I didn't see Britain's triumphs in the Olympic rowing eights. I listened to the radio commentary, in the company of hundreds of others, by the side of another rowing lake. Doing my bit as the proud dad of an aspiring - and genuinely promising - young rower.
Attention was understandably divided at the Peterborough Regatta. And there was understandable pleasure there at the nation's successes in Rio. But despite the personal interest, I have a degree of misgiving too.
Rowing is the most heavily funded of all British Olympic sports. That cash isn't the only reason for GB success on the water, but it's a big factor. You only have to see how the overall medal tally has increased at each Games since National Lottery funding began in 1994 to realise that.
The money follows success - more medals means more cash. And success follows the money - more cash, more medals.
Which is great for rowing. But how about other sports - those which start out less privileged?
Basketball and table tennis, games ordinary kids can take up at school, lost all their funding after 2012. Badminton had its share of the cake cut while equestrianism was awarded a bigger helping. Sailing is among the best-funded sports.
Not all young rowers, sailors or show-jumpers start out loaded. We're not rich. But we're not poor either - though we must be among the poorest of the rowing crowd. I'd estimate the private-school proportion is about the same (50 per cent) as it is at Oxbridge, if not a little higher.
There was some sniping in 2012 about the Olympics just being posh games for posh people. That wasn't entirely justified. But there was a sliver of truth there. A sliver that becomes a wedge when charity goes to the haves, not the have-nots.
Labour's best hope lies with Corbyn's successor
I received an appreciative email from an unexpected quarter after I wrote here and in the Eastern Daily Press about Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour pains. It came from John McDonnell, Corbyn's closest ally and the man I suspect is the real brains at the head of the party. And it was no automated round-robin message, either. It began: "My brother lives in Norfolk and sent me a copy of your article."
Writing at 1.30am, the Shadow Chancellor applauded me for what he called "one of the more thoughtful and thought provoking pieces written in recent weeks about the plight of the Labour Party".
Which was very kind of him. But it also says something rather sad that he took that time and trouble.
Of course I'm glad that people in the corridors of powers - or at least in the side-corridors - read my work and take it seriously. Of course I'm flattered by McDonnell's approval. But it's a shocking thought that my piece should have stood out from the crowd simply by being unbiased.
The supposedly friendly fire directed Corbyn's way has hardly lessened, and the tabloid vitriol remains as acid as ever in the three weeks since I wrote it. No doubt we can expect plenty more of the same all the way to the close of the party's leadership election on September 21.
And no doubt, as I said before, Corbyn will win that election. Not simply despite all the unjustified insults thrown his way, but partly because of them.
The attacks on him have been so intense and so unpleasant, so manifestly unfair, they will have made his supporters in the party dig their heels in. Not all of them, but surely enough to put the outcome beyond reasonable doubt.
And here, where the ironies really begin, I must say something John McDonnell will not like.
Jeremy Corbyn really isn't a great leader. Not as terrible as so many say, but not terribly good either. Not as good, I'd venture, as McDonnell himself might have been.
I admire Corbyn's politics - in the sense of policies, not his playing of the politics game. He wouldn't be in the hole he's in today if he was any good at playing that discreditable game. There is a reason he has spent almost all his career in back-bench obscurity.
He rarely says anything I fundamentally disagree with. I dearly wish the country was led by someone with his integrity, his principles, his humanity, his concern for people rather than corporations, for ordinary people ahead of rich ones.
But to lead effectively, that someone would have to be someone tougher, quicker on their feet, and a much better manager of people than Corbyn has so far shown himself to be. Probably it would be someone younger.
Labour's best hope - and the country's - is that by the time the next General Election comes round, Corbyn will quietly and with due dignity have handed the baton on to that person, whoever it might be.
One big irony is that it might have been Owen Smith. If he hadn't effectively ruled himself out by standing against Corbyn now.
Attention was understandably divided at the Peterborough Regatta. And there was understandable pleasure there at the nation's successes in Rio. But despite the personal interest, I have a degree of misgiving too.
Rowing is the most heavily funded of all British Olympic sports. That cash isn't the only reason for GB success on the water, but it's a big factor. You only have to see how the overall medal tally has increased at each Games since National Lottery funding began in 1994 to realise that.
The money follows success - more medals means more cash. And success follows the money - more cash, more medals.
Which is great for rowing. But how about other sports - those which start out less privileged?
Basketball and table tennis, games ordinary kids can take up at school, lost all their funding after 2012. Badminton had its share of the cake cut while equestrianism was awarded a bigger helping. Sailing is among the best-funded sports.
Not all young rowers, sailors or show-jumpers start out loaded. We're not rich. But we're not poor either - though we must be among the poorest of the rowing crowd. I'd estimate the private-school proportion is about the same (50 per cent) as it is at Oxbridge, if not a little higher.
There was some sniping in 2012 about the Olympics just being posh games for posh people. That wasn't entirely justified. But there was a sliver of truth there. A sliver that becomes a wedge when charity goes to the haves, not the have-nots.
Labour's best hope lies with Corbyn's successor
I received an appreciative email from an unexpected quarter after I wrote here and in the Eastern Daily Press about Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour pains. It came from John McDonnell, Corbyn's closest ally and the man I suspect is the real brains at the head of the party. And it was no automated round-robin message, either. It began: "My brother lives in Norfolk and sent me a copy of your article."
Writing at 1.30am, the Shadow Chancellor applauded me for what he called "one of the more thoughtful and thought provoking pieces written in recent weeks about the plight of the Labour Party".
Which was very kind of him. But it also says something rather sad that he took that time and trouble.
Of course I'm glad that people in the corridors of powers - or at least in the side-corridors - read my work and take it seriously. Of course I'm flattered by McDonnell's approval. But it's a shocking thought that my piece should have stood out from the crowd simply by being unbiased.
The supposedly friendly fire directed Corbyn's way has hardly lessened, and the tabloid vitriol remains as acid as ever in the three weeks since I wrote it. No doubt we can expect plenty more of the same all the way to the close of the party's leadership election on September 21.
And no doubt, as I said before, Corbyn will win that election. Not simply despite all the unjustified insults thrown his way, but partly because of them.
The attacks on him have been so intense and so unpleasant, so manifestly unfair, they will have made his supporters in the party dig their heels in. Not all of them, but surely enough to put the outcome beyond reasonable doubt.
And here, where the ironies really begin, I must say something John McDonnell will not like.
Jeremy Corbyn really isn't a great leader. Not as terrible as so many say, but not terribly good either. Not as good, I'd venture, as McDonnell himself might have been.
I admire Corbyn's politics - in the sense of policies, not his playing of the politics game. He wouldn't be in the hole he's in today if he was any good at playing that discreditable game. There is a reason he has spent almost all his career in back-bench obscurity.
He rarely says anything I fundamentally disagree with. I dearly wish the country was led by someone with his integrity, his principles, his humanity, his concern for people rather than corporations, for ordinary people ahead of rich ones.
But to lead effectively, that someone would have to be someone tougher, quicker on their feet, and a much better manager of people than Corbyn has so far shown himself to be. Probably it would be someone younger.
Labour's best hope - and the country's - is that by the time the next General Election comes round, Corbyn will quietly and with due dignity have handed the baton on to that person, whoever it might be.
One big irony is that it might have been Owen Smith. If he hadn't effectively ruled himself out by standing against Corbyn now.
RSS Feed