cricket and the pathway to playing Tests (qv).

first slip: A close fielder who stands next to the wicketkeeper (qv) to catch balls edged or nicked (qqvv) by the batsman. In good teams a specialist position for a player with great reflexes, in others a place to hide a fielder who cannot run.

five-for: The big achievement for a bowler of dismissing five batsmen.

full toss: Ball from bowler which reaches batsman without bouncing. Usually a free hit but easy to miss or miscue.

glance: A graceful but risky shot, invented by Indian legend, Prince Ranjitsinhji, in which the ball is flicked behind the batsman.

googly:  A deceptive ball from a legspinner (qv) which spins sharply into a righthanded batsman.

Grade 2 opening batsman. Many countries, including New Zealand, have a grading system for club cricketers. Grade 2 would be just below the best.

guard Nearly all batsmen on arrival hold their bat in front of the wicket and ask the umpire if it is aligned with the leg stump, the middle stump or exactly between them. This is “taking guard.”

gully A close catching position, besides slips (qv) but at a wider angle behind the batsman.

Sir Richard Hadlee. New Zealand’s greatest cricketer. The McConnel brothers are well-connected.

half-volley. A ball that bounces very close to the batsman, which is usually easy to hit.

helmet Now compulsory for batsmen under 18 and optional but increasingly common for older ones. It protects the face as well.

hook A violent batting shot which puts the ball behind the batsman (on his leg side.)

Howzat? Short for “How’s that?” The standard appeal (qv) to any umpire.

keeping Short for wicketkeeping (qv)

Harold Larwood A great England fast bowler of the 1930s, who injured and frightened Australians with bouncers (qv) during the infamous “Bodyline” series in 1932-33.

innings (singular and plural). Confusingly, this can mean either one batsman’s complete turn at batting or that of the whole team of eleven.

lbw. Short for “leg before wicket”. A fiendishly complicated rule which is another means for the bowler to dismiss (retire) the batsman. It is judged by an umpire on appeal. Essentially, if the ball would have hit the stumps but for hitting the batsman first, the batsman is out. But if the batsman hits it first, even an involuntary edge, he is not out.

leg bye Extra run scored after a batsman attempts to hit the ball and it hits his body instead. (Unlike baseball, there is no automatic “walk” for a batsman who gets hit. The batsmen must run any leg byes, unless the ball reaches the boundary for 4).

leg side (also on side) All the playing area behind a batsman about to receive.

legspinner Bowler who uses his wrist to spin the ball away from a righthanded batsman (a leg break). May also bowl googly or topspinner (qqvv).

length A vital concept for bowlers, measuring where the ball lands in relation to the batsman. A full length ball lands close to him, a short length ball lands far from him. A good length ball is one which the batsman cannot play easily off either the front foot or the back foot (qqvv).

lollipops Very slow balls given to young or nervous batsmen to hit.

long hop A very short length ball (qv). Easy to hit but can induce miscue.

Lords The world’s most famous cricket ground, in North-West London.

maiden An over (qv) in which no runs are scored by either batsman.

MCC Short for Marylebone Cricket Club, a prestigious private club which owns Lords and still has a strong influence on the game.

Michael Clarke Elegant Australian batsman and current captain.

The nets. A cricket net is an enclosed area for practising bowling and batting at cricket, similar to a baseball batting cage.

new ball An unused ball, hard and shiny, used for the first ball by the bowling side. Usually given to a fast bowler, who can make it swing and bounce.

nick Synonym for edge (qv).

no ball A ball which is invalid, called by the umpire. There are several reasons why this may happen, nearly all of them the fault of the bowler. It always results in at least one extra run to the batting side, who also get an additional ball to hit.

Number 11 The last place in a batting line-up, for the worst batsman.

off drive An elegant straight-bat shot which forces the ball away from the batsman into the off side.

off side: All the playing area in front of a batsman about to receive.

off spinner Slow bowler who normally makes the ball spin towards a righthanded batsman with his fingers.

on side (also leg side) All the playing area behind a batsman about to receive.

opener/opening batsman The first two batsmen on a team. They usually have to face fast bowlers. A position requiring courage and application.

out The batsman is dismissed (retired) and leaves the field.

out of his ground A batsman who has left the “safety zone” in front of either wicket defined by the crease (qv) is out of his ground and vulnerable to being stumped or run out (qqvv). A batsman is within his ground if any part of his body is touching the ground behind the crease, or any part of the bat if he is still holding it.

outswingers An outswinger curves away from the batsman in the air.

over Sequence of six balls by a bowler.

overthrows Wild throws by the fielding side, which give away extra runs.

Monty Panesar England’s contemporary slow left arm bowler.

piethrowers. A term of contempt, especially in Australia and New Zealand, for fast bowlers who aren’t really very fast.

Ricky Ponting Current Australian batsman and former captain.

pull A fierce shot forcing the ball behind the batsman, into the leg side, off the front foot.

The referral system is now used in international matches: contentious issues are judged by a third umpire watching television analysis.

retired hurt An injured batsman may retire and resume his innings later.

reversed The ball changed direction towards the batsman, late and unpredictably. An important skill for any “swing” bowler, and especially welcome to a young one like Steve.

run out. If a fielder breaks the stumps at either end when a batsman is out of his ground, the latter is run out. This is judged by the nearest umpire.

seam A double set of stitches around the circumference of a cricket ball, which assist its bounce and swing (qv). Usually held upright by the bowler, but ball is sometimes deliberately held across the seam to make it skid.

single One run for the batting side.

skyer A very high catch, hated by nervous fielders

slash A violent shot with a cross bat (qv).

slip A close catching position behind the batsman. Aggressive, confident fast bowlers could ask for four but one or two is normal.

slow left arm As the name suggests, a slow left-handed bowler, who normally spins the ball away from a right-handed batsman with his fingers.

sticky dog A playing surface which has received hot sun after heavy rain. Has unpredictable bounce which makes it very hard for batsmen. Once commonplace in England, now rare at highest levels, because pitches are covered against rain.

straight bat Any shot in which the bat is used vertically or in a matching trajectory to the ball. Antonym of cross bat (qv). Can be either aggressive or defensive. Favoured by cricket coaches.

stumped/stumping A dismissal (qv) a batsman in which the wicketkeeper (qv) breaks the stumps with the ball when the batsman is out of his ground (qv). It is judged by the umpire at right angles to the batsman.

swing The curve of a ball in the air after it is bowled. A weapon for faster bowlers, deadliest when it is late.

Test Match. Five-day match between two countries, the highest level of cricket.

Test Match Special. BBC Radio’s ball-by-ball commentary on international cricket matches. A national institution, as much for the personalities of the commentators and their by-play and rituals as for their narrative of the cricket. Many cricketers of all ages use TMS to sustain their fantasies.

third man A hardworking but unglamorous fielding position a long way from the batsman. Often assigned to the least important member of a team.

throat ball A very dangerous ball which “explodes” from a good length (qv) towards the batsman’s throat.

toecrusher. A fast yorker (qv) that hits the batsman directly on the foot.

topspinner A ball from a slow bowler which keeps low and hurries on to the batsman as the result of overspin.

toss The captains (qv) toss a coin at the start of a match. The winner chooses whether to bat or bowl.

two-minute rule A new batsman has two minutes to get into position, otherwise he can be “timed out” and he does not bat. Hence the danger of Luke’s long kiss. [True when The Network was written, since extended].

Frank Tyson. A great England fast bowler of the 1950s, author of insightful classic autobiography, A Typhoon Called Tyson.

umbrella field An array of close catchers behind the batsman.

umpire One of two officials who make decisions in match play. One stands at the bowler’s end, the other at right angles to the batsman. Usually they alternate ends, but if one umpire is thought superior to the other he may stand at the bowler’s end throughout, where he has more decisions to make.

Daniel Vettori New Zealand’s contemporary slow left arm bowler.

walk Admission by a chivalrous batsman, on appeal for a close catch, that he hit the ball. He walks off the field without waiting for the umpire’s decision. Once commonplace, now rare since cricket has become so commercialized.

whip to leg A skilful but dangerous shot by a batsman.

whites The white clothing still in general use by cricketers.

wide A ball too wide for the batsman to hit. Called by the umpire, it results in at least one extra run.

wicket A confusing multiple-use expression which may mean 1) the playing surface, 2) the stumps at either end of the pitch or 3) dismissal of a batsman.

wicketkeeper Fielder behind the batsman’s stumps, who aims to achieve close catches, stumpings and run outs (qqvv). A specialist position, requiring skill, anticipation and athleticism. Unlike all the other fielders he is protected by pads on his legs, a box (qv), thick gloves and sometimes a helmet when he stands right behind the stumps.

yorker A ball aimed to land right on the batsman’s feet.

zamboni… zooter… zombie Invented names for balls which spin mysteriously. The zooter was coined by a great Australian spin bowler, Shane Warne, to alarm opponents. Zamboni and zombie are invented by Cal, for similar reasons.

Fielding positions which might have been mentioned

Close, behind batsman: slips, gully, leg-slip, leg-gully, backward short leg
Close, in front of batsman: forward short leg, silly mid on, silly mid off, silly point All these are aggressive fielders, positioned for close catches.

Infield, behind batsman: short fine leg, short third man, fly slip, backward point
Infield, in front of batsman: square leg, mid wicket, mid on, mid off, extra cover, cover point. All aiming to prevent single runs being scored and catch mishits.

Outfield: (deep) fine leg, deep (backward) square leg, deep mid wicket, long on, long off, deep extra cover, sweeper, deep backward point, third man. All aiming to prevent boundary fours and catch giant mishits.

See also http://www.cwu.edu/~jefferis/unitplans/cricket/cricketfieldmap.html

Note again that fielding captain can (with a few restrictions) place the nine fielders who are not bowling or keeping wicket in any of the positions on the diagram.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

People who care about religion should want to protect it from charlatans and spivs

published in www.politics.co.uk  23 March 2012

Have you ever seen or experienced something that made you say “there should be a law against it?”

I did some weeks ago and I was so angry about it I wrote the law myself. The trigger was a free newspaper in my local bus from a local faith organisation. It promised “deliverance from curses” of all kinds and divine intervention in the lives of believers. To this purpose it peddled a ‘miracle pack’, made up of commonplace ingredients including salt and water and olive oil, for £10. Last month the broadcasting arm of this church was fined heavily by Ofcom, over broadcast testimonies to the healing power of its ‘miracle soap’.

I had thought this kind of thing had been stamped out in Thomas Cromwell’s crackdown on religious racketeers for Henry VIII (Cromwell thought that their money should go to himself and the King). Not a bit. The sale of miracles has become a very successful modern business, which preys particularly on poor and vulnerable people. Within half an hour’s walk of my home in south-east London I can find dozens of churches and pastors promising some form of divine intervention in the lives of their faithful. They may not be as outrageous my local faith group, but some of them are clearly making substantial sums from their adherents. Brecht once wrote: “Why rob a bank when you can found one?” Today he could write: “Why found a bank when you can found a church?”

One may believe in the existence of miracles and other forms of divine intervention, but that does not mean believing that people should charge money for claiming to procure them. In the many accounts of miracles in the Old and the New Testaments, I cannot remember anyone presenting a bill to the beneficiaries. Indeed, Jesus got very angry with those nice money-changers in the temple, and committed a serious public order offence when he attacked their legitimate businesses.

I now think that there should be a specific law to stop miracle peddlers and anyone else using divine intervention as a sales aid. My effort is below. I have tried to catch everybody who might obtain, or try to obtain, anything of value from another person with a promise or threat with any supernatural origin – not just the sellers of ‘miracle packs’ but also the people who secure money or property from the dying with promises of divine favour in the next life. I have chosen the same penalty as for major offences of fraud.

My bill is sitting in two ministers’ intrays: Norman Lamb MP, the new consumer protection minister, and Nick Hurd MP, who has the ghastly responsibility of being the minister for the ‘big society’. So far it has stunned them into silence. Like other politicians of all parties, they may be frightened of offending any religious group, but that should not make them resist my bill. People who care about religion should want to protect it from charlatans and spivs. If a new law frightened any religious leader or sect away from promising blessings or curses in exchange for money, so much the better.

Anyway, if there is any brave MP or peer looking for a private member’s bill – it’s all yours.

Sale Of Supernatural Intervention (Prohibition) Bill 2012

An act to prohibit the obtaining of anything of value with the promise or threat of supernatural intervention, and for connected purposes

(1) it shall be an offence for any person to solicit or receive money or property or any valuable consideration with the promise or expectation of any form of supernatural intervention or favour;

(2) an offence under section (1) of this Act may be committed when a person sells or attempts to sell any goods or services with such a promise or expectation;

(3) an offence under section (1) of this Act may be committed when a person solicits or receives money or any valuable consideration with any threat of supernatural intervention or disfavour if payment is refused, delayed or reduced;

(4) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in this Act the expressions “supernatural intervention”, “supernatural favour” and “supernatural disfavour” include a) the performance of miracles b) the procuring of any change by supernatural intervention in the life of any person c) the acquisition or loss of grace or merit in the view of any supernatural being or any form of favourable or unfavourable treatment after death.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable –
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine or to both.

Richard Heller is an author and journalist and a former adviser to Denis Healey. Some nasty religious spivs figure in his latest novel The Network.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

published in the Yorkshire Post 20 March 2012

To sell his government’s austerity policies, David Cameron regularly claims that “we are all in this together.”

But one group of people have never felt the chill of austerity: the PFI companies banking monopoly profits from public assets. Over the next three decades they will collect around £250 billion from British taxpayers from secret deals on Britain’s roads, infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Yorkshire is on the hook for deals worth at least £10 billion.

Over their lifetime, these deals will be vastly more expensive for the taxpayer than conventional public finance.

PFI has been rudely described as the “biggest money-laundering scheme in the world.” It pretends to transfer the cost of a new public asset from the public to the private sector. Under PFI (the Public Finance Initiative) of borrowing to pay for the asset itself, under PFI (the Private Finance Initiative) local or national government commissions the asset but asks a private company to borrow the money to build it. Government then pays back the company over a long period, usually adding guaranteed payments for maintenance.

Since government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector (UK public borrowing is now about half the cost of private) the Treasury traditionally frowned on PFI. This attitude changed in the economic crisis of 1992 and a resulting major squeeze on capital spending, when Norman Lamont was Chancellor (advised by a young David Cameron). PFI took off under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who relaxed the rules early after taking office.

Both governments claimed that PFI offered better value for money than conventional public borrowing, for two questionable reasons. First, the private sector would be taking over the risks of big capital projects from the public sector. Second, the private sector was far better at managing these projects than the public.

Under New Labour, the Treasury soon displayed a massive bias in favour of PFI (later re-branded as PPP, Public-Private Partnerships). They produced more and more arcane calculations to claim that it was better value for money than conventional public borrowing. If the calculations did not come out right, they added new numbers to “correct” them. A public-spirited Yorkshireman, Mr J P Heawood, recently exposed one of the worst examples, the York Schools PFI project.

Early critics of PFI, led by Private Eye, seriously challenged its key assumptions. Risk was not being transferred to the private sector, and PFI companies were not always better at building or maintaining public assets than the maligned public sector. PFI often produced inferior design (such as the Yorkshire schools built with no light switches and non-opening windows) and service reductions.

Critics also denounced the secrecy of PFI deals, poor negotiating skills by government departments, and the expensive fees paid to lawyers, accountants and bankers to draw up deals. (The PPP contracts for the London Underground cost £500 million and were twice the length of War And Peace. They still failed.)

More important, critics also showed that PFI and PPP helped to conceal the true state of public finances, by keeping government debt off its balance sheet. In 2009 this prompted the government to produce two different versions of national accounts, like a fly-by-night company with two sets of books.

Last year reports by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Commons Treasury Select Committee belatedly endorsed virtually all of these criticisms, and added a new one: a high proportion of PFI/PPP payments leak overseas and avoid UK taxation.

The one certainty is that PFI companies are brilliant at making money for themselves. The Treasury gives them two startling privileges. First, they can refinance their own borrowing without passing any benefit to the taxpayer. Second, they can sell their equity shares in PFI projects in the so-called “secondary market” without asking permission and again with no share of the benefit for the taxpayer. (Last year it was revealed that equity shares in Calderdale hospitals had changed nine times since 2002 without official knowledge. The “secondary market” could allow Britain’s infrastructure to pass under Iranian or North Korean control).

As a result, some PFI deals have produced returns on capital of over 60 per cent for the companies concerned. Such eye-watering returns might be fitting for a daring inventor but not for a virtually risk-free investment guaranteed by the taxpayer.

To adapt Winston Churchill, “never in the history of human finance has so much been paid to so few for doing so little.” Shocked by their recent discoveries, a group of 70 MPs have politely asked the PFI/PPP companies to shave their earnings by 0.5 per cent and hand this back to the taxpayer. Guess how many companies have responded? The government has produced an ineffective Code of Conduct on PFI.

Instead of hand-wringing, the government should make a simple change in the coming Finance Bill to give it first refusal of any shares in PFI/PPP projects which companies intended to sell. By thus killing the “secondary market” the government would radically improve its chances of re-negotiating deals to get better value for taxpayers.

Without such a move, present taxpayers will continue to pay over the odds, on terms they cannot even examine, for public assets they do not control – and their grandchildren could still be paying on the same terms long after the actual assets have disappeared.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

published in www.politics..co.uk 11 March 2012

Another “day of shame” for Britain’s banks, yelled the Daily Mail on Saturday (March 10) – and with plenty of reasons. Barclays’ chief executive, the ever-more-aptly named Mr Diamond, collected a package valued at over £25 million, and over 200 of his executives had million-pound bonuses. (These awards followed the bank’s recent fine for mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance, and its brush with the Treasury and the revenue authorities over schemes used to avoid up to £500 million in UK taxation.) Meanwhile, the normally restrained Financial Services Authority denounced the bankers who ruined HBOS for “very serious misconduct.”

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, reacted to all these stories at his party conference with a speech full of futile fretting. He had no new policies to offer. Essentially, he promised that the government would maintain its hands-off policy towards the banks, even the ones which it owns.

This is foolish. The government has plenty of leverage over the banks and could gain major political and economic rewards from using it.

It might begin by demanding that all bankers’ bonuses above a certain value should be taken in the form of National Savings, which the recipient would have to hold for a set number of years. This is a much simpler idea than any special tax and it would guarantee that the major part of all bank bonuses went to work automatically for the country as well as for the banker. It would be a form of forced savings, a concept which has a long and successful history in wartime, and I cannot think of a better group of people to road-test it in the present emergency. However, in fairness the same idea might also be applied to ministers: they should take any future pay rise in National Savings unless and until the British economy achieves declared targets for growth, jobs and deficit reduction.

Returning to bankers’ savings, I think that all senior retail bank executives should be compelled to reveal how much of their personal savings are invested in the products they offer to their personal customers. This information would be highly instructive and the revelation might conceivably improve conditions for Britain’s battered savers.

In his speech Vince Cable moaned yet again about the failure of the banks to lend money to local businesses. The government tried to meet this problem with a voluntary arrangement with the baffling title of Operation Merlin, named after a successful magician. Operation Tommy Cooper would be a better title for the government’s scheme, and the government should now consider a spot of compulsion.

Lost in some intray in Vince Cable’s department is an interesting idea which would empower local people to promote local lending. I know it is an interesting idea because I sent it to him myself.

The banks should be compelled to offer all their customers a facility called a Good Neighbour Account. The customer would receive a guarantee that all the funds from such an account which are available for investment by the bank would be lent exclusively to local people and local small and medium-sized businesses. They would not be lent to foreign dictators or racketeers and they would not be used to speculate in fantasy financial products which their bank cannot value or even understand.

The bank in question would not have to track its use of every single such account. But it would have to publish accounts to show that all the available aggregate funds in such accounts had at least been matched by aggregate local lending to individuals and qualifying businesses. There seems to be a market for this kind of lending, as witnessed by the recent growth of peer-to-peer financial institutions. Britain’s largest such company, Zopa, had its best-ever month in January. But no one has yet tried to bring the concept into a current account.

If demand for Good Neighbour Accounts really took off, it could force the banks to revive the old model of Captain Mainwaring banking. The hero of Dad’s Army received money from local people and businesses in Walmington-on-Sea. He kept some of this in cash or at call. He lent the rest to other local people and businesses in Walmington-on-Sea. Captain Mainwaring, and others like him, helped Britain to finance the huge demands of the Second World War and then to finance a generation of recovery and growth. All this was achieved with the minimum of government regulation or support.

In contrast with the Mainwaring era, too many of Britain’s modern banks have been run by Private Walker, the spiv, or worse still by Private Pike, the stupid boy.

Britain’s banks still expect the British people to be grateful for their existence. But without the British people they would not be in existence. On behalf of the British people, the government should stop wringing its hands over the methods and behaviours of British bankers. It has the power to change them, and bring in new ideas for British banking, without the need for lengthy negotiation or complex legislation. Banks which resist should be told that they will cease to be eligible for quantitative easing, that they will not have their deposits guaranteed and that they face losing their licence to accept those deposits.

Bankers who wish to enjoy more “days of shame” will no doubt threaten to move overseas. Is that a promise?

See also letter published in The Times 12 March 2012

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

Published in www.politics.co.uk 29 Feb 2012

During the sadly regular economic crises of the 1970s Denis Healey, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, would receive frequent letters with small gifts of money – not for himself, but to help out the nation. (The senders always received a thank-you and a Premium Bond of equal value to their contribution.) Older people sometimes offered to return their state pensions.

Something tells me that George Osborne today is not receiving as many similar offers – although personal tax rates today are much lower than in the Healey years, when the standard rate of income tax rose from 33 per cent to 35 per cent, falling back to 33 per cent in what was supposed to be the election-winning Budget of 1978.

There may be fewer patriotic taxpayers around now than in the 1970s, when memories of the Second World War were still strong. Many of Denis Healey’s would-be helpers were ex-service people, like himself. However, it would do the government no harm to give the present generation an opportunity to pay more into the national Exchequer. It could put out printed payslips in banks and post offices and public buildings, and invite extra tax contributions online and by text.

Half the total proceeds would be used automatically to pay down the deficit. Donors could direct the other half of their contribution to the Department of their choice, and the relevant minister would specify in advance how it would spend it. In this way, voluntary taxation would not only raise money but extend democratic participation. It would give the Prime Minister useful extra guidance on people’s public spending priorities. He would also discover which of his ministers had the greatest appeal (in every sense) to taxpaying voters.

To make this wheeze still more attractive, all contributors might be given a free entry into the National Lottery (in place of Denis Healey’s Premium Bond), a gift which would cost the Treasury nothing except its administration. The biggest donors might be given a title – perhaps the style of “Right Bountiful” instead of “Right Honourable”, or even a baronetcy, a style actually invented by King James I to raise cash. It might seem tawdry to sell titles for money, but if people are willing to pay for them the receipts should go to the nation not to the political parties.

Any receipts at all from voluntary taxation would be a bonus for a desperate government, but even with all the incentives I suggest they are unlikely to make much of a dent in the deficit.

That is why George Osborne should ask the History section of the Treasury to dust down the files on postwar credits. Introduced in April 1941, postwar credits sought to ease the pain of heavy tax increases during the Second World War, which for the first time touched the earnings of millions of working-class people. The government promised to repay a portion of the additional tax as a “credit”, with interest, after the war. The same promise was also given (and honoured) to businesses for part of the punitive Excess Profits Tax.

Postwar credits were indeed redeemed at the Post Office for many years after the war (often to the great annoyance of people waiting to buy stamps). Originally, credits were paid to people on their retirement, but towards the end of the scheme’s life they were paid on demand to any claimants who could prove their right to them, including the heirs of the original wartime taxpayer.

It should not be impossible to devise a similar scheme today. A post-deficit credit would combine a sharp increase in taxation, to be paid back in part when the Budget deficit is halved. The government would set a time for achieving this and would penalize itself, with a higher rate of interest on the credit, if it failed to meet the target.

Wartime finance produced many other innovations (notably PAYE) and the government could learn a great deal from its history. However, it might make one embarrassing discovery. In 1940 the UK’s national debt stood at 110 per cent of GDP. By 1947 it had climbed to 238 per cent of GDP – a level previously reached only during the Napoleonic wars.

The national debt now stands at around 60 per cent of GDP: the government regards this as calamitous and is determined to drive it down. If the government were right, the country should not have survived the Napoleonic wars, let alone the Second World War. The country not only survived the Second World War but managed to double its living standards within a generation. The governments of the Napoleonic era (created by an unreformed Parliamentary system) did even better, with all their hideous debt. They not only defeated Bonaparte but acquired a global empire and presided over the Industrial Revolution.

Did our ancestors know more about public finance than we do?

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights

Published in www.politics.co.uk 21 Feb 2012

Yesterday evening I came across some old photographs of a family Disney-centred holiday in Florida. This is us at the Magic Kingdom… this is us at Typhoon Lagoon… this is us at the Epcot Centre, having lunch at the World Showcase. This section gave me the Eureka Moment which led me to a simple solution for the problem countries of the Eurozone.

The World Showcase contains pavilions which create an idealized, movie-set version of eleven different countries. The British pavilion, for example, has a towering plastic castle, pretty gardens and a pub, the Rose and Crown, where impossibly jolly regulars enjoy an endless happy hour.

Staring again at all these far pavilions I realized there and then that all the weaker members of the eurozone should be transferred forthwith to the Disney Corporation theme park division. They would be far better run.

Take Greece. Is it rejoicing over its new bail-out? Not so. The country’s present rulers, in the eurozone, have no better idea than to plunge it deeper and deeper into depression and misery. Suppose instead that Greece became a colossal Disney theme park. Its new Disney managers would want to make it the best possible visitor experience. They would seek to enhance its existing attractions and make it easier for visitors to access them and enjoy them. That would generate massive new investment in repairs and maintenance, transport, accommodation, environment and infrastructure. At present the Greeks receive millions of euros from the EU for non-existent lemon groves and olive trees. The Disney people would insist on real lemons and olives, even if they are not to be consumed, to create agreeable landscapes.

Above all, Disney managers would want visitors to see smiling Greek faces all around them. Instead of cutting jobs and services and public salaries and pensions, they would pay all the Greek people to display all the happy behaviours which visitors associate with them. Greek men might find it irksome to be required to perform Zorba’s dance every hour on the hour. But it is far better than dancing to the tune of the eurocrats in a queue for petrol or food.

Once safely inside the Disney empire, Greece could replace the euro with the world’s best currency – the Disney dollar. For non-initiates, the Disney dollar, printed with colourful Disney characters and scenes instead of Presidents, can be used only to buy goods and services in any Disney location. They are ultimately redeemable at par with US dollars, and therefore enjoy all of the latter’s advantage as a world currency, but they are also uniquely flexible. If business is slack in any particular Disney environment, they can be instantly devalued against the real dollar. The visitor then acquires more Disney dollars to spend on Disney merchandise. Local activity is stimulated far more quickly and certainly than through the “quantitative easing” injections by the Bank of England and the other cumbersome methods in use by the eurozone.

Moreover, unlike the drab banknotes of euroland, the attractive Disney dollar is often collected by visitors rather than spent. When that happens the Disney empire enjoys, in effect, a favourable transfer of foreign exchange.

For Greece, saddled with a monstrous trade deficit through its over-valued euro, the Disney dollar would offer real hope of improving its balance of payments and reviving its domestic market.

Above all, Greece and other problem countries would enjoy a far higher standard of management and decision-making under Disney than under the eurozone. As has become only too apparent in recent months, no special qualifications or talent are required to run any of the countries or major institutions of the eurozone. It is a far more demanding task to run a theme park, as was demonstrated when one of Britain’s leading eurocrats, Peter Mandelson, was put in charge of the Millennium Dome. Not surprisingly, he found the assignment far beyond his abilities.

A successful theme park requires a unique combination of creativity with fanatical attention to practical detail. Disney has invented the agreeable portmanteau word “imagineer” to convey that combination in the inventors and builders of its attractions. Disney’s leaders encourage fantasy on the drawing board but never in their account books. Unlike the leaders of the eurozone, they do not allow underperforming parts of the empire to conceal financial weaknesses and invent numbers to meet the criteria set for them.

If Greece and the other weaker members remain in the eurozone they can expect more austerity without ambition, more pain without purpose, more hurt without hope. As part of the Disney world they would join an empire with better managers and a superior currency, an empire with proven achievement and a global reputation, an empire built on imagination and the pursuit of happiness.

Richard Heller - Raising world literature to new heights