DON'T ASK FOR ADVICE, AS A SMACK IN MOUTH SOMETIMES OFFENDS

Being the Managing Director of an agency that looks after around 150 of the UK’s top voice over artists means that I am often asked to advise people about how they can embark on a similar career.  One of the primary reasons for setting up Excellent was to provide a better service to artists than I had received when I was just a jobbing v/o. Part of that process is to try to listen to every demo reel that we are sent – regardless of whether we have asked for it or not – and to advise honestly and politely. It’s a policy that was instilled in me after meeting Peter Powell, the founder of one of the UK’s most successful management agencies of the last 25 years – James Grant Group.

As a young thrusting and somewhat precocious presenter, I figured I needed a good agent. In the late 80's I interviewed one of James Grant’s biggest stars - Philip Schofield - for my weekend radio show. Unlike so many agents that I had to deal with to book my celebrity interviews,  I found them so helpful that I knew I wanted to be on their books when I made the move to Channel 4 myself in 1987. Having written to him, Peter kindly invited me to his own home, near Barnes in West London, and spent a full afternoon going through my highly over written CV – pointing out where I was going wrong.  Sadly, my skills weren’t of the calibre to appeal to Peter and his team for representation, but I never forgot the time that he spent – unnecessarily as he was unlikely to recruit me - offering helpful advice and pointing me in the right direction.

On founding Excellent Talent (www.excellenttalent.com) in the mid 1990’s, I knew that I wanted to operate using a similar philosophy. To be facilitator for our talent – not a gateway through which the privileged can access them – and to offer advice and honest, constructive criticism to anyone who asked for it. Over the years I have lost count of the number of demos I have listened to and the personal letters or emails I have written in response and hours spent helping those even though there was no direct benefit to us. On a few occasions, people we have turned away have fully understood the critique made of their work. They have taken on board what they needed to do and come back again some two or three years later and tried again. In general they cite the fact that it was our initial response and advice that made them return to us after they had gained greater experience. That’s when we know we are doing the right thing.

Recently I received an email from a man called  - well it doesn’t really matter what he was called, as he probably would prefer to remain anonymous after what happened. It read as follows:

"Hi, I am looking to take up a hobby that pays in between shifts at work.  I am a 30 year old male from Dundee in Scotland and am currently working as a wholetime firefighter working a shift pattern of 4 on/ 4 off.  I have no idea if my voice is suitable and have no previous experience in the industry.  I do have public speaking experience through my present employment.  I am not looking to make a career out of this type of work as I enjoy being a firefighter and do not want to give it up, I am only looking to do work when it fits in with my current hours with the intention of earning a little extra cash doing something that interests me.  Could you advise me on what I should do in order to obtain voice over work.

I look forward to your reply."

It’s not an unusual request – but it does contain one of my bugbears. The idea that my profession and that of the 150 others who we represent can be some sort of part time hobby, demeans the professionalism and skill within the industry. It’s a job that suffers from the fact that everyone has a voice and the majority of people can read – and therefore read aloud. This means that some people think that they can simply pick up a script and do a voice over – especially if they have a “nice” voice. I normally reply that although I can play Greensleeves and a bit of the Moonlight Sonata on the piano, I wouldn’t attempt to appear at The Royal Albert Hall and give a virtuoso concert performance. Professional voice overs are that skilful, in comparison to someone who can simply read out loud. I must admit that I feel slightly pompous in taking that stance, but if I have learned anything about this profession from both artist’s and agent’s point of view, it is that there is a reason that so few people make it as professional voice artist – and that is because it’s a remarkably difficult skill. Maybe it was the devil within me - or simply because I was fed up with writing the ususal placatory and polite reply, but I penned an answer, late at night, as follows:

"Dear XXX

All the advice we can provide you with is on our website under the section that’s says “Advice” at www.excellenttalent.com .

Please note that voice over is a career and not a hobby and as with any career you cannot expect to walk into it without taking the time to learn what is required and how the industry works. If you think it is simply about reading aloud then you should do a lot more research.

An agency represents the cream of the crop and does not audition new voices. The artists who come to us for representation are already working and have established a back catalogue of work already.

Furthermore no agent can tell if you have any vocal skill from meeting you or talking to you on the telephone. The only way we can know if you have what it takes is to listen to your professionally produced demo

Finally - I've been looking for a job that pays money between voice-overs and I've always fancied being a fireman. Rescuing cats from trees, helping old ladies across the road and having girls swoon all over me seems like a great thing to do in my spare time. I'm not looking to make a career out of this work - and only want to do it when it fits in with my current hours, with the intention of earning a little extra cash doing something that interests me.  Could you advise me on what I should do in order to obtain part time work as a hobby fireman?

Voice over work is a profession - that involves professionally trained artists. To assume that anyone can do your job is - as you might judge from my reply - somewhat demeaning.

Sincerely

JON BRIGGS"

It was - I now admit - something of a glib reply - but I hoped he would take it with a pinch of salt. An immediate reply was shuttled back within hours. The riposte read:

"Hi, thanks for the late reply, must have taken a while judging by the length of it, must have a lot of time on your hands, business slow?

If you would like to be a part-time fire fighter then contact your local fire service and ask about becoming a retained fire fighter, as with any job in the whole world, a certain degree of training is required but be prepared, you would most certainly have to do a little more than rescue cats from trees.  You would have to be willing to put your life on the line at any given moment to rescue complete strangers, entering buildings in +700 degree heat wearing no more than thick clothing and 25-30 minutes worth of oxygen.  Retained fire fighters do this job in their spare time or as a hobby that pays.
  

Something tells me though, that helping others is beneath you as you seem to think that helping old ladies across the road is a job for the fire and rescue service, but surely any decent person would do this?  Not sure if you would have the guts for this job anyway.

I only asked for personal advice from you (maybe how you started and what companies look for from voice actors ), the website offers advice on how to be noticed from an agency.  I never implied that anyone could do your job, I'm just saying that I would give it a go without forking out a small fortune on a course offered by some run of the mill dodgy website.

I have looked a great deal into the world of voice acting, I have learned a great deal, today I learned something new, that right at the top of the pile there is always at least one pompous prick, well, they say every day's a school day eh?

Don't bother replying to this, I won't be reading any more of your brain farts.

Cheers"

Something told me I had touched a nerve. And I probably shouldn’t have replied – but I found it hard to resist:

"Dear XXX

I write this safe in the knowledge that you won't be reading it.

Since you regard long messages as a sign that someone has time on their hands, I shall keep this brief.

1. I have a vast amount of respect for all emergency service workers. In fact - if it were up to me - they would be the ones with the million quid bonuses not the bankers - it is a profession I know I could not perform - and have nothing but admiration for those that do. However I was making the point that demeaning a profession that which involves dedication and several years of training is a pretty stupid idea. My job is no more of a hobby than yours. Judging from your reaction you didn't like someone suggesting that any more than I did.

2. Don't ask for information gratis from a professional if you don't want to hear their advice. Strangely enough - just because you write to me does not mean that I owe you a reply. I may well be a pompous prick - but at least I took the trouble to write back even if you didn't like what you read.

3. Professional v/o's need to be available whenever the client wants them and are unlikely to work much or at all if they are only free 4 days out of 8. If you had learned "a great deal" about voice acting (as you call it - which incidentally is something entirely different) then you would know this. There is no such thing as a voice over who does it as a hobby - not if they want to work on anything remotely commercial.

4. Get a sense of humour. You'll need it in a profession which rejects you as much as this one does.

As you will see from the lateness of this reply - business is good and the only time I have to reply to people like you is now. But at least I have - which is more than you will get from most agents.

Aren't brain farts normally caused by mental indigestion?

JON BRIGGS"

I hasten to add – that my normal level of politeness went out of the window – but the correspondent's reply made me see red! In fact on publishing it, I don't think either of us comes out of it particularly well and I don’t think my actions were nearly as professional as they should have been, but sometimes you just can’t help yourself. The point I was trying to make, was that when you seek advice, especially when it is of little benefit to the advisor, try not to demean the profession you are enquiring about. In my reply, I was illustrating that fact, by doing exactly that to his highly valued profession. As you might be able to judge - he liked it even less than I did!

Should you wish to write to me for advice – I will do my utmost to maintain a professional demeanour at all times – but if you don’t like my response – don’t give me a hard time, I’m just being honest, oh and it might just end up on here for all to read....

WHY DO YOU STAND IN AN ELECTION – BUT SIT AS AN MP?

Musings on a strange choice of career...

The general election of 2010 is the 7th election I will have voted in. I belong to a core group of journalists who have been able to see how privileged we are to have such freedom in our democracy. Anyone who has witnessed political systems that restrict your right to vote or your freedom to choose who to support, will find it hard to sympathise with those who cannot be bothered to take time to put a cross on their ballot paper.

I deeply object to people who don’t vote, similarly those who want a “none of the above” column to register their disapproval. To me, they belong to the masses who are content to moan about how the country is run, but never do anything about it. Sitting on the sidelines criticising is the province of the overweight armchair football fan. If it’s so easy - why don’t you try it?

Even worse are those who announce proudly that they can’t be bothered excusing their actions by saying  “well they’re all the same aren’t they?”. It’s not entirely their fault. They’re fed a rather paltry diet of information about what the job actually involves. Sadly the tabloid press would have us believe that the people who run the country can have their work condensed into a few paragraphs. Politics is a messy business and as such it needs voters to indulge it. To fully understand government policy and the vastness of the statistics involved in it, requires concentration. Something the majority are not prepared to give. Newspapers readily throw numbers around as they are the easiest way to grab people’s attention. £1billion budget deficit for the NHS! Damn that sounds like a big number - until you understand that it’s just 1% of the health service budget. The Treasury error for forecasting total budget deficit is 2 percent of government spending – so a £1billion deficit means the NHS has performed twice as well as the government as a whole. Few businesses would think hitting a financial target to within 1% anything other than management of the most brilliant precision.  If you want to know just how distorted statistics can be made to look by newspapers – you should read “The Tiger That isn’t” by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot – from whom that illustration is taken. It really will make you read headlines in a completely different way.

In general I have some sympathy with newspaper readers as I believe they are often mislead by journalists who have an agenda. Having worked in newsrooms up and down the country - mainly for the BBC - I can honestly say that  I have never been asked to give a political slant to any story I have written or any feature that I have broadcast. So it sticks in the throat every time the Daily Mail leaps upon a story about the BBC and castigates it for inaccuracy or profligacy. I sometimes wish that there was a requirement for newspapers to have a red banner at the top of their front page - declaring that the views represented inside belong to the political agenda of the proprietor and you should be aware that other views are also available! I chose to be a broadcast journalist for the precise reason that the information I create relies on seeing or hearing the words of the person themselves, not reporting them third hand and making them say something they didn’t. To this day, I cannot recall a single magazine or newspaper feature that I have been interviewed for, that hasn’t misrepresented what I actually said.

As a broadcaster, I refereed political debates for both the BBC and LBC. In my cub reporter days working for the BBC in Oxford, I learned very quickly which MP’s would be given airtime. Those that regularly made themselves available would be the first to be called. When presenting a breakfast show, as I did having just turned 20, knowing that you had a reliable and valid viewpoint that you could call on at 5.30 in the morning made all the difference to who you’d ring first for comment on overnight developments. Tony Baldry - then Tory MP for Banbury (and still standing in 2010 some 25 years later) wasn’t always as helpful as Oxford East’s Steve Norris (who later went on to fight as the Tory candidate in London’s Mayoral election). As a result Steve got almost twice the on-air exposure that Tony was given . Douglas Hurd (Witney) and Michael Heseltine (Henley) were also accostable, although as more senior politicans, negotiation had to be done with their minions rather than directly. An interview with “Tarzan” himself, for Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, at the height of the Westland affair was enlivened by the presence of a radio controlled helicopter on his desk. I was too junior to dare ask whether I might try flying it.

I also covered the London political scene on LBC on a Sunday morning, and my regular guests included Charles Kennedy (prior to his leadership and his alcohol confessions) Shaun Woodward (before he crossed the floor to join the New Labour) and the always affable Steve Pound (an ever present face in the media - he’ll happily turn up to the opening of an envelope if it means getting publicity). The debates were always wide ranging and full of spin - but it was always apparent that the people around the table had the courage of their convictions and believed they were making a real difference in attending the House of Commons.

The influence that the newspapers have on the public’s voting habits shouldn’t be underestimated. Kelvin McKenzie’s Sun newspaper headline in 1992 - placing Neil Kinnock’s head in a lightbulb accompanied with the words: “Will the last person to leave the country please turn out the light?” has to be the single most damaging piece of political journalism of the 20th Century. True, Kinnock had done himself no favours by appearing pre-emptively victorious at a Labour Party rally in Sheffield some days earlier, but anyone who was undecided on the day of the election merely had to catch sight of the headline as they passed the newsstand and they were absolved of having to understand the reasoning behind the words. They simply took it at face value. Any politician, let alone a party leader, deserves better than that.

Service providers will tell you that any form of testimonial from a happy customer can impact hugely on a potential purchasers decision about whether to use the service - whether you know the person who made the recommendation or not. The fact that someone has said that they were “fabulous” is enough for you to believe that their service will also be “fabulous” when you use them yourself - regardless of the fact that you’ve never met the person who recommended them and probably never will - nor will you ever know if they were capable of  making a reasoned adjudication.  McKenzie knew that a poor testimonial will damage the chances of any future business - whether people trusted the Sun’s point of view or not.

Sadly - this acceptance of the definitive assessment by commentators means that politicians become increasingly wary of giving them any opportunity to criticise. David Cameron’s recent appearance at a friend’s wedding, dressed in a suit while all the other male attendees were wearing morning garb, was clearly designed to avoid any association with the similarly attired photographs of his University days, when he was part of the privileged Bullingdon Club. Not his desired choice - but an example of how our demands for perfect politicians propel them to behave in abnormal ways.

By treating politicians as if they should behave with all the attributes of a latter day saint, we do them a disservice. In effect we end up with the politicians we deserve. If, every time they demonstrate human foibles we self righteously bombard them with criticism, then we only have ourselves to blame. “Bigotgate” was remarkable – not for the fact that someone might not agree with the sentiments of a voter and use a judgemental term to describe them in a private conversation, but because it highlighted what happens when you’ve been surrounded by the trappings of power for too long. Gordon Brown – like many others who attain high political status – feels that the voters are in general beneath him. Despite his apology – he illustrated clearly that voters are a bit of nuisance when it comes to running the country, especially if they don’t listen to you and immediately agree. Becoming a politician isn’t so much about serving the populous, as pushing through your philosophies and exerting your power. As a broadcasting colleague once said to me - you should be just that bit suspicious of anyone who decides to stand for election as an MP as they truly believe that they have the right to tell others what to do.

It was an aspect of my father’s parliamentary career that always amused me. He long harbored an ambition to enter Parliament. Peter Gold (my surname was taken from my stepfather when my Mother remarried) stood for the Liberal Democrats in 1987, 1992 and 1997. He was the Lib Dem’s Education spokesman - despite only being a PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) in the days when there simply weren’t enough LibDem MP’s to cover all the departments they needed a spokesperson for. You could say that he laid some of the ground work for Nick Clegg - as he fought the Sheffield Hallam seat on two of his unsuccessful appearances on the hustings. In fact such was his political skill, had he still been fighting in these days of LibDem ascendance, there’s every chance he would have realised his dream. My Father moved to the West Country after divorcing his second wife and fought his last battle in the constituency of Wells, giving the Tory MP David Heathcote-Amory the fright of his life and a majority of just 528 votes.  Sadly if he had stayed in Sheffield, he would have benefitted from the biggest swing to the Lib Dems in the country. It was enough for him to give up his political ambitions.

Having watched it first hand, you should never underestimate the emotional distress that losing a political campaign can have on the individual and their loved ones. While we have seen MP’s exposed publicly and many humiliated by their arrogance and lack of social morals – it’s often been a tough ride for them to attain public office and it can be swiftly removed from them. Spare a thought then for all those standing for election next week who have little hope of making it to Westminster. Far more will fail in the early hours of May 7^th than will succeed. Some will have given up their jobs to make time to canvass. Others will have their lifelong hopes dashed in a single declaration. And after the emotional rollercoaster ride of standing for election in the campaign – no wonder they need to sit as an MP.

GREEN IS THE COLOUR - CAROLINE LUCAS IS THE NAME

Those that know me well will be aware that my lifestyle cannot be described as representative of a truly Green philosophy. I am something of a petrolhead,  I travel regularly by air on business and cannot declare myself to be a great lover of public transport. But I try to make my contribution to the environment.I recycle as much as possible, I turn down the central heating by that extra degree - and having recently purchased a meter to calculate my kilowatt usage from moment to moment - you will find me running from room to room, turning off lights at every opportunity. However it would be hypocritical of me to declare myself a completely friendly resident of planet Earth. 

My interest in the Green Party started when my aunt put herself forward to stand as the Green Party candidate in Brighton Hove some years ago. She stood at a time that the Greens were mentioned in the same breath as CND and before the ecological crisis was even a twinkle in the government’s eye. Despite the attention being garnered by Green Politicians at European level and within other European parliaments, the UK still regarded the Green Party as a bunch of bear swilling, sandal wearing bearded eco-warriors. It was also apparent that funding was non existent, and the chance of any Green candidate retaining their deposit at a General election (currently £500 and at risk unless you gain at least 5% of the vote) was minimal.

Now the times and the agenda have changed. Enter Caroline Lucas. The leader of the Green Party, the current MEP for the South East and now fighting hard to win her seat in Westminster representing Brighton Pavilion. She’s a smart, intelligent and very able woman - who understands just what it is going to take to make the Green Party electable. If there is such a thing as perfect politician, then Caroline embodies it. Named Politician of the Year 2007 in The Observer Newspaper Ethical Awards, she is the complete antithesis of the moat digging, wisteria trimming greedy MP’s that this election will readily see the back of.  Principled and sharp as a tack - she not only publicises the Green policies effectively and concisely, she truly understands them and their implications too, having written and published papers on a wide variety of environmental subjects. The reality of the situation is that Caroline would be on the front bench of any of the main parties, she would be viewed as a valuable addition to any cabinet - but she has chosen to follow her very deeply held convictions and pursue the less well trodden path.

Some 6 weeks ago - I spent a day filming with Caroline Lucas. The results are now being shown on YouTube (URL’s follow at the bottom of this article).  It’s a relationship that goes back several years. In fact my work with the Green Party predates Caroline, when I was introduced to the previous Brighton Pavilion contender for the Greens - Keith Taylor.

Before the 2005 elections I made a handful of 60 second films with Keith. It was clear to me that many prospective politicians found it hard to get an electorate to even recognise them, let alone understand what they represented. Keith wasn’t able to make enough impact to get himself elected simply by canvassing face to face, he needed to be able to get his message across even when he couldn’t be there in person. It was Noel Coward who once said that “Television was really for appearing on and not for watching.” It’s probably more true now than when he said it 50 years ago - and if mainstream TV won’t offer you a platform - the internet will. The advent of sites such as YouTube on the Net means that reaching voters using video is now very simple.  The original films covered several subjects which were at the forefront of the last election, from the War in Iraq to the attempts by Labour and Conservative parties to bolt on green issues to their manifestos once they had realised that global warming was a reality and of due concern to the public.

When the party chose Caroline Lucas to be their first official leader, and subsequently asked her to stand for Brighton Pavilion two years ago, we repeated the sort of short films that we had done with Keith. Now with a real opportunity to become Britain’s first Green MP, we decided that it was time to create some new promotional videos. After discussion with Tracy Dighton, the Green Party’s communications officer, I suggested that perhaps we should show the personal side of Caroline. As Gordon’s huge faux pas on Wednesday revealed, it’s rare to find a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) politician - and Caroline is just that. “How about filming some interviews with the team that work alongside her day in day out?” I asked. “Fantastic” came the reply. Can you seriously imagine Cameron or Brown’s aides offering free rein to a journalist and a camera to ask what they wish about their employer? Although, right now, Sue Nye’s views (the aide that Gordon Brown blamed for letting Gillian Duffy loose on him) would be well worth hearing.

Nick Clegg’s dramatic and very capable appearance in the first UK televised political debates has ably demonstrated that if you give the minority parties equal airtime to the incumbents, then the field is thrown wide open. Those that felt that voting for a minority was a wasted vote were suddenly encouraged to look at the two party system, so deeply entrenched in this country’s political history, in a very different way. Knowing that this option would not be afforded to the Green Party, Caroline has opened her personal thoughts up on camera and shows that you can be genuine and aspire to political success at the same time.

I think the results speak for themselves. Here is someone willing to stand up for what she believes in, with the experience of local government, European government and the only woman to lead a national political party. What isn’t to like? Caroline knows that if you look past the colour of the party you will find a manifesto that does and always has covered every aspect of government from pensions to the health service, education and immigration. In her quieter moments she wishes that perhaps the party name could be changed to “People”. Including Green in your title may indicate the basis of your beliefs, but it doesn’t give you much room to manoeuvre when voters won’t spend time getting to know you and what you stand for.

These films were made to give you a chance to get to know Caroline better. They were not paid for, I gave my time - and such film making skills as I possess  - for free. Nor are they intended to establish any political bias on my part - they weren’t even made to persuade you that you should vote Green, but more that you should definitely vote Caroline Lucas. Westminster desperately needs her intelligence, her experience and her presence, and the planet needs a real voice in the Mother of Parliaments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF30XUrBYNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR9NoeBQlh0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NphGaYlf_kA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALp_APT0BVg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALp_APT0BVg&feature=related

WHY GORDON BROWN CANNOT WIN THE ELECTION

The mass of debate, broadcast and written material offering advice and analysis about the outcome of what appears to be one of the closest fought elections for many years is pointless. There is a much clearer reason why the incumbent First Lord of the Treasury cannot retain his position. It has nothing to do with slick television performances, it is not written in the runes, it cannot be accorded to moats, duck houses, second houses or travelling first class. It is the Law of Seconds.

The Law of Seconds states that anyone who has been second in command of an administration and is then promoted to the premier position will never succeed. It is most clearly demonstrated in the sporting world.

Clive Woodward and Andy Robinson took the England rugby team to unsurpassed heights of success in 2003, winning the World Cup in Australia. In all aspects of the job, beside him on the touchline – Andy was deputy to Clive. He had access to all the inside information, he participated in the decisions, he had seen Woodward’s remarkable and divisively different coaching setup at close quarters. When Woodward resigned before the start of the 2004-05 season, Robinson was named as the acting coach and then confirmed as the England head coach. Surely this was just what was needed? Continuity at the highest level, with a man who knew the squad intimately and understood just how much hard work was needed to win a world cup. Robinson won just nine of his twenty two matches in charge. After two test defeats against South Africa in the Autumn of 2006, he resigned, citing lack of support from the RFU management board, something that his predecessor also defined as the reason for his rather more spontaneous departure. Under Robinson’s administration, England slipped to seventh in the IRB rankings and they lost eight of the last 9 matches, one of the worst runs in their playing history.

Sven Goran Eriksson was seen as the saviour of English football. The passion that had sustained Kevin Keegan at Newcastle had not been repeatable at national level and England were desperate for someone who appeared to be less tactically naïve. A remarkably average performance as a player in the lower Swedish leagues had been translated by Eriksson into a successful managerial career in the Swedish, Portuguese and Italian leagues. On leaving Lazio, he controversially became the first foreign manager of the England team. He swiftly turned around England’s bid for qualification for the 2002 World Cup and will forever remain firmly in the hearts of England fans as the man at the helm when England beat Germany 5-1 in Munich. Eriksson saw them through two world cups and Euro 2004. But by 2006 he was making as many headlines on the front of the tabloids as he was on the back. He was duped into thinking that an Arab Sheikh wanted him to manage Aston Villa in a News of the World sting, had an affair with former TV-am weather girl and fellow Swede Ulrika Jonsson as well as his secretary at the FA Faria Alam. It was time for a change and after a protracted and drawn out process during which the FA flirted with Luiz Felipe Scolari, Sam Allardyce, and Martin O’Neill to name but a few, the job was given to Steve McClaren – Eriksson’s deputy.

Eriksson’s record on the field was sadly blighted by his subsequent cartoon like personal life – but there was no doubt that McClaren would have observed a man who despite his personal failings, knew what was required to get a National team to perform. McClaren took over in 2006, choosing former England manager Terry Venables as his assistant. After the comedic appointment process, the papers nicknamed him “Second Choice Steve”. McClaren immediately hired Max Clifford to manage the media and you don’t involve Max unless you’re expecting a bumpy ride. He dropped the experienced players such as Beckham and Campbell and allowed the team to be on first name terms with him and the coaching staff. Between October 2006 and March 2007, England scored just one goal in five matches. A poor win against footballing minnows Andorra resulted in McClaren walking out of the press conference after two minutes stating “Gentlemen, if you want to write whatever you want to write, you can write it because that is all I am going to say to you.” England were then fourth in the qualification group for Euro 2008. Despite recalling Beckham – England’s fate was taken out of their hands after losing to Russia. A final loss against Croatia in November 2007 meant that England did not qualify for a major tournament for the first time in 14 years and a nation turned to vilifying McClaren. The shortest tenure of any England manager to date, McClaren was perhaps the most criticised manager by the press, even eclipsing Graham Taylor by some accounts. After protecting himself from the rain in that final match he was dubbed “The Wally with the Brolly” by The Daily Mail. Enough said.

We can turn to a third sport for our final Law of Seconds example. Despite Duncan Fletcher’s Ashes series win that united the Nation to celebrate – even though many celebrating had little idea of the rules of the game – he had come under pressure when the Ashes were returned to Australia after a lacklustre England display in 2006 and a subsequent poor performance in the World Cup. Peter Moores coaching success at County level took Sussex from the 2nd division in 2000 to winning the premier title in 2003, the first time in their history that they had ever won the Championship. The ECB, recognising these skills took Moores under their wing and appointed him as an England A coach. Moores established himself as a more than capable replacement for Rod Marsh as the director of the ECB’s academy in 2005 and when Duncan Fletcher’s reign ended in 2007, it came as no surprise that a man already so involved with the England Cricket setup should be appointed in his place.

While it could be argued that Matthew Maynard wore the official title of deputy to Fletcher, it is generally agreed that the more valuable and prestigious job involves heading up the ECB academy. The point was proven when Moores was handed the job of England coach without so much as a formal recruitment process. It was clear to the committee that Moores spoke their language and was the man for the job.

Moores initial selections were bold, bringing in Matt Prior and Ryan Sidebottom for a tour of the West Indies. But despite his knowledge of the new talent that he had helped rise to the top, it wasn’t enough to repeat his success with Sussex. England lost their first home test series in six years against India and were then beaten by Sri Lanka. Another series loss to South Africa at home and the cracks were becoming clear. This wasn’t just a coaching problem, it was also personal. Moores rarely saw eye to eye with rising star Kevin Pietersen, and when Pietersen was appointed captain in 2008, the relationship became unsustainable. Emergency meetings were held and rumour was rife. Pietersen added fuel to the flames of Moores demise by refusing to deny anything the newspapers suggested. The ECB had no choice but to remove him as coach on the 7th January 2009 and in an unexpected double whammy, Pietersen resigned as captain at the same time. By June the team was a far happier place for Moores’ absence. His nemesis and former captain announced that “The team wasn't happy, things weren't right, and England cricket was going nowhere, but I believe in the last six months the team has made big progress before a huge, huge series against Australia. I'm very happy, and everyone's happy.”

The Law of Seconds can strike at any time regardless of previous track record or experience. It heeds not prestige, industry or activity. The facts point the way ahead for those that are unelected, but simply chosen to succeed as if their predecessor’s brilliance will rub off on them. Whether it is a desire to prove their own skills and ability, in contrast to those that they have watched so closely and advised alongside, it is impossible to say. The unanswered question remains, that if they thought that their team was being run so badly that they should do it differently when they came to power, why did they sit in silence on the touchline?

As a voter, don’t peruse manifestos or ponder over gold sold at a loss, ruined pensions or illegal wars, simply look at the position of a man who sat at his leader’s right hand side throughout his tenure, champing at the bit to be given his turn. He was handed the reins in a transfer of power without recourse to those that he represents. He is therefore beholden to the Law of Seconds. In such a position, it would be an unwise man who failed to book a removals firm for May7th.

©Jon Briggs 2010