Voyeurism of the rich, untalented and unjustifiably famous

With the digital age and the accompanying proliferation of social media, we’ve seen the cult of the celebrity expand. Media outlets such as E!, TMZ and a plethora of celebrity bloggers, have met an increasing demand for celebrity news with often sensationalist but digestible entertainment. However, with this, the scope of who constitutes a celebrity has also broadened. Where celebrity status previously referred to those whose fame was derived from their talent or skill within areas such as entertainment or sport, an apparent skill set of any kind is increasingly less of a prerequisite. Rather, these individuals have been allowed to rise to the heights of celebrity in making a career of fame derived from… well, nothing.

With the rise of reality television, television audiences have been exposed to the goldfish bowl of on-air people watching. With what initially started with shows like The Real World and Big Brother, the genre offered an intriguing premise for shows of social and behavioural observation and analysis. Although they quickly created celebrities of their respective casts and began to shape the world of reality television. The notion of watching a show that wasn’t actually about anything but insignificant people’s lives was then taken further. What if we watched people whose lives were so farfetched and materialistically distanced from our own, that our intrigue is instead moved to the ostentatiousness of their lives? This would be in spite of how banal their lives and personalities might actually be once stripped away of the so-called glamour of what appeared to be their reality. And with that, a cornucopia of such shows were born.

The Hills, The Real Housewives of… franchise, The Only Way is Essex, Made in Chelsea and arguably the biggest, Keeping up With the Kardashians, and their various spinoffs, have all followed the same template. Watching rich people who appear to spend their days socialising at high-end establishments, shopping and living lives that would appear to be unattainable for most. It hardly sounds like riveting television but it’s a hugely successful format that doesn’t look like it’s ready to disappear just yet. Consequently, we’ve created celebrities out of individuals who already have the money; we’ve just given them the fame to boot. But why? Are they not just simple players in a trite observation? Why have these people gained our attention and our acclaim for effectively not doing anything remotely notable?

Consider the Kardashians. Hugely popular, they have converted their celebrity into spinoff shows, clothing lines and a variety of merchandise. Although what is their talent? Media personality Charlamagne tha God rightly said that the Kardashians’ talent is being able to keep our attention. And I’d be inclined to agree. Kim, Khloe and Kourtney are certainly easy on the eye but that should only get one so far without any discernible talent. Kim, the most famous of the Kardashian sisters, is known more for her sex tape with Ray J than the fact that her father was on OJ Simpson’s legal team or that her stepfather was an Olympic athlete. The latter shouldn’t be reasons for her celebrity status either. But the fact that even they are overlooked when awarding her and her sisters with their fame, demonstrates just how baseless the Kardashian family’s celebrity status actually is. Nonetheless, they are instantly recognisable and international household names.

The Kardashians are also, at face value, not the sharpest tools in the box (I say at face value as they’re obviously savvy enough to have built a brand based on no talent so perhaps it’s more fool me). I’ve watched their show aghast with their foolishness and bizarre life decisions. Furthermore, there seems to be a trend of stupidity as the hallmarks of personalities within said shows.

In his Never Scared show, Chris Rock spoke of magician David Blaine’s then recent ‘challenge’ to go without food for 44 days while living in a suspended perspex box. In referring to Blaine’s efforts, Rock mockingly poses the rhetorical question “are we so desperate that we fall for a trick-less magician?” Similarly, have we become so thirsty for entertainment that we’ve effectively reduced ourselves to people watching of morons? It would appear so.

The rationale for our attraction to this new type of celebrity is not immediately apparent. Could it be escapism to watch uncomplicated lives that appear to be perfect without the stresses of everyday life? Conversely, perhaps we see these individuals as a reflection of our own materialistic aspirations but without the graft and hard work in achieving it. Essentially, if we were to be gifted with the fame, the money and success, without any effort whatsoever, our lives would likely mirror theirs. It’s a departure from the traditional notion of a celebrity where to achieve the fame, a significant talent and accompanying work ethic would be required. As a result, the lives of the Kardashians et al represent a utopia of the highs without the lows of the celebrity lifestyle. In addition, there is also a fascination with the lives of others that are so far removed from our own.

This fascination has led to shows that seek to show the contrast of how the rich live against our own lives. Why are we therefore entertaining projections of lives that indirectly and audaciously seek to belittle ours as inadequate because they do not live up to the standards we see on screen?

Made in Chelsea follows a group of rich twentysomethings residing and socialising amidst juvenile ‘he said, she said’ squabbles in the expensive London area of Chelsea and its wider vicinity. It epitomises the images of rich people who show no sign of having worked for their lifestyles or any intention of doing so. There’s also a somewhat incestuous circle of romantic liaisons within the same circle of friends. Had this been a programme about the working classes, they’d all surely be branded as highly promiscuous for sleeping their way through the friendship group and workshy for not having a job. Though with money and their social class, the cast of Made in Chelsea are free of judgement. Indeed, aside from seeking to show its audience how glamourous the lives of the cast are, it also exudes class prejudice. Yet it’s given a warm reception as it dumps on the lives of the very people who comprise its audience.

Being a celebrity is no longer defined as it once was. Airtime is freely given to those without a backstory or a talent and society seemingly endorses this. Nevertheless, it’s another erroneous measure of success that society is placing upon itself in putting such individuals on the pedestal once reserved for celebrities. For many, the Kardashians et al represent a lifestyle of success and glamour achieved through nothing but privilege and status. And as for celebrities in the traditional sense of the word, with trifling attributes such as talent, they’ve been relegated to make way for the illogical obsession of those who really don’t deserve celebrity status at all.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao II - the only fight that makes sense for Mayweather

With the exception of Manny Pacquiao, the consensus of his fight with Floyd Mayweather was that the judges were right to award Mayweather the W. Even with Pacquiao's seemingly retrospective complaint of a shoulder injury (which he failed to disclose beforehand), there wasn't any controversy surrounding the result. While I expected Pacquiao's work rate to be higher, I still predicted a chess-like victory for Mayweather (admittedly I thought it would be via a split rather than unanimous decision). Overall, it was a clear win for Mayweather, successfully taking him to 48-0.

So what now for Money? Mayweather has one more fight under his contract with Showtime after which he's claimed he'll retire. But of more interest is who his 49th opponent will be. And there is no one other than Pacquiao who makes sense for Mayweather to fight in what would be a money-spinner (no pun intended) rematch.

Mayweather initially seemed open to the idea of a rematch but he’s since gone back on that, claiming he has no interest on account of Pacquiao using his shoulder injury as an excuse for defeat and being a sore loser. Nevertheless, despite his utterances (which I suspect could just be hyperbole), a rematch is the sensible route for Mayweather.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao was billed as the fight of our generation. It was never going to be akin to the ferocious, epic battle that was Hagler vs Hearns – arguably the most exhilarating three rounds in contemporary boxing history. Rather, it was always going to be a defensive masterclass from Mayweather that would be appreciated by boxing purists but perhaps leaving more casual fans with their thirst for a legendary barnstormer unquenched. Though would that stop the rematch generating huge amounts of revenue? Absolutely not.

Commercially and for credibility, Mayweather has few options if he wants another huge fight. Imagine the press conference for a subsequent fight that isn't against Pacquiao. Mayweather's sat at the dais flanked by his father/trainer Floyd Mayweather Sr and Leonard Ellerbe. Then, the inevitable question from a journalist: "is this fight harder than your fight with Pacquiao?". Whatever his response, Mayweather will know the answer is no. Fighting a lesser opponent for his swansong fight provides little credibility for Mayweather and will merely add to the common assertion that he cherry picks his opponents to fight on his terms when and how it suits him. That isn't to say there aren't top draw opponents for Mayweather as there are. Nonetheless, if there's a risk they might take his '0', he'll undoubtedly give them a wide berth.

Amir Khan would be a big name opponent who Mayweather could KO with his reckless defence when drawn into a scrap and on account of him being notoriously chinny. Although his speed could cause Mayweather manageable yet unwanted problems. Despite being solidly legitimate opponents, Kell Brook and Keith Thurman aren't quite big enough names internationally and beyond boxing circles. And neither is another mooted fighter, Gennady Golovkin (it's a match-up I find highly unlikely). In the case of the latter, Mayweather would only take that fight if GGG dropped to a disadvantageous catch weight and even then GGG would be an incredibly dangerous opponent which we know Mayweather is averse to. Who else provides a fight that provides credibility and a reduced risk (in the knowledge that he’s already defeated him)? Only Pacquiao himself. Furthermore, he also provides the most commercially sensible option which is a huge factor for Mayweather.

Throughout his career, Mayweather has earned gargantuan amounts of money from his fights; none more so than his fight against Pacquiao. Mayweather has an often crass penchant for money that gave rise to his moniker ‘Money’ and his spending habits match that. After his return to the sport in 2009 following his ‘retirement’, it was rumoured that Mayweather had racked up huge gambling debts and by his own admission, he has a penchant to 'bet heavy' on sports. Like any gambler, he’s sustained some loses – and Mayweather’s gambling loses aren’t going to be insignificant with the way he gambles. After all, that wouldn’t be The Money Team way.

Based on his ostentatious and extravagant spending, and his gambling to boot, Mayweather needs to maximise his income before retirement. Beyond boxing, he has no apparent revenue streams that even come close to his fight income. Mayweather Promotions, like many vanity promotion outfits that went before them, may struggle to garner the same attention once Mayweather has retired. Despite his huge popularity amongst boxing fans, Mayweather’s history of domestic violence and his crass materialism doesn’t make him an obvious choice for big brand family friendly endorsements either. And given his spending habits, prudence seemingly isn’t an attribute he possesses either.

Mayweather needs to decelerate his haemorrhaging of cash to at least stave off financial problems in retirement. And if Mayweather’s final fight in his contract with Showtime will indeed be his final fight, he therefore needs an epic payday. Commercially, no fight can top his fight with Pacquiao.

Admittedly, a rematch wouldn’t bring much new to the table in terms of the fight and probably the result. Nor would it necessarily generate the same levels of interest given the first fight was a masterclass rather than a tear-up. But any other fight for both Mayweather and Pacquiao would be a retrograde step in terms of opponent and revenue.

Pacquiao recently had his surgery for his shoulder injury and is reported to be out of the ring until mid-2016. By then, he will not have fought for the best part of a year and may want a warm up fight to lose any ring rust. That’d mean a fight with Mayweather might not be for up to 18 months and Mayweather may not be willing to wait that long. However, if Mayweather fights on, a rematch with Pacquiao is the fight that makes the most sense before he finally hangs up his gloves.

How did that happen and what next? A reflection on the general election result

In a result that few, if any, foresaw, the Conservatives won the 2015 general election with a majority of 12 seats. David Cameron will now remain as Prime Minister and form a Conservative government, free of constraints and cabinet ministers from a coalition partner. It’s a result that even Cameron would not have envisaged prior to the exit polls.

When the exit polls suggested a Conservative majority was possible, I was initially incredulous – so was Lord Ashdown. Although as the night progressed, what I, the pollsters and others had predicted of a hung parliament became less and less likely. By the morning, it become apparent that the Conservatives would form a government with a majority.

Labour took a drubbing in Scotland and elsewhere their successes were modest. However, it was the Liberal Democrats who took an absolute shellacking with high profile scalps such as Vince Cable. Given their reneging on key policies such as the increase of tuition fees, and their alliance in what initially seemed an unnatural coalition partner with the Conservatives, the opprobrium they received was always likely to manifest itself in the election result. Consequently, they have effectively been decimated in the British political landscape. As a result, we now have a government void of any representation from the centre-left and the equality and fairness that it can espouse.

I am buried in disappointment with the result. Not because Labour did not win a majority or were unable to form a coalition. Or even because I had to see Gideon’s smug face lined with glee at the prospect of making the rich richer and the poor even poorer. Instead, my disappointment is because of what a Conservative government represents for the next five years. Five years of a rejection of egalitarianism in favour of the interests of the elite. Five years of the financial sector being brazenly allowed to thrive in making gargantuan profits without any ethics and with aggressive tax avoidance (and in some cases probably tax evasion) as they circumvent or merely ignore existing regulation and compliance. After all, they are effectively the paymasters of the Conservative Party. Five years of continued and heightened demonisation of the working class, public sector and those in receipt of welfare out of need. Five years of wealth being further concentrated in the hands of the privileged few while food banks continue to be a regrettable feature of the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century.

These are not five years that will be built on fairness and equality or compassion and preservation of valuable public services. Yet one can only assume that is what those who voted for the Conservatives sought. Needless to say, this is why my disappointment and disillusionment is extended to the British electorate who voted Tory but also to those who succumbed to their apathy and declined to vote. Though when it came to the Labour Party being deemed an alternative to the Conservatives, perhaps the writing was always on the wall.

The Labour Party led by Ed Milliband simply weren’t seen as a credible party of government with a credible leader as potential prime minister. In a recent post I wrote of the opportunity for Labour to present itself as such being there to be seized yet they had failed to do so for the past five years in opposition. And I was seemingly correct. The electorate didn’t see Labour as worthy of their vote. So much so that many felt the Conservatives, with all their history, were a safer bet. It shows what a low opinion many of electorate actually had of Labour before casting their vote. And that is a painful reality that the Labour Party needs to accept and consider as it undertakes some soul-searching and seeks to rebuild and elect a new leader following Ed Milliband’s resignation.

The electorate, as in any democracy, is of course responsible for the result. And the electorate in this election simply hasn’t held the views I and others thought it might do after five years of austerity. Those five years may just have been a glimpse of what the Conservatives have in store for us now that they have a majority.

From the outset of the previous Parliament, the Conservatives have preached their vilification of the public sector, the working class and lambasted the least fortunate for their reliance on the state and their unfortunate circumstances that typically aren’t by choice. They’ve also told anyone who will listen that the financial crisis, and anything else from the death of Dumbledore to the unattainability of world peace, was caused by the previous Labour government.

To think the financial crisis was caused by the Labour Party is idiotic and uninformed. Only an ignorant fool would believe that and blindly accept it from the right wing media or from equally ill-advised individuals around them. But it’s the adoption of the Conservative Party’s rhetoric of besmirching and often ridiculing the most vulnerable that is telling. It suggests a lack of compassion and empathy that has sadly risen to the surface as a feature of contemporary Britain. Perhaps the election result worryingly tells us more about British society and attitudes than the state of British politics.

It’s not clear if the electorate didn’t want an alternative from the Conservative Party’s message of austerity or if they simply didn’t recognise that the Labour Party was offering one. I suspect it was a case of both. In the instance of the former, I wrote about society’s disinclination to revolt due to jadedness and perhaps this is another example of this being the case. Conversely, a Conservative government, with their brand of harsh austerity and a disregard for everyone but the most privileged may just bring about the inspired response that is needed. Indeed, hopefully the Bullingdon boys shan’t have the last laugh at our expense.

History has shown us what Conservative governments present. Privatisation, disdain for public services, ideologically driven and unwieldy education policy that isn’t to the betterment of children, polarised wealth and a disregard for those in need (not want) of welfare are just some of the hallmarks of the Conservatives. Just how many we shall see over the course of the parliament remains to be seen. They have a slim majority which could hamper their efforts in some instances but they’ll certainly do their best in shaping the country to benefit the privileged few.

As for those who don’t comprise the privileged demographic that benefit from Conservative policies but nonetheless felt the Conservatives were the party for them, they may well soon find that their support will not be reciprocated as they had hoped.

The measure of success

One of my closest friends was recently promoted to a senior position at his job. I can certainly attest to his stakhanovite work ethic and commitment that propelled him to his new post. Nevertheless, he recalled how not working in a white collar industry, which may have been deemed a natural progression following his undergraduate degree, wasn’t always perceived with universal favour by those around him. Nonetheless, working within his field he found himself in an industry where he was able to apply himself and help and motivate others around him. Furthermore, enjoying a job he’s also good at, he eventually realised he’d found his niche and he holds no regard for the views of those who felt his choice of employment didn’t conform to their ideal of a successful career. Not to mention, his career ascent has undoubtedly justified his decision and refuted that of others. It’s a testament to his conviction in his own pursuit of happiness that hasn’t been side-tracked by the views of others.

For most, that disregard of society’s validation of their success does not come easy. On the contrary, they spend their lives chasing it and it characterises their decisions and their life’s direction. Often, that has consequences of suppressed unhappiness and discontent for many as they seek acceptance and endorsement based on society’s principles rather than their own. However, given our perception of our achievements should be subjective, how and why have so many people been driven to gauge this against society’s measure rather than their own?

Similarly to many of my peers, I was the first within my family to attend university. We typically read traditionally academic subjects and our families were undoubtedly proud of us achieving a milestone that hadn’t been achieved in generations before us. That pride inadvertently soon became pressure. And as we neared graduation, we felt our next logical step was a job within a field that seemingly complemented our higher education and what our families and society anticipated. What we didn’t appreciate, and weren’t afforded the perspective of, was what would bring us fulfilment and job satisfaction. The consideration of going into a field where our work would be meaningful and enjoyable was ashamedly secondary to what might be a job that ticked superficial boxes of success. This view of success was typically manifested by the white collar, corporate image which years later I realised in no way guaranteed fulfilment and for some, actual misery.

Sadly, the impact of society’s measure of success upon us is even more prevalent in the most personal aspects of our lives. We feel the need to adhere to society’s modus operandi. And should we not conform to that, we’re left feeling a failure. In a previous post, I wrote about the Asian pursuit of marriage and the feeling of being compelled to find a partner particularly once one has hit a certain age. Of course, this isn’t exclusive to Asians and many cultures and individuals feel that marriage is an indicator of one’s personal success. But marriage isn’t a prerequisite for one to feel complete as an individual and it should be a personal choice. Yet society has managed to infiltrate that choice for many. Years ago at her younger brother’s wedding, my own partner was told by an older family friend that “it didn’t look good” and was “embarrassing” that her brother was now married but she was still unmarried. Clearly her family ‘friend’ is incredibly ignorant but he’s a vessel of society’s judgement that is placed upon us.

I’ve seen peers who have thrown themselves into so-called relationships with the first person that comes along because they’ve hit or are approaching 30 and they feel marriage is the making of a person. Furthermore, they remain in denial of their so-called relationship being contrived and prefiguring failure before it’s even started. Instead, it’s fast tracked to a speedy engagement because it’s what others around them seem to be doing and they feel compelled to follow suit in seeking a hollow notion of cultural achievement. Similarly, women are made to feel that a lack of maternal instinct portrays them as an incomplete woman (although I recently read a selection of brilliant and valid ripostes to that from a number of women in the public eye). It’s a sad and unfair reality that we’re able to be made to feel a failure or incomplete by an objective gauge that’s foisted upon us by society.

The impact of this on mental health is astounding though seemingly ignored. We are effectively determining how we feel about ourselves based on an indicator that isn’t even our own. And the extent to how damaging this is can have reach fatal consequences.

In an age where we are preoccupied with our perception by others, the barometer of success is perpetuated. Social media provides a looking glass through which we are judged not by our own criteria but that of ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ who too are subject to the ideals society has foisted upon them. Social media has provided another tool by which we project the aspirations and lives of others as a vehicle for our own alleged success that often isn’t attained. Internally, we may therefore feel empty and despondent at not fulfilling what we have been wired to accept as the standards we are expected to achieve.

South Korea has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world. It’s a society where personal and family honour is held high. Many suicides in South Korea are therefore often attributed to the respective individuals perceiving themselves as failures and bringing shame upon themselves or their families in the process. The aforementioned are common themes for suicide anywhere. Though as a society, we’ve become so driven by superficial measures of success that in some instances it can drive people to take their own lives.

To feel a failure according to notions set by others surely isn’t right. Alas, it’s become the status quo that has forced many people to struggle with in validating their own lives to themselves let alone society.

So many of us have become conditioned to compare our achievements and happiness by standards dictated by society rather than ourselves. It’s a culture built upon propagating a message that serves to endorse the choices and lives of others with diminishing regard for ourselves. Cultures and societies are built upon these principles but they are crippling the self-esteem and realisation of self-worth amongst so many. Indeed, it’s a sad truth that in many cases, our respective successes are built upon little more than perpetual and damaging lies to ourselves and those around us.

Happiness and success, and the path to which they are sought, should be subjective. But instead they are determined by the expectations of others that are merely projections of what society has deemed valid. It can take great conviction to pursue a course that goes against the status quo of society. Although as my friend can attest, when it is, it’s the measure of success that we should all aim to pursue.

How has the coalition government managed to last a full term?

With the UK general election on 7 May 2015, the coalition will have served a full term. However, subsequent to the last election and the coalition being formed, I, like many, doubted it would last. In fact, I was sure of it. Fast forward five years and I need to eat a slice of humble pie as the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats managed to make their relationship of convenience work when many said it'd never last. But how did they manage it?

Prior to and during this Parliament, the signs have been there for the wheels to fall off the coalition. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats have certainly been the abused partner in a relationship that they've been determined to make work no matter how much they're derided by the Conservatives. Many would opine that to be a case of more fool them as the Liberal Democrat vote is likely to take a shellacking in this election. Yet they're arguably the glue that held the coalition together.

The referendum on AV (alternative vote) was a stipulation of the coalition put forward by the Liberal Democrats but was a compromise for the Liberal Democrats from their preference for proportional representation. Then, to rub salt in the wound, the referendum campaign saw the Conservatives mock their coalition partners for their pursuit of a more equitable distribution of seats before, during and after. During the campaign, Tory rhetoric became even more akin to a private school playground than it usually is. David Cameron further resembled the school yard bully, with his Bullingdon goons in the background mocking and jeering Nick Clegg, as if he was about to give him a wedgie while his good chum Gideon captured it on his phone and uploaded it to a social network. No wonder the coalition gave rise to the ‘Nick Clegg looking sad’ photos.

Similarly, the tuition fee hike saw another dark period for the Liberal Democrats during the coalition as they supported a move that went directly against one of their own manifesto promises. Angry protests from students, a sizeable bloc of the Liberal Democrat vote, should have told them it might not be the relationship for them. Though perhaps by then the damage was done and Nick Clegg sought to make the best of a bad situation by opting to stay put for the long haul until 2015.

Despite the hallmarks of a failed relationship, the persistence of the Liberal Democrats wasn't the only factor that preserved the coalition for a full parliament. And in retrospect, perhaps I and others were too hasty to sound the death knell for the coalition from the get-go.

Prior to the 2010 election, many commentators foresaw a hung parliament but that can be traced back to Tony Blair's resignation as Labour party leader and Prime Minister. Regardless of his transgressions over Iraq and his blinkered attempts to preserve the special relationship by supporting President Bush, it's difficult to argue that Blair didn't have the look and feel of a Prime Minister. Statesmen-like and gifted with a special quality, Blair never looked as if he was punching above his weight in office. That's putting aside any personal views of him. The same went for Margaret Thatcher, whose politics, ideology and policies certainly weren't in line with mine. She had the same prime ministerial aura about her. That meant the electorate saw her as such and duly voted for the Conservatives – just as in 1997 they voted for Labour in seeking Blair as their Prime Minister. He and the Labour Party were ready to govern and it was apparent to the electorate.

Though since Blair, no party leader from any party has had that special quality about them. To lead a party and to show potential to govern a country requires a special quality that isn't always tangible. But during the 2010 election, it was absent from all three party leaders.

Without being presented with a leader who has that special quality, the electorate has no credible alternative from the status quo and it’s little surprise that widespread public pressure against the coalition hasn’t been seen. If the coalition ran aground, what was the alternative? There wasn't one so the electorate settled for what they perceived to be the best of a mediocre situation.

A further argument for the coalition’s success has been voter apathy. As voter apathy has increased in recent years, it’s been compounded by a perception of all politicians and political parties being a homogeneous group. Consequently, the electorate hasn’t really had the motivation to push for a change in government let alone voice their desire for one.

Similarly to the public not perceiving any leader as befitting of the role of Prime Minister, Labour, as the main opposition party, hasn’t shown itself as ready to govern effectively, and more importantly differently, either. The Conservative-led coalition government has been responsible for some of the least egalitarian social and economic policies since Thatcher. Therefore the electorate, the wider public and the political landscape is arguably ripe for a refreshing brand of politics that seeks to facilitate a fairer society. The platform is there for Labour to showcase an alternative. But alas, they’ve struggled to rise to the challenge and they seemingly lack the chutzpah to dare to be different in promoting a new political agenda.

The opportunity has been there for Labour to seize over the last five years of being in opposition. Subsequent to the financial crisis, a strong voice articulating the frustrations, anger and solutions to the problems caused by the financial sector has been lacking from mainstream politics (the financial sector is also home to some of the Conservative party’s biggest donors, essentially bankrolling polices that serve their own interests while they continue with their transgressions). We’re also in the midst of a housing crisis where there is an extreme paucity of affordable and social housing. Meanwhile, the middle classes are in receipt of £9 billion of housing benefit as they swell the buy-to-let to let housing market and take advantage of low-income private renters. Now is the time for Labour or indeed any party to show there is another way but for the past five years it sadly hasn’t been forthcoming. Hence the coalition has managed to find its way to 2015 without any major mishaps due to a lack of credible alternatives.

So what of 7 May? I expect another hung parliament, probably with a confidence and supply arrangement instead of a formal coalition. Although regardless of the arrangement, unless there’s a meaningful shift in what the parties are able to offer in differentiating themselves from each other, this election will see the continued hiatus or indeed the end of the British two-party political system. If so, British politics could be experiencing political déjà vu in another five years.

Changing of the rap guard - how America no longer produces the best rappers

Despite the historical rivalry between Queens and the Bronx over the birthplace of rap being their respective boroughs, it cannot be argued against that New York City is where rap music was born and that rap is originally an American genre of music.

Yet like many traditional American spheres of dominance, there's been a shift in where the best rap music can be found. And it isn't America anymore. American rappers continue to dominate the commercial markets and for many, are still seen as vessels of 'real' hip hop. But when you critique and compare their product with that of other territories, it's increasingly substandard and seems to be heading further in that direction. Although for such a relatively young genre, why hasn't America been able to hold onto its status in producing the best rap music for longer?

Just as rap music spread beyond New York and throughout America, it subsequently became an American export. English speaking territories such as the UK initially adopted this with faux American accents and accompanying American vernacular. Naturally, their product was therefore always going to be inferior to the genuine article that was being produced stateside. Furthermore, in America, ever increasing budgets and accompanying glamour brought rap music further to a mainstream audience. However, that changed with artists like the London Posse who sought to bring a quintessential British sound to hip hop. Faux American accents and colloquialisms were ditched in exchange for that of the working class British. Consequently, the UK had a home-grown hip hop sound that it could be proud of. Alas, it was still playing second fiddle to the more polished and certainly more commercial American offerings.

In non-English speaking territories, home-grown rappers fared better. French rap especially thrived and the French brought their own sense of inner city swagger that couldn't be accused of imitating the Americans. Even in today's multicultural inner city Paris, the authenticity of Parisian swagger amongst the inner city youth is evident. French rap was also boosted by a French law that requires a minimum of 40% of all music played on the radio to be in French, an effective and patriotic approach to preserving the French language. As a result, their rap scene was able to grow as it wasn't stifled by an attempt to imitate the Americans. Groups like Fonky Family and Saian Supa Crew experienced critical and commercial acclaim in an era where despite their best efforts, no UK rapper was close to being a household name and virtually unknown outside the circles of hip hop aficionados. Even veteran DJ Tim Westwood marginalised UK rap on his former BBC Radio 1 Rap Show as it just wasn't deemed commercially viable.

Fast forward to the current musical landscape and a lot has changed for rap. New York is far from the bastion of rap and American rap arguably hasn't experienced a golden era since the mid-90s. Putting aside veterans like Nas, Common, Talib Kweli, Jay-Z and Busta Rhymes, who continue to be active, the biggest mainstream artists leave a lot to be desired as leading the world in the quality of their music. So who do America have to offer with their more current and mainstream artists? Lil' Wayne? That’s laughable. Nicki Minaj (who is actually a very competent rapper although you wouldn't think it with some of her commercial, dance-inspired offerings)? As far as mainstream artists go, there aren’t many that present America as a world-beater when it comes to rap. There are exceptions such as Kendrick Lamar and J Cole. But that's just it, they're exceptions. And if you're tempted to say Drake, don't forget he's Canadian, further supporting the notion that America is no longer producing the best rappers.

Conversely, within the UK I could easily name a host of rappers that would best their American counterparts with ease. Scorcher, Wretch 32, Kano and Stormzy might have originated from the grime scene but they're bona fide rappers and of a calibre that’s higher than most from America. Similarly, SAS, K Koke and Sway, artists that have been in the vanguard of the 'new school' UK rap sound, are of an equal status, especially in contrast to their American counterparts.

In France, artists like Booba and Kaaris have continued the legacy of French rap and the authenticity of their sound that even non-French listeners can appreciate. Could the same be said for much commercial American rap? I think not.

So what has caused America to lose its dominance of the genre it created? The primary cause has to be argued to be the commercialisation of American rap which has become a hugely profitable industry. Artists are therefore under more pressure to produce a pop hit rather than music that retains credibility and preserves hip hop culture. Hence the David Guetta-esque, Eurodance sound, that once would have been deemed the furthest thing from rap, permeating the genre's American output. This commercialisation has also had a knock-on effect on lyricism where mainstream American rappers seemingly have little of substance to say.

Where early rap gave a voice to American inner city youth, that voice is now largely used for trite and superficial content that is more likely to reflect banal fantasy. Of course, there are lyrical artists in America. Though with the proliferation of the commercial market, those acts are increasingly stifled from coming to the fore. In contrast, rap outside of America (albeit sometimes imitating the American output in crassness of content) is more commonly used to depict tales of inner city life and aspirations while using lyricism as a vehicle to do so.

Lyrically, many mainstream American rappers are bringing embarrassingly weak content to the table. No wonder the American battle rap scene is thriving as battle rappers, who possess the lyricism that was once a prerequisite for the artistry, turn their backs on the mainstream scene.

The hunger that was also once evident in rap, and reflecting the struggle so prevalent in the communities it grew within, also seems to be absent. As a genre, rap is adversarial and braggadocios in nature. Kendrick Lamar’s verse on Control caused so much excitement in rap circles because it brought the hunger, competitiveness and aggression that a generation of rap fans and indeed rappers haven’t experienced. Compare that to the clashing culture in UK rap, where even commercial artists can be heard to be ‘sending’ for each other, thus maintaining the hunger that’s seemingly diminishing in American rap.

As the mainstream American rap market sees the culture increasingly diluted, outside of America rappers have found their voice. Not to mention, it's one that resembles that of early American rap in its freshness, credibility, authenticity and social relevance. Indeed, in doing so, it's signalled a changing of the guard within rap and America arguably no longer has the dominance it once held.

Is society so jaded with the status quo of socio-economic inequality that it no longer has the inclination to revolt?

While it may only be fiction, the Batman trilogy of films depicts a dystopia that isn’t that removed from what could occur in modern society. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises showed Gotham so riddled by crime due to a society polarised between the haves and have-nots, that it became characterised by moral turpitude. So much so that Ra’s al Ghul, and latterly Bane, were able to exploit the resentment that existed within Gotham and on both occasions initiate uprisings (albeit ill-fated thanks to the caped crusader) against Gotham’s wealthy elite and the authorities.

Returning to reality, the message is simple – give people enough to feed their anger, and sooner or later they will revolt. However, in modern society, where socio-economic inequality is moving in the direction of that seen in Gotham, people don’t appear motivated to stand up against an unfair and worsening situation.

Needless to say, governments and the elite cannot be exclusively blamed for the woes of the less fortunate. However, disparate living standards have become a feature of modern society. The haves and the have-nots are often separated by little more than a few miles in some cities but their respective realities couldn’t be starker in contrast. For many of the latter, a more desirable standard of living is almost flaunted before them within adjacent communities as pockets of deprivation and affluence are scattered alongside each other. Almost aggressive gentrification is changing the landscape of communities traditionally comprised by lower socio-economic groups. Furthermore, it’s compounded by government policies like the benefit cap in the UK. Similarly, the absence of a rent cap or robust rent control in many cities merely expedites this social transformation.

Yet despite a widening gap in socio-economic status, a warranted and indignant vitriol has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it has barely scratched the surface in articulating a mass discontent. Has society become so jaded and downtrodden that the less fortunate have accepted their place at the bottom of the social totem pole with limited, if any, scope to elevate themselves? Meanwhile, the richest and most privileged in society continue to solidify this position. Indeed, governments and their respective policies preserve this with no regard for those whose social position remains stagnant or worse still declines as a consequence.

Western society has long been structured to maintain a status quo that protects the position and privilege of the most advantaged. The medieval feudal system has effectively been replaced by patronage and nepotism for the elite and those who are able to ‘buy’ political favour from the government of the day. In the same way, education policies (arguably some of the most effective tools when engineering the composition and class structure of a society), such as the introduction of secondary modern schools in the UK, have restricted the aspirations and potential opportunities of a section of society that were deemed less ‘academic’ and more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups.

Similarly, social unrest such as that seen in riots in Brixton and latterly Tottenham (the latter spreading throughout the UK) has subsequently been capitalised upon in further progressing the position of those that are more fortunate. Middle classes swarm to buy properties in these respective areas, only to change the character and composition of communities while said property prices rapidly rise. Thus they price longstanding inhabitants and their families out of the area. Consequently, family and community links are broken and eroded as another tool of impeding the social mobility of the less fortunate. Although governments have no qualms with this and essentially encourage it with economic incentives, policies and rhetoric.

The aforementioned examples don’t begin to show the extent of the inequality within society. It’s apparent for all to see and there’s a clear history of it occurring. Therefore why is there effectively a silent majority who accept this? A recent report by Credit Suisse revealed that 1% of people own 48% of global wealth. It’s a staggering statistic but one that supports the Occupy movement’s ‘we are the 99%’ slogan and reinforces the current socio-economic inequality that society is subject to.

In the UK, not since the Poll Tax riots has there been unrest on a scale that showed how angry people were with social injustice. The MPs expenses scandal in the UK saw few MPs convicted for their actions which if not illegal were certainly not in the spirit of public life. But rather than directed and meaningful anger, people largely responded with further apathy for politics. Likewise, in the wake of the financial crisis, responses have been meek. The subprime mortgage crisis saw people lose their homes. And the financial sector, the group most responsible for the financial crisis, was bailed out at the expense of taxpayers around the world because they were crudely deemed ‘too big to fail’. The most notable but short lived response to this was the Occupy movement. And that failed to have any tangible and achievable objectives that would enable it to galvanise further support and effect change.

The Occupy movement, once showing promise that never materialised, provided a vehicle for anger to be articulated and change to be forcefully effected. Though instead it has seemingly fizzled out with little to show for its impact. It’s regrettable that it never became a movement that effected change, forcing governments to relent from what has been a tradition of favouring only the most privileged in society. Against a backdrop of increasing socio-economic inequality, the Occupy movement failed to effect change. It therefore begs the question what will motivate society to breaking point in meaningfully protesting against current circumstances?

It’s difficult to ascertain why exactly people don’t feel inclined to rebel against the existing state of affairs. Ignorance is a major factor. When American investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies, they were granted a status typically reserved for retail banks such as those found on high streets with regular customers depositing and withdrawing money. And accompanying that status, they had access to loans at lower rates and bolstered security from the Federal Reserve (who approved their newly acquired status). Meanwhile, industries, businesses and individuals continued to experience harsh financial austerity without any such protection or assistance afforded to them. Hardly a move in the spirit of integrity, this wasn’t highly publicised at all. Had it been, it may have provided a further source of anger as a tipping point for unrest in response to the actions of the financial section and respective governments in cahoots with each other. After all, surely everyone has a breaking point where they’re no longer willing be bent over a barrel by the state and the elite?

There also needs to be a unifying figure to mobilise efforts with the chutzpah to challenge the way things are. It’s unlikely to be forthcoming from a mainstream political figure. A glaring absence from the Occupy movement was a leader figure that was able to articulate and capture the sentiments of the wider public, hence the movement being unable to gather any momentum.

Ultimately, people have become jaded and accepted the status quo. Indignation has seemingly disappeared from society in recent years and worryingly so. There seems to be no motivation to reflect on the unfairness of growing polarised wealth nor an effort to reverse it. Nonetheless, as things edge towards further inequality, it may only be a matter of time before the dystopia of Gotham becomes less farfetched than it may currently seem.

Straight? Gay? I don't care

Despite progressive views on sexuality, the issue of homosexuality has remained a preoccupation for some as a taboo status. Indeed, that fixation has been anything but subtle for those it applies to. This is compounded by an apparent obsession within the media with gay celebrities’ decisions to publically reveal or conceal their sexuality. Indeed, if a high profile celebrity announces that they’re gay, it’s inevitable that it’ll make headlines.

When British diver Tom Daley announced he was gay it rapidly made headlines. There wasn’t anything particularly shocking about his revelation but it somehow managed to dominate British media in disproportionate measures. Yet even Daley later said of his announcement ‘I don’t think it should be news’, a view I share with him. Though the fact that it is, suggests that homosexuality is perhaps still considered more of a taboo than many would like to admit. Based on those who crave such stories, it could be said that the pendulum of views on homosexuality has swung from being swept under the carpet to becoming headline news.

Clearly any trend that moves away from homosexuality being deemed taboo lessens the prevalence of homophobic views. Although by giving the story of someone ‘coming out’ undue shock value, it only serves to add hype around the issue of one’s sexual orientation. This hardly encourages an attitude where upon hearing of someone being gay, people are inclined to keep it moving rather than making much ado about nothing. Nonetheless, not only can I not see why it justifies such fanfare, but why does anyone’s sexual orientation matter to the next person? Unintentionally, such hype also increases the fixation with homosexuality for those who feel it’s wrong – and who will consequently show homosexuals disdain.

In the first instance, one’s sexuality should be personal and shared by inference or a need to know basis. Consequently, someone else’s sexual orientation is something I remain indifferent to. As a heterosexual man, what bearing does someone being gay have on me and vice versa? Unless of course it’s my own partner in question, I don’t see how it does. On the other hand, for those that wouldn’t share my indifference, where does their unjustified interest stem from?

Views on sexuality and sexual orientation are often rooted in culture, religion and communities and the extent to how conservative or liberal they are. Growing up, I can admit to having held ignorant and homophobic views that were reflected amongst my peers too. But as homosexuality was deemed taboo and not held in too high esteem amongst many around me, my stance wasn’t out of step with many around me. Though with maturity, I recognised my ignorance and prejudice. Furthermore, I realised that not only did I not have a reference point of anyone openly homosexual to base this view on, but even if I did it would make no difference to my own life. Therefore with a mature perspective, I don’t understand why some people and groups are so obsessed with it.

Some would argue that moves to remove the stigma and taboo of homosexuality attack cultural, social and religious values that espouse disapproval of homosexuality. Their response would be that they’re protecting their values, such as the opposition to gay marriage from various religious groups. I can understand they may want to preserve their own beliefs, no matter how the secular world may view them as being archaic, and they're entitled to do that. However, that needn't and shouldn't accompany any vitriol towards those who represent a different sexual orientation than that which they deem valid. Herein lies the issue where beliefs can become so forthright that they instead take the form of prejudice. It's an unnecessary stance but one which unwittingly fans the flames of sensationalising ones sexuality.

Doing otherwise isn’t a case of being pro or anti-homosexual or rejecting what one might deem a component of their values. Instead it’s simply being accepting and indifferent of people’s differences and leaving it at that.

There's also the other side of those that make a bigger issue of their sexuality which is similarly unnecessary. Apple CEO, Tim Cook, recently came out as being homosexual and announced he was ‘proud to be gay’ in an article he wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek.

I can appreciate that Tim Cook’s statement was more to do with illustrating that he wasn't ashamed to be homosexual and providing inspiration for those that may be gay and reluctant to embrace and accept their sexuality (and those who might be prejudiced towards them). But 'proud'? What exactly is he proud of? I'm not proud to be heterosexual, it's just a fact no different to the fact that Tim Cook is gay.

Some may feel an indifference to sexual orientation is tantamount to pitting themselves against their own. Conversely, those who make an issue of their sexual orientation are needlessly distinguishing themselves from others and slowing down the attainment of equality. One’s sexual orientation is a fact not a talking point. Making it the latter simply gives it unwarranted and necessary focus in an era where it should be an aberration for that to be the case.

Do we really need unionised staff? Unfortunately, yes we do

This week’s tube strike has, as always, led to polarised views on the justification for industrial action and seen people either empathising with or criticising the staff who decided to go on strike. Similarly, it’s seen people either articulating their support or their frustration at the disruption to their commute (and their consequent ire with staff on strike) via social media. The blogosphere has been no different with both sides represented.

I read a blog post on The Right View condemning the strike action titled ‘Do we really need unionised staff?’, a presumably rhetorical, ideologically driven and not particularly well-thought out question. Well, the short answer is yes, unfortunately we do.

The reason I say ‘unfortunately’, isn’t because I’m anti-union. As is probably apparent from previous posts, I’m actually pro-union. It’s unfortunate because there is still a need for employees’ terms and conditions to be fairly protected. Where this isn’t the status quo, unionised staff are very necessary. To question the need for a unionised workforce is a stance that doesn’t appreciate that workers sometimes need a collective voice to safeguard against an employer abusing its position.

Specifically in relation to the tube strike, many would argue that the RMT and TSSA are essentially resisting modernisation in their opposition to London Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to close ticket offices and the consequent job cuts. And to an extent, perhaps they are. Technology has made fewer ticket office staff a viable prospect and there is a degree of pragmatism that is required when considering how far the unions should be prepared to concede to the Mayor’s plans.

A reduction in ticket office staff (with adequate redeployment and redundancy packages for those affected) is probably inevitable if not justified to ensure TfL continues to run as a viable business. Though Boris Johnson’s ticket office plan is driven by ideology, much like the sentiments within the aforementioned post which naïvely and arrogantly suggests the ticket office closure plans don’t go far enough –

‘Get rid of ticket offices and get rid of drivers. Those that are happy to stay can be rehoused to work on platforms or in control rooms. Those that complain can take their voluntary redundancy payments and find a new job.’

Those are clearly the views of someone who doesn’t hold any empathy for employees or see labour relations as any value to an organisation. Although it’s somewhat unsurprising coming from a centre-right blog.

Closing all ticket offices goes too far, particularly against a growing use of the tube. By all means, modernise and move towards further use of technology. However there are numerous precedents for job cut programmes, under the guise of modernisation, used as justification for further and unnecessary cuts – only for it to be later realised as a flawed and failed approach that requires a U-turn and a serving of humble pie. Boris Johnson has said the ticket offices closures will not result in any compulsory redundancies – but he also said he was opposed to any ticket office closures in his 2008 manifesto and latterly in 2010. As a result, I wouldn’t blame the unions and ticket office staff to be sceptical of his so-called promises.

The disruption to Londoners is frustrating to say the least and underpins most negative views towards those striking. But surely there should be some empathy for the staff who seek to protect their jobs? Particularly in the current economic climate, why is an attempt for workers to protect their jobs, especially given the extent of the proposed cuts, met with such a lack of empathy and hostility? Is it because it’s blue collar work largely undertaken by the working class (who the right and centre-right continue to demonise)? Indeed, I doubt there would be such an indifference to workers’ jobs from The Right View had it been traditionally middle class jobs that were at risk en masse.

A further dimension to the tube strike is that Boris Johnson can turn commuters’ frustration to contempt towards the staff on strike. It certainly takes the hostilities around industrial action to a higher and unfair level. It also illustrates the extent to which the staff are effectively having a campaign waged against them that goes beyond tube modernisation.

What needs to be understood by those who argue against a unionised workforce and their willingness to strike is that unions rarely take strike action lightly. Even for militant unions, deciding to call strike action is akin to playing your trump card. And if it doesn’t have the desired effect, you’ve severely weakened your position. Few unions would therefore take strike action with indifference or nonchalance.

Strike action is never the first step in seeking a resolution. It only comes after failed negotiations and typically a refusal by the employer to compromise. At that stage, all the employees have at their disposal to commence or resume meaningful negotiations is withdrawal of their labour. And contrary to the suggestion in The Right View, it isn’t ‘at the drop of a hat’ either. Unions have to ballot members and give notice for a strike in line with employment legislation. Consent for potential strike action is also enshrined in union recognition agreements between the union and the employer. While there are of course militant unions that are too quick to ballot their members for strike action (and hardly help depict the trade union movement in a positive and modern light), it’s an erroneous belief that taking strike action is taken on a whim.

Trade unions have achieved much for employment legislation and labour relations that have benefited society as a whole such as maternity leave and annual leave. Furthermore, in questioning their value, it is necessary to question whether all employers can be trusted to protect their employees’ terms and conditions, not to mention their job security where practical and financially viable. Unfortunately the answer to that is sometimes no.

Being an employer is a position of authority and responsibility and one that should not be dictated by employees. A problem with unions’ relationships with Labour governments and nationalised industries of yesteryear was that the unions wrongly felt it was their place to dictate to the employer and hold them to ransom (which some commentators ignorant to history may wrongly argue is happening with the tube strikes). Yet sometimes their authority can be abused and their responsibility neglected. When that occurs, workers need their voice to be heard. In the case of the tube strikes, the union members are merely trying to ensure this while faced with Boris Johnson’s blinkered ideological pursuit.

Uninformed and unempathetic views surrounding unions and their members are likely to continue. Yet if all employers were able to show themselves as responsible and able to value their staff, union membership would certainly dwindle and they’d be less need for the trade union movement. Alas, there are too many employers unable to do this, hence the continued relevance of unions. Until then, unionised workforces will continue to be necessary, as will the unions themselves.

Five all-British fights I'd like to see in 2014

2014 is a promising year for boxing. Floyd Mayweather will likely continue as the sport’s main attraction and boxing fans still yearn for him to face Manny Pacquiao, a fight that despite the latter’s stock having fallen isn’t completely dead in the water. Light heavyweight heavy hitters Surgey Kovalev and Adonis Stevenson are likely to meet in what should be an explosive fight. And with Vitali Klitschko retiring and vacating the WBC belt, the heavyweight division may get interesting as a new champion emerges. Not to mention the vacant belt could be the treatment required to expedite a recovery for David Haye’s career-threatening shoulder injury (it’s already rumoured that Haye is planning a return to boxing and it certainly isn’t a ludicrous notion). Although amidst the international prospects within the sport, there are several potential all-British fights that will excite boxing fans.

In no particular order, I’ve therefore considered five British fights I’d like to see in 2014. Whether or not they’ll happen as a result of politics remains to be see. But if they do, they should make for great fights.

George Groves vs Carl Froch

Before their first bout, I tipped George Groves for a points win over Carl Froch. It wasn’t the popular choice amongst boxing fans or the bookmakers. Nonetheless, I felt Groves and his now estranged former coach and manager Adam Booth had studied Froch for years and devised a plan to win just as they did against James DeGale. With rumours of Froch having dropped Groves during sparring and Froch’s confidence (and ego) inflated since he dismantled Lucian Bute and beat Mikkel Kessler in their rematch, conversely, Froch was clearly underestimating Groves.

When Groves and Froch eventually met in the ring, Groves did everything he said he would and Froch was outclassed and outmuscled for the duration of the fight. And while Froch might beg to differ, if it wasn’t for referee Howard Foster prematurely stopping the fight in the ninth round, Groves was on course to get the W. Consequently, and with a lack of graciousness even in a controversial win, Froch emerged the villain while Groves’ popularity skyrocketed. The needle between the two fighters seemingly hasn’t eroded and it therefore sets the stage for a great rematch.

Froch, having presumably realised Groves has the game plan to hurt, outbox and even stop him, doesn’t seem to want a sequel to what was one of the best fights of 2014. He claims there are bigger fights with Andre Ward (who convincingly beat him in the final of the Super Six), Julio Cesar Chavez Jr and even Gennady Golovkin (who would provide the sternest test to Froch’s granite chin). Fight fans however, and understandably an aggrieved Groves, want to see the rematch.

If Froch acquiesces to the desires of Groves and fight fans alike, I can see Groves getting the win in a rematch. He won’t hold back and knowing he can and has hurt Froch, he’s likely to put it on him early. Froch, of course, won’t underestimate Groves this time and will prepare to fight someone who is worthy of his respect. Add the genuine dislike between the two fighters and whatever the decision, it should make for a great fight. It’s ultimately just down to Froch if it actually happens.

Kell Brook vs Amir Khan

Amir Khan has long been chasing a fight with pound-for-pound champion Floyd Mayweather and despite conflicting reports from their respective camps, it seems it may happen this spring. Despite Khan having lost two of his last four fights (one by way of TKO), and his increasing reputation for having a glass chin, he still appears to offer marque value, especially in the United States where he’s promoted by Golden Boy.

Meanwhile, and admittedly with a much lower profile outside of boxing circles, Kell Brook has remained a rival of Khan’s and a potential opponent for some time. With their dislike of each other, a fight between Brook and Khan is growing nicely into a domestic grudge match in the second half of the year. Both fighters will have their fight schedules busy until then. Though I expect by then Brook will have the IBF welterweight belt and even with a loss to Mayweather, Khan’s stock is unlikely to be dented.

Behind the scenes, it appears that talks have already started to lay the groundwork for formal negotiations for Brook vs Khan. If it does happen, I’d tip Brook to win. Khan hasn’t previously fought at welterweight (should it happen, his fight against Mayweather will be his first outing in the division) whereas Brook is big welterweight at that. Furthermore, if Khan’s chin can’t withstand big shots at 140lbs, how will he cope with shots at 147lbs? I think Khan is a decent fighter with heart, great speed and technical proficiency. Though he lacks the discipline to not trade with fighters – a foolish if not entertaining tendency for a chinny fighter. Khan’s coach Virgil Hunter has been working on Khan’s defence. Yet even he has conceded that at this stage in Khan’s career, it’s too late to address that to the extent necessary.

Brook, despite not having fought at this level or on such a big platform, has shown his ability, most recently in taking apart Vyacheslav Senchenko within four rounds. Like Khan, Brook has speed but he also has accuracy and power that I don’t think Khan will be able to cope with – especially if he tries to trade with Brook. Add the animosity between Khan (and his sycophantic camp) and Brook, and it’s a fight I’m eagerly anticipating.

Scott Quigg vs Carl Frampton

Scott Quigg vs Carl Frampton is on the wish list of fights for many boxing fans. Frampton, under the tutelage of Barry McGuigan and his son Shane, has been unfortunate to yet capture a title unlike Quigg. Yet both fighters are keen for a domestic match-up with only boxing politics as the likely obstacle. Traditionally, interest in the lower weight classes hasn’t been to the extent as it has for heavier fighters but this fight is bound to attract a sizeable following and boost the profiles of both fighters beyond boxing circles.

Chris Eubank Jr vs Billy Joe Saunders

Like most of Mick Hennessy’s fighters (both former and current), Chris Eubank Jr was probably lured to Hennessy Promotions with the prospect of having his fights aired on terrestrial television in the UK on Channel 5. The deal hasn’t been all it was cracked up to be and Eubank Jr’s exposure has suffered as a result (Eubank Jr has since parted company with Hennessy Promotions). Nonetheless, what we have seen from him shows he’s one of the most promising fighters in the domestic middleweight scene and he’s certainly not trading off his father’s name for success. Eubank Jr has shown speed, power and showmanship (remind you of anyone?) and commitment in the gym. And if he can get the television exposure he deserves, his profile will grow accordingly.

Billy Joe Saunders has achieved more than Eubank Jr and is currently British and Commonwealth middleweight champion. Some might say a fight with Eubank Jr might therefore be a retrograde step. But the fight would be no mismatch, perhaps only needing Eubank Jr to raise his profile and show some progression on his record to make it marketable. Saunders and Eubank Jr dislike each other and those on the fringe of the boxing fraternity will be keen to see if Eubank Jr is anywhere near as talented as his father. It’s not exactly a PPV event but a solid domestic fight that would be great at this stage of their respective careers.

Tony Bellew vs Nathan Cleverly

Both Tony Bellew and Nathan Cleverly’s respective decisions to move up to cruiserweight were preceded by stoppages at light heavyweight. However, with or without their respective defeats, perhaps it was a timely decision. I’ve often thought Bellew, who fought at heavyweight as an amateur, looked weight drained at light heavyweight and the decision to move up in weight was surely overdue. With both fighters stepping up to cruiserweight, they’ll presumably take their rivalry with them in setting up a rematch.

Cleverly has the confidence of a win in their first fight but it remains to be seen to what extent he’s been affected by the Sergey Kovalev KO. Bellew too was stopped by Adonis Stevenson. Although I get the sense he handled his defeat better than Cleverly which could give him a psychological edge as both fighters look to navigate themselves back to a title shot in a new weight class. A rematch would provide a domestic fight akin to David Haye vs Enzo Maccarinelli and rekindle the cruiserweight division. Another potentially big fight if it happens.