The national security council has said the ODA [Overseas Development Administration] budget should make the maximum possible contribution to national security consistent with ODA rules. Although the NSC will not in most cases direct DfID spend in country, we need to be able to make the case for how our work contributes to national security.” – DFID document

Documents leaked from DFID over the past couple of weeks hint at a significant shift in the future direction of  Britain’s overseas development policy; a reorientation that cannot be viewed with optimism.

After Left Foot Forward initially received a leaked ‘submission to Ministers’ from DFID’s Director of Policy, Nick Dyer, on August 12, the story has continued to run until the Guardian decided to publish a similar story on August 29. Whilst the former discussed recommendations for which projects could be abandoned (and was intended, obviously, for Ministers), the latter covered DFID’s directive to the ODA that security considerations (and the NSC) should be utmost when justifying aid expenditure. The UK government, and in particular DFID, are not exactly flattered by these latest developments. The most pressing concerns for the UK’s forthcoming overseas development policy appear to be issues of national security and stakeholder interests. Apparently, this constitutes part of the reappraisal of how aid should be applied. The Tories would like aid to be measured by outputs and outcomes rather than inputs, which is an admirable intention however unfeasible that ultimately may prove. Unfortunately it can be used as a smokescreen for removing support for numerous important initiatives, raises the prospect of short-term gains being favoured over those occurring over a more extensive period of time, and is conducive to facilitating the increased securitisation of the UK’s overseas development programme.

Conflating concerns over national security with overseas development assistance is hardly a new phenomenon – much of the Marshall Plan was governed by similar issues – yet it’s increasing prevalence is in contrast to the dominant liberal orientation of international relations in the post-Cold War context. Liberalism, and therefore humanitarian intervention, has endured repeated attacks from both Right and Left. The Right have long argued that self-interest must govern foreign policy whilst the rise of post-structuralism on the Left has questioned the long-assumed moral superiority of the West. Technological development, and the attendant growth in public access to information, has fundamentally damaged the image of the West, and the US in particular, as the guardian of progressive, democratic values. There is no moral authority when the US attacks Afghanistan and Iraq or when Israel commits its regular atrocities, and global sentiment has become resolutely anti-American (although Obama has alleviated this to a certain extent). Put simply, there now exists a choice between supporting a truly altruistic aid agenda (where we expect little in return) or one based on overbearing conditionalities. It’s clear that the UK has chosen the latter. Given the present state of most Western economies, and the increasingly multipolar nature of global politics, this is hardly surprising.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both major recipients of DFID expenditure over the past decade (although Iraq was not in the top 15 for 2008/2009 – see figure 1), yet the trend has been for aid to largely go to where it is needed (or to former British colonies). Much of

figure 1

the aid directed to Iraq and Afghanistan was aimed at the amelioration of the fragile security situation in the two states (and ultimately British national security interests). Whilst this is understandable in the context of post-conflict reconstruction there are two key problems with the approach. Foremost is the issue of an aid imbalance – the vast majority of aid to Afghanistan from global sources has been targeted at security concerns, ignoring myriad other areas that would perhaps benefit more readily from aid spending, such as health and education. The lack of support for key areas of Afghan development might not prove particularly significant given the precipice that the country appears to be falling into, but propping up Karzai’s completely discredited and rotten regime (and its equally corrupt military) is rapidly becoming a disaster. The haste with which NATO appears to preparing to exit the country merely reinforces the notion that this is not a humanitarian intervention. The second important issues relates to the wider application of the use of aid for protecting issues of national security. In war zones there is an arguable necessity in directing aid towards a nation’s security capacity; what will happen in those states where the same principles do not apply? There is clearly the potential for a reappraisal of which nations will be useful recipients of DFID’s aid programme – those nations that are unlikely to contain threats to British national security could potentially see their aid cut. This would include much of Sub-Saharan Africa with the clear exception of Somalia. The region includes many of the world’s poorest nations; those that are dependent upon foreign aid (albeit with this having debatable consequences.) Somalia would be a prime target for a move towards an aid agenda driven by national security concerns, yet the state’s (used in the loosest term possible) incredibly unstable nature will most probably dissuade the West from any significant intervention. DFID’s future direction may be to move away from the more holistic approach it has taken in recent years to one guided by self-interest. Not only is this at odds with some of the guiding principles of aid provision, it is unlikely to prove especially successful.

Aid is fundamentally altruistic. There exists a clear requirement to monitor the return upon the provision of aid, but this should be made on the basis of how it alleviates the suffering of those most in need. By placing issues of national security as the primary concern, the return upon aid provision has the potential to be measured in misguided terms. Aid related to the development of a nation’s health and education provision has repeatedly proven itself to be integral to a state’s progress. In the wider context of development models, investment in human capital and education have often been ultimately conducive to particularly fast rates of economic growth. Health and education are not usually central to a nation’s security concerns however. Through directing aid to other avenues, some of the world’s poorest individuals may become increasingly vulnerable as a consequence of DFID’s future aid policy. Not only may health and education programmes endure a shortfall from redirected aid spending but perverse incentives to actually undermine positive development approaches could yet arise. Investment in education creates possible conflict with national security concerns. Suppose aid earmarked for education encourages the establishment of Madrassas that ultimately encourage the radicalisation of a number of individuals. Perhaps investment in communications infrastructure will increase exposure to radical thought via the internet. On a particularly basic level, encouraging individuals to unite on a daily basis in one particular place (as education provision does) will lead to an exchange and consolidation of ideas antithetical to Western principles. This blog doesn’t believe that these processes will happen, yet this line of thought could be used as justification for DFID to restructure aid provision.

The most alarming outcome would be for the aid imbalance to overwhelmingly favour investment in a nation’s security and military capabilities at the expense of institution and basic infrastructure building. An increasingly militaristic state will always be vulnerable to a potential Coup d’état and, consequently, the establishment of an extremely powerful military dictatorship with little credible opposition. Should this new hypothetical regime support the UK’s national security interests would this be viewed as a satisfactory outcome? There really isn’t a significant difference between this and the disgraceful Reagan doctrine. It would be completely opposed to the humanitarian principles upon which the provision of aid is founded.

The realignment of DFID’s aid policy is in keeping with many of the wider changes the Conservative-dominated UK government wishes to implement. Although the pledge to retain overseas aid spending at 0.7% of GNI by 2013 is to be applauded, it has come at a cost. Under the guise of efficiency savings, DFID will cut a third of its present workforce in East Kilbride and abandon the majority of the near-100 aid-related pledges that were established under Labour. This is a somewhat mystifying decision given the proclaimed move towards an output-based approach to assessing overseas aid requirements. By removing established targets what are the ultimate aims of DFID’s aid programme? Using the ringfencing of DFID’s budget as justification for a pejorative shift in policy direction is embarrassing for the UK as a whole, and worrying for many smaller NGOs that are reliant upon DFID’s present investment choices. It’s another neoliberal answer that nobody needs. As if the British people weren’t going to suffer enough from a government with an ideological basis that has never worked, DFID’s aid revisions will ensure that this suffering is exported to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Cost of benefit fraud to the UK economy (2008-09): £900m (all figures approximations per annum)

Cost of the tax gap to the UK economy: anything from £40bn to £120bn

Demonising the poor, encouraging widespread cronyism, pursuing a discredited, economically illiterate agenda and ruining any chance of recovery: erm…priceless?

The unequivocally appalling rhetoric emerging from Cameron himself over the weekend is that, rather than challenge the vast amount of potential tax revenue lost through tax avoidance (not a crime, albeit socially irresponsible) and tax evasion (accounting for the overwhelming majority of the tax gap and a criminal act), they would rather attack some of the poorest members of society. Benefit fraud is undoubtedly a (relatively minor) problem but accounts for a minimal amount of the total fraudulent activity in the UK each year. Of the £5bn figure quoted by Cameron, a significant majority is in the form of benefit error, rather than fraud.

This is all illustrated strikingly by the following rather interesting graph from Left Foot Forward, and reinforced by this damning indictment of the Tory’s misguided focus from Richard Murphy at Tax Research UK.

© Left Foot Forward at http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/08/camerons-one-sided-crusade-on-cheats/

In addition to attempting to denigrate and stigmatise those on low incomes for pretty much their entire duration in office thus far, the Tories have made a further disgraceful decision over the monitoring of this alleged rampant benefit fraud. Through incentivising credit reference agencies to seek out cases of benefit fraud (surely a move that will only encourage individuals to use cash rather than credit), there is a serious risk of accusations been levied at perfectly innocent people. By all accounts, over 80% of current allegations of benefit fraud are found to be malicious – a figure that will only rise under the new system. There is an absolute necessity for regulation of the credit reference agencies within this context, although this will almost certainly not be forthcoming.

It’s also fairly unsurprising to discover that there are vested interests between certain credit reference agencies and the Tory party themselves. Experian, one of the UK’s leading credit reference agencies, already has a contract to inspect housing benefit claimants and, with Michael Spencer as its founder, has a major Tory party donor as one of its leading lights.

It’s ultimately a classic illustration of Tory politics. Attack the most vulnerable in society through protecting the interests of the wealthy, replacing state services with unregulated and incompetent private sector provision, a fair amount of cronyism if not corruption itself, and an outcome which only damages society and the economy further. It really has been remarkable to watch just how low the Tories will sink. New depths are reached with every passing week and the downward trajectory shows little sign of abating. Should they not successfully manage to achieve the most blatant and undemocratic piece of gerrymandering in recent decades, they will incur serious damage to their credibility during this first term of office.

© Steve Bell from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2010/jul/07/steve-bell-cuts-education-budget

In simple terms European teams are not matching their pre-tournament expectations, whilst their South American counterparts are performing beyond the predictions made of them (this blog included). All five South American qualifiers currently sit atop their respective groups and have provided the competition with some of the more fluent and stylish football thus far. Argentina are ridiculously entertaining (both on the field and in the dugout), Brazil appear extraordinarily resilient and defensively strong, Chile attack with such exaggerated verve that their inability to finish is something of a disappointment, whilst Uruguay and Paraguay are talented, adaptable teams that have proved that a nation need not have a large population to create an impressive football team. The contrast with the traditional powers of European football could hardly be more comprehensive. The Netherlands and Germany are perhaps the two Western European teams most immune from criticism. The former were the first team to secure qualification for the second round of the competition, albeit unimpressively, whilst Germany dismantled Australia before succumbing to a particularly incompetent refereeing performance and an underrated Serbian team. Spain are extremely impressive in terms of retaining possession yet look tactically limited and surprisingly toothless. England, France, and Italy have been little more than a disgrace. Failing to achieve a good performance amongst them (and scoring only three goals in six matches!), the unpleasant triumvirate have all been exposed for what they are – overhyped, ageing (in the case of England and Italy in particular), and divided (France and England) squads playing some of the most negative, unimaginative football witnessed at this World Cup. France are almost certainly out, whilst England and Italy sit in precarious (albeit recoverable) positions within their groups. It would be a genuine shame should any of these teams make it through the group stage.

Whilst the relative fortunes of these two region’s football teams are somewhat interesting, it is the socio-economic context to these performances that perhaps offers an insight into a real power shift that extends far beyond football.

Ask any Argentine what they think of austerity measures and the IMF and they’ll most likely bristle at the memory of their country sinking into an economic shambles that was rescued through defaulting on the nation’s debt and, ultimately, telling the IMF where to go. As a case-study into why neoliberal economics and the IMF as a whole are fundamentally flawed concepts and institutions, one only has to look at Argentina. Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and any other respectable economists, i.e. those not slavishly following the laughably discredited ideas of Milton Friedman et al, all stress the inevitable economic decline precipitated by pursuing an agenda of fiscal-contraction in an economic downturn. Apparently this memo has not yet reached Western Europe. It’s hardly surprising – the greatest casuality of the global financial crisis has been, incredibly, social democracy. In late 2008, when sales of Marx were at their highest in years, and the state became the saviour of the financial system, this idea would have appeared preposterous. Instead we now see daily attacks upon the public sector, upon the ‘unaffordable’ welfare state, and, perhaps most ridiculously, upon the failure of “socialism” (with regards to the ousted Labour party in the UK). What the global financial crisis actually showed us was that 30 years of pursuing a neoliberal agenda and a minimally regulated financial sector were not sustainable. It is not the welfare state that is unaffordable but rather the current global financial system. Remarkably, Europe in general and the UK in particular, have decided that reducing their national budget deficits is the most pressing problem currently facing the region. Whilst financial institutions will always promote such a view, it is incredibly flawed. No real reform was made following the financial downturn and we remain locked within a crisis of capitalism. The Conservative Party’s ideologically driven economic medicine for the UK is to pursue an outdated and unworkable socio-economic system, with an inevitable rise in unemployment, poverty, rapid decline in health, education, and other public services, and an astonishing acceleration of inequality the result. When the next inevitable financial crisis arises this flawed socio-economic agenda will finally be exposed. The state will not be in a position to rescue the financial system and the general populace won’t enjoy the insulation they had from the deepest recession since the 1930s. Western Europe, and Britain in particular, faces an undignified and messy decline. Just as the England football team’s deficiencies have been hidden by an obscenely unbalanced and unsustainable domestic league model, often misguidedly heralded as ‘the best league in the world’, the UK economic system’s flaws were disguised by an obscenely unbalanced and unsustainable dependence upon a financial system beset by incompetence, greed, and panic. The Premier League began to lose a little of its lustre last year as some of its top talents fled to more appealing environments (a process set to continue this summer) and the subsequent decline in quality was notable.

South America has done things differently. The hardship associated with excessive neoliberal policies has shaped the current socio-economic agenda of much of the continent (Columbia is an obvious exception). The utterly reprehensible actions of the US both before but especially throughout the Reagan-era in the region has proved another powerful influence. Where Europe seeks to attack worker’s pay, conditions, and rights in general, Brazil has surged economically whilst led by a former prominent trade unionist in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. It could be asserted that many South American nations in general have willingly traded rapid economic (in terms of GDP) growth for a little more social harmony (and Uruguay certainly fits this model), yet their growth has exceeded that of Europe over the past decade (and has improved markedly following the abandonment of nominally neoliberal policies). The upshot of these varying economic trajectories is all too apparent at this year’s World Cup. Neoliberalism has left societies fractured, discontent, and greedy – qualities all too apparent in the play of England and France – whilst the social democratic model of Argentina, Brazil, and other South American nations, has created a unity and equality on and off the pitch. The contrast between the 2012 and 2016 Olympics should prove fascinating. The London games are likely to be held under severe budget restrictions with a demoralised population and the economic deterioration of the country all-too-apparent, whilst Rio de Janeiro should consolidate (following the 2014 World Cup) Brazil’s developing global prominence.

Having promised to select an alternative World Cup XI many months ago (see here), which has fallen somewhat by the wayside but will resume erm…shortly, this post will attempt to further saturate the digital media world with yet another tedious and pointless overview of what could (but most probably won’t) happen over the next month. If you’re looking for originality and writing devoid of cliché, it’s probably best to not only avoid this post, but the World Cup’s media coverage in general.

World Cup 2010 various predictions:

1. England will not make it out of their group (although this may be revised if they get an exceptionally easy group. Slovakia, Tunisia, and New Zealand for example.)

2. Brazil will make the quarter finals at best.

3. Paraguay, Chile, South Korea, Ukraine (assuming they make it), and the USA will be much better than people expect. All will get through the group stage. At least one of these teams will make the last eight.

4. Spain won’t win it.

5. But Russia might (assuming they qualify).

6. Italy have a real chance and are far better than people assume (as per usual).

7. An African side will make the semi-finals (most probably Ivory Coast).

8. Maradona might just lead Argentina to an incredibly improbable victory, and will most likely then tell the entire world to take it up our collective arse

The musings of an idiot on a par with Tim Lovejoy? It remains to be seen, yet these were the predictions made by this very blog way back in November last year. Clearly some of these have been made redundant by the unpredictable nature of the European qualifying playoffs and, in light of this, a new set of predictions will be made following an entirely facile assessment of the groups.

Group A is perhaps the most difficult to call. Featuring the least fancied (and lowest ranked) host nation in tournament history, an appallingly managed team fronted by a rapidly fading Thierry Henry, and two of the teams perhaps most likely to flatter to deceive, the result is a group which could really end with any of the four teams in any position. However, South Africa’s recent form, promising showing in last year’s Confederations Cup, and the inevitable advantage that being a host nation affords a team, should see the rather remarkable sight of South Africa topping the group. Mexico have been poor in recent friendlies, having declined somewhat from their already none-too-impressive form from ’02 and ’06 and are likely to finish bottom. Second place hinges upon Friday’s game between France and Uruguay, with the winner likely to qualify. Uruguay have been somewhat overrated as a dark horse, when their performances in the CONMEBOL qualifying section ranged from poor to insipid to disappointing. Yes, Suárez scored a ridiculous number of goals for Ajax last season, but this is the same league in which Kežman and Kuyt also topped the scoring charts. France will (disappointingly) join South Africa in the second round.

Argentina should ease into the next round from Group B and are most likely to be joined by South Korea. With undoubtedly the most potent attacking sextet at the World Cup (Messi, Agüero, Higuaín, di María, Milito, and Tévez are all in form and fit), Diego Maradona’s Argentina are becoming an increasingly attractive proposition if the betting markets are any true indicator of likely success (in the UK, more bets have been placed on Argentina to win the World Cup than any other side). A stuttering and schizophrenic qualifying campaign has been replaced in recent months by a solidity in defence, which has seen the team start to perform exceptionally well in friendlies. With the most natural talent of any of the participating squads (not least in the form of the world’s best player), Argentina should view anything less than a semi-final as failure. South Korea should easily surpass their disappointing performance in ’06, led by the talent of the severely underrated Park Ji-Sung and Bolton’s emerging star, Lee Chung-Yong. A strong qualifying campaign has been allied to recent impressive friendly performances – not least a dominant victory against Japan and a narrow 1-0 loss to favourites Spain. Nigeria’s World Cup preparations are a sad reflection upon the chaotic current state of the nation itself. From altered accommodation plans, last-minute changes of venue for friendlies, a technical fault with the team’s plane originally selected to travel to South Africa (and subsequent late arrival), a stampede amongst fans at their most recent friendly, and finally, the loss of John Obi Mikel to injury, very little has gone to plan. Nigeria were abject in this year’s African Cup of Nations (ANC) and, with a squad the shadow of that at France 98, they’ll do well to avoid finishing bottom of their group. Since Greece bored us (and their opponents) to their crime-against-football victory in 2004’s European Championship they have only looked like the sum of their parts – a group of players devoid of any discernible talent, albeit exceptionally well-organised due to their impressive management. Having said that, they may well run South Korea close for second in the group, and have a rising talent in Sotiris Ninis.

England struck lucky with Group C. In the above predictions this blog confidently stated that England would not make it past the group stage unless their opponents were of particularly low quality. This is the scenario they now find themselves in. England should dominate Group C and win it fairly comfortably. Yes, the United States are the only team to have beaten Spain in years, but they’re not the threat that Serbia are to Germany, or even that of Chile to Spain. England’s other opponents in the group are unlikely to even threaten the US to qualify alongside England. Algeria bullied their way into the tournament, securing an incredibly unlikely victory over fierce-rivals Egypt in Khartoum, whilst Slovenia caught Guus Hiddink’s Russia on one of their less-impressive days. Leading 2-1 from the first-leg in Moscow, the Russians allowed Slovenia to gain that all-important home goal in Ljubljana, whilst posing little threat themselves. A deserved result but a shame nonetheless. Had Egypt and Russia sat alongside England and the US, this group could have legitimately termed the ‘group of death’, besides affording British commentators the chance to make ridiculous and outdated references to The Cold War.

Group D is that one group in every World Cup that is expected to be close but in reality proves anything but. Australia would do extremely well to match their performance from Germany. In reality, they’ll do well to avoid finishing bottom of the group. This is an ageing, sluggish, and often-violent team that will do little to endear itself to neutrals. Ghana, in contrast, were the favourite of many a neutral four years ago, yet without the talismanic Essien, will find it just beyond them to reach the second round. Although possessing a raft of talented youngsters, this is likely to be a World Cup too soon. The same charge could be leveled at Germany who, in sharp contrast to prior generations, have one of the youngest squads at the World Cup, especially in light of the injury to their captain and figurehead over the last decade, Michael Ballack. However, such a loss could prove to be something of a blessing in disguise. In addition to the potential for engendering team spirit (in a team which is already pretty strong in that respect, particularly following the loss of likely number-one-goalkeeper, Robert Enke, in tragic circumstances), Ballack has been in decline over the past couple of years. Liable to slowing play to the detriment of a team which relies on swift, aggressive attacking, Ballack’s absence has opened up a spot for the talented Sami Khedira, the captain of Germany’s Under-21 European Championship triumph of last year, in which they demolished England 4-0 in the final. However, the undoubted star of that tournament was Mesut Özil, Germany’s likely first-choice attacking midfielder who orchestrated the dismantling of England in Malmö. Ably supported by Marko Marin and Toni Kroos, Germany’s young players could prove a revelation. Serbia are this year’s undoubted ‘darkhorse’; a label that shouldn’t give any degree of confidence to the team, given that they were also somewhat fancied in ’06 (as Serbia & Montenegro), before being humiliated by Argentina and exiting the group stage without a point. This is, however, undoubtedly a much-improved team with Vidic leading a defence of well-documented strength allied to some exceptionally talented attacking players. Miloš Krasić could see his profile rise in the way that Andrei Arshavin’s did following his superb performances for Russia in 2008’s European Championships. Not only supremely talented, Krasić is unlikely to suffer the same level of fatigue as many other European-based players, given that his club side, CSKA Moscow, are only a few months into their domestic season. Serbia could not only qualify for the second round, they may yet push Germany into second-place in the group.

The Netherlands are strong favourites in Group E, and with good reason.  Strong in most areas, the team also contains, in Robben and Sneijder, two of the sport’s outstanding performers over the past season. Although Robben is struggling with a hamstring strain, he is likely to be available at least for the knock-out stages and, given The Netherlands’ early opponents, his absence from the first round is unlikely to prevent the team from topping the group. Japan have yet to successfully replace Hidetoshi Nakata, although Keisuke Honda of CSKA Moscow is perhaps the most likely current candidate, and would have to play several levels above their form over the past year to match their previous-best World Cup performance of a second-round spot at home in 2002. Suffering defeat in their four previous games (although especially unfortunate against a lacklustre England), Japan have arranged an emergency friendly against Mozambique today, which appears to be little more than an exercise in encouraging greater squad confidence. Cameroon and Denmark appear, on a cursory glance at least, closely matched. Both have a blend of youth and experience, a mix of talent and not-so-much talent. Cameroon do have the more outstanding players – should they incorporate Alex Song and Samuel Eto’o into a well-organised system, they should comfortably qualify alongside The Netherlands. This is a big if however, and discernible organisation was starkly absent from the Cameroon team that contested this year’s ANC. Denmark’s fate will likely be decided by Cameroon’s performance.

Alongside England, Italy will have been the other team most satisfied by their World Cup draw, which placed them alongside Paraguay, New Zealand, and Slovakia in Group F. Italy are heading into the World Cup devoid of form. Having lost (and being outclassed) to the same Mexico team that proved relatively ineffectual in a 3-1 loss to England just days prior, Italy’s ageing squad (although, interestingly, not as old as England’s) appear ill-equipped to defend their 2006 triumph successfully. With few younger players of note emerging domestically, Italy are facing an extended period without success. However, it would be a significant shock were they not to make it through the group stage. New Zealand are quite probably the worst team at this World Cup and perhaps the weakest to have ever qualified. They ran Australia close in a recent friendly, and even beat Serbia, but their dismal performance at least year’s Confederations Cup is a more reliable indicator of what to expect – three defeats and no goals loom ominously.  Paraguay qualified for the finals with relative ease, although their performances appeared to worsen throughout the qualification process and recent friendly results inspire little confidence. Losing one of their form strikers in disturbing circumstances has undoubtedly weakened their chances, particularly when a lack of goals is one of the team’s key weaknesses. However, Paraguay are a well-managed and established outfit with enough natural ability and organisation to qualify alongside Italy. Slovakia have been tipped in some circles as a team to watch. They do have a number of talented individuals; not least Marek Hamšík at Napoli, but the extensive gap between qualification and the tournament itself has led to an exaggeration of the team’s qualities. Slovakia are limited and struggled in one of the weakest European qualifying groups. They will continue to struggle at the World Cup.

The so-called ‘group of death’, Group G is likely to prove anything but. A lot hinges upon Didier Drogba’s fitness and whether he will actually recover from a fractured arm in time to appear for Cote d’Ivoire. Given how unlikely this must surely be, it’s difficult to see how the team can possibly qualify in a group which contains Portugal and Brazil. Knocked-out of the ANC by a poor Algeria side, Cǒte d’Ivoire struggle for goals even when Drogba is fit. The team is likely to prove a massive disappointment for those who hope for some African success. In contrast, it is difficult to dismiss Brazil in spite of Dunga’s uninspiring squad selection, his massive unpopularity at home, and a generation devoid of the talent of previous teams. However, Brazil have perhaps the strongest defence at this year’s World Cup, and retain some of the sport’s greatest talents (although not necessarily having had the most impressive of seasons). They are clearly potential winners. Portugal, in contrast, are not. Losing Nani to injury is more significant to the team than might be expected. In addition to having a breakthrough year at Manchester United, he has arguably proved Portugal’s greatest asset in recent games. The team still possess a strong defence, some emerging talents from their domestic league and a certain Cristiano Ronaldo, who is yet to really perform at international level, and so Portugal will inevitably prove to be a serious obstacle to both Brazil and Spain in that part of the draw. The North Koreans are perhaps the only unknown quantity in the World Cup and could have perhaps caused an upset in a more amenable group. However, they have been unlucky with the draw and will most likely be returning to Pyongyang without a point to their name.

Group H sees overwhelming favourites and reigning European champions Spain take on the fluid and exciting Chileans, an underrated Switzerland, and a most-likely hapless Honduras. The Spanish squad is astonishing. Every position has at least two options; all players are supremely talented. Should they play to their potential (and they have basically been doing so for the past few years now) they will win the World Cup. However, Spain were highly fancied in Germany and slumped out of the tournament with defeat to France and only scraped to an unconvincing victory against Saudi Arabia recently. They did follow this up earlier this week with a 6-0 rout of Poland. In the earlier predictions, this blog suggested that Spain wouldn’t win the World Cup. They still might not but this will require a simultaneously poor Spanish performance and a particularly impressive one from their opponents. The chances are slim to say the least. Chile are on course to be the neutral’s favourite team. Coach Marcelo Bielsa who guided Argentina to an embarrassing first-round exit in 2002, is committed to flowing, attacking football. Chile score plenty of goals – primary striker Humberto Suazo was top-scorer in the CONMEBOL qualifying round and, although injured at the moment, has the potential to impress on the global stage. Furthermore, Chile’s 443-formation places signficant importance upon the team’s wingers, Alexis Sánchez and Mark González. Aided by the highly rated Matías Fernández, Chile have some incredibly talented players and could even surprise Spain. A second-round place beckons if they can cover their defensive weakness. Switzerland have impressed somewhat at recent tournaments, without really playing to their potential. With some underrated players (Barnetta, Behrami et al), the team qualified for the World Cup with relative ease, beating Greece twice on the way. In several other groups, Switzerland would stand a reasonable chance of making the next round. Spain and Chile will most probably have a little too much for the Swiss, however. Honduras will do well to pick up a point.

Having discussed the groups in pretty extensive detail, here are a number of revised predictions as a means of summation:

1. Spain and Brazil are legitimate favourites but it would be incredibly dull to predict that either will win. As such, this blog predicts that Argentina will claim a victory that was improbable only a few months ago.

2. The Netherlands and Germany are the most likely challengers to this triumvirate.

3. England will get out of their group and could potentially make the semi-finals. Equally, they could be knocked-out in the second round.

4. Serbia and Chile are the not-so-dark ‘darkhorses’.

5. Given that Argentina are this blog’s predicted winners, Gonzalo Higuaín will complete an exceptional season by finishing as the tournament’s top scorer.

The apparent failure of The Conservatives to secure a majority despite near-universal media support, the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and an overwhelmingly unpopular Prime Minister, has led their supporters and party members (though not, to be fair, its leadership as of yet) to claim that ‘we won’, despite evidence to the contrary like, um, the number of seats The Tories now hold.

With Gordon Brown promising to step down from his position as leader of The Labour Party by the time of their party conference in September, and the consequent development of formal talks between the Lib-Dems and Labour, the right-wing press has somehow managed to appear even more shrill. May 10 was apparently a ‘bleak day for democracy’ according to The Telegraph, whilst the Mail went (predictably) further, claiming that it was in fact a ‘squalid day for democracy’. In this context, ‘democracy’ evidently means The Conservatives getting into power.

Perhaps the most amusing (albeit unimportant) facet of this right-wing fury, was the following pretty-much-insane tirade from this apparently none-too-happy-chap. The comment was hidden deep amongst the usual idiotic suspects on the Mail’s article regarding Adam Boulton’s embarrassingly undignified rant at Alastair Campbell.

What bothers me more than anything is that little Communist RED STAR on the odious Campbell’s lapel. THAT is what “New” Fascist Labour was all about, a nasty MARXIST confiscatory, freedom stealing junta hidden behind Blair’s grin. campbell will soon be changing his name to Berya, although with the way they scapegoat and demonise people GOEBBELS would be more appropriate

Jeremy Zeid, Harrow, HMP-Loonybin-England, 11/5/2010 7:59

Zeid is a familiar presence to those of us who waste our lives trawling the Daily Mail comment sections. Although blatantly unhinged, this is nothing strictly new for Mr Zeid, although there is one noticeable difference. Never one to miss the opportunity to remind those around him of his status, Zeid proudly posted previous diatribes under the title, Cllr Jeremy Zeid. A quick google search leads us to Harrow council’s website and the discovery of this simple albeit telling statement on Zeid’s profile – ‘Not currently an elected Councillor’. Zeid lost his position during the under-reported (somewhat understandably) local council elections held alongside the general election last week. Hardly a surprising result in the wider context, though undoubtedly deserved. Acting almost as a caricature of Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge, Zeid wins this week’s right-wing-sore-loser award. Brilliant.