Wembley revisited

As a child, my mother grew up within a mile of Wembley Stadium.

She was born in 1930, seven years after the original stadium (then called the Empire Stadium) was built on acres of green fields. (There is a fabulous picture, taken in 1922 before construction began, that shows just how rural the area was.)

There must have been a huge building programme between the wars because the entire area is now densely populated with houses that were clearly designed and built in the Twenties and Thirties, with not a Victorian or Edwardian property in sight.

I mention this because I had to go to Wembley on Wednesday for a meeting with Forest’s accountants who are based on an industrial estate which is even closer to the stadium, but on the other side.

For decades they were based at York House, a typical Sixties office block that directly overlooked the stadium.

From their eleventh floor office I saw the old stadium being demolished, and then watched as the new stadium, with its enormous arch, gradually took shape until it was finally completed.

The new stadium opened in 2007 (I took this photo the following year) and ten years ago a small, semi-outdoor shopping centre, the London Design Outlet (LDO), was built adjacent to York House and the stadium.

Blocks of modern executive flats, many with feature balconies, have since been built around the stadium and along Wembley Way, the wide pedestrian boulevard that connects Wembley Stadium with the railway station of the same name.

In the last few years York House (renamed Dandi Wembley) has been converted from an office block and is now described as a ‘new high-rise residential development’ with luxury and high end apartments, although I believe there is some work space on the top floors.

Meanwhile the only reminder of the ‘old’ Wembley complex is the grade 2 listed Wembley Arena, formerly the Empire Pool, a 12,000 seat venue that was built for the 1934 Empire Games and now hosts rock and pop concerts.

I’m impressed with the way they’ve transformed the area around the stadium. It’s arguably a bit soulless, but it’s nevertheless a huge improvement on what was there before.

Below: The Hive office building, completed in 2021, with the Wembley Stadium arch behind it.

The problem when a big match is on is access. I was one of those who thought the new national stadium should be built on a brand new site - off the M40, perhaps - so it would be far more accessible to people with cars.

Currently, the best way to get to Wembley Stadium is probably by train, using Chiltern Railway to get to the railway station. Alternatively, you can get to Wembley Park Underground station via the Metropolitan or Jubilee lines.

What I do know is that leaving the area either by road or rail immediately after a game can take ages thanks to the traffic and the crowds.

So in future, if I was to go to another match at Wembley Stadium, here’s what I’d do.

Assuming I knew the date of the match well in advance, I would immediately book a room in one of the hotels - Premier Inn or Holiday Inn - that are within the Wembley Park complex, minutes from the stadium.

(If you want to see England v Italy on Tuesday October 17, you can currently book one of the last remaining rooms at Premier Inn London Wembley Stadium for £181.50 non-refundable, or £199 flexible.)

If it’s an evening match I would arrive and check-in early, five or six hours before the game. Later, I would enjoy a stress free pre-match dinner, booked in advance if possible, at one of the restaurants in the London Design Outlet.

After the game I’d have a drink in one of the bars before retiring to my hotel.

The cost of parking in the Wembley Park car park is, I believe, £50 on match days (a huge increase on the normal price), but it’s arguably worth it for the convenience of driving to the stadium early and leaving the next morning after the crowds have gone home.

Cultural vandalism - the smoking ban decimated pubs in Britain & Ireland

I was interested but not surprised to read that:

Almost a quarter (22.5 per cent) of Ireland’s pubs – almost 2,000 in total – have called time forever since 2005, a report from the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland (DIGI) found.

See: Ireland’s pubs closing at faster rate than ever before in major blow to tourism (Telegraph)

Did anything happen that might, conceivably, have kick-started this startling drop in the number of pubs in Ireland?

Hmmm, let me think. Oh yes, in 2004 smoking was banned in every single pub and bar in the country.

Within months of the ban being introduced, the Vintners Federation of Ireland was claiming that many of its members had experienced a significant drop in sales since the introduction of the ban.

The VFI said small, rural, family-owned pubs and pubs in border counties had been hit particularly hard by the measure.

The VFI claimed daytime trade had dropped off considerably since the smoking ban came into force, with many customers staying in the pub for a shorter period of time.

That was in June 2004.

Two months later, in August 2004, I went to Ireland and visited several towns and cities (including Galway, Waterford, and Kilkenny) to see for myself what impact the ban was having on pubs and bars.

With my own eyes and by speaking to local people, including bar owners and staff, I discovered that some pubs that had previously been open at lunch were now closed until 5.00pm, when they would finally open their doors.

I was told that the elderly pipe-smoking beer drinkers who used to gather for a pint at lunch were staying away now they could no longer smoke indoors.

In 2010 a report commissioned by Forest for the Save Our Pubs & Clubs: Amend the Smoking Ban campaign noted that:

Using data from [Ireland’s] Revenue Commissioners, researchers found that the number of pub losses demonstrate a very close statistical relationship between the introduction of the smoking ban in 2004 and the rapid decline of the Irish pub ...

Analysis of statistics set out in the Statistical Report on the Revenue website showed that Ireland lost 1,097 pubs in the four years immediately following the ban.

Researchers found a striking similarity between the rate of closures in Ireland following the ban, and those in Scotland, England and Wales following theirs – despite considerable differences between the pub traditions.

See ‘Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the pub in Britain and Ireland?’

Needless to say, although the DIGI report has analysed stats going back to 2005, the year after the smoking ban was introduced in Ireland, the report (The Irish Pub: Supporting our communities) doesn’t mention the ban at all.

Am I surprised? Of course not. Despite the evidence, it’s rare to find anyone who will admit that the ban contributed to the serious decline in the pub estates in both Britain and Ireland.

In March 2009, for example, I noted that:

New Labour's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has today published a report entitled Pubs and Places: the social value of community pubs.

Supported by the likes of CAMRA and Alcohol Concern, the report found that the main factors contributing to the rise in pub closures include:

* Competition from shops and supermarkets where alcohol is much cheaper, which has led to more people drinking at home
* The current recession which has reduced pub incomes
* Increases in tax on beer
* The prices that some pub tenants have to pay the large pub companies for their beer
* A fall in beer drinking and a growth in wine drinking
* Increased regulation which small community pubs find the hardest to deal with

Incredibly, just two years after the smoking ban had been introduced, it had been airbrushed out as a potential contributory factor in the sharp increase in closures.

Meanwhile, a Forest report published in 2017 to mark the tenth anniversary of the ban in England found that 20 per cent of the entire pub estate in England in 2006 (ie before the ban) had subsequently closed in the decade after the ban.

In total, there were 11,383 fewer pubs in England compared to 2006, a decline of 20.7 per cent since the smoking ban was introduced on July 1, 2007. (‘The Road to Ruin: The impact of the smoking ban on pubs and personal choice’.)

No-one, least of all Forest, denied there were other issues in play, but the smoking ban was clearly a significant factor too, and what infuriated us was the blatant attempt to sweep the impact of the ban under the carpet.

Make no mistake, the smoking ban was cultural vandalism. Introduced on the flimsy pretext that it would ‘save’ the lives of thousands of bar workers who had previously been ‘forced’ to breathe environmental tobacco smoke, the policy was a disaster for the pub industry.

I’m not suggesting we continue to fight old battles - it’s too late for that - but it’s not too late to fight attempts to ban smoking outside pubs and bars, whether that’s in beer gardens or new licensed pavement areas, before even more pubs are forced out of business.

But more on that next month.

Fair play, the better team won

Commiserations to England, but the better team won the Women’s World Cup final.

In my defence, having raised hopes of an England victory (see previous post), I did add this qualification:

They haven’t actually won the World Cup yet and Spain - who outplayed England for a large part of the Euro quarter final in Brighton last year - are extremely dangerous opponents.

Noting the country’s dominance at youth level in recent years, I also suggested that Spain ‘could prove me wrong’ and go on to win multiple tournaments, like the USA and Germany before them.

In the meantime it’s worth pointing out that the best women’s club side in Europe, by some distance, is currently Barcelona who have won the UEFA Women’s Champions League twice in the last three seasons, and were runners-up on the other occasion.

No English women’s team has won a European title since Arsenal in 2007, and only one has even reached a final. (In 2021 Chelsea lost 4-0 to Barcelona.)

I believe that around half the current Barcelona team represented Spain in the 2023 Women’s World Cup, with two (Lucy Bronze and Keira Walsh) playing for England.

That, I think, demonstrates the current difference between Spain and England, so before armchair ’experts’ start criticising Serina Wiegman’s side, consider the context and congratulate England on not only reaching the final of two major tournaments in successive years, but actually winning one of them.

Not a bad achievement, and as my Glasgow born and bred wife said of the World Cup in Australia, “Scotland didn’t even qualify.”

Not watching the Women’s World Cup final? What’s wrong with you?

Last year, on the morning of the UEFA Women's Euro final between England and Germany at Wembley, I wrote:

Football? It’s a woman’s world now

As most people know, England won that match and tomorrow they play Spain in the final of the FIFA Women’s World Cup in Australia.

Whatever the result, it’s an extraordinary achievement for England’s women to reach back-to-back finals, especially when you take into account the loss of five players from the Euro winning team to long-term injury or retirement.

Given the rapid development of the women’s game worldwide, it’s also a feat that will be very difficult to repeat, or improve upon, so enjoy the moment because it may never happen again.

Indeed, the days when two countries (the USA and Germany) were able to dominate the international women’s game, winning tournament after tournament at world or European level, are almost certainly over.

That said, given their dominance at youth level in recent years, it’s possible that Spain (England's opponents tomorrow) could prove me wrong.

What interests me though is the stubborn refusal of many football supporters (mostly men) to watch or follow the women's game, even the World Cup.

A Fulham season ticket holder (whose blog I enjoy reading) gave his reason in a recent post. Commenting on an argument he’d had with a friend, he wrote:

I mentioned how irritated I was by the way women’s football is being forced on us by our clubs and the media. There are pages of it in my daily paper, which I swipe by as quickly as articles about tennis.

My own club relentlessly promotes its women’s team, when the difference in attendances and ticket prices confirms that nothing has changed — except for yet another political drive to make us all pretend something is true that isn’t …

I know what he's saying but it still surprises me that, as a football supporter, he has no interest in the woman's game.

A reader shared his lack of enthusiasm but for a different reason:

When we watch many sports, we admire those players that have the power, pace and or skill to do things we (and other competitors) generally can’t. Women’s football at present is much slower, less skilful and lacks the power of the men’s game. This is true for most (all) women’s sports. As a consequence I find it so much less enjoyable to watch, so I don’t bother.

Fair enough, but had they watched the England-Australia game I think they would have been pleasantly surprised. I particularly enjoyed this comment on England’s performance that was posted on the ABC website:

Hovering around on the edge of fair play, pushing physicality to the legal limit, snatching seconds away from your opponent and taking your chances; it's what every fan wants their team to do.

Spot on. Furthermore, I defy any football supporter not to have been gripped, and entertained, by what they were watching.

For 60 minutes, in a stadium packed with almost 75,000 Australians, England were comfortably the better team and deservedly a goal up.

The goal, I should add, was an extremely well taken strike by Ella Toone whose chip over the German keeper in the Euro final, whilst running at pace, was one of the most glorious, and skilful, things I have seen on a football pitch ever, regardless of gender.

Until she scored against Australia, Toone had had a rather anonymous World Cup. She lost her place in the starting team during the group stage to Lauren James, England’s rising young star, who went on to score three goals, and assist in another three, before being sent off against Nigeria, a game England won on penalties.

The decisive penalty in that game was taken by Chloe Kelly whose shot was recorded – according to data from the official match ball and reported by the Guardian – as reaching 'a speed of 69mph, beating the most powerful strike of the 2022-23 Premier League campaign, by West Ham’s Saïd Benrahma, that clocked in at 66.6mph'.

That's the men's Premier League, by the way.

But I digress.

After James was suspended for two matches, Toone was brought back for the quarter final and semi final, but her strike against Australia, good as it was, wasn't even the best goal of the game.

That fell to Australia’s Sam Kerr, one of the top female strikers in the world (she plays for Chelsea) who missed the group stage because of a calf injury and didn’t start a match until the semi-final.

With England in control and dominating possession, Kerr received the ball inside her own half, in space, which allowed her to turn and run at her Chelsea teammate, the England captain Millie Bright, before shooting, and scoring, from 25 yards.

There are some, no doubt, who will say that an average male goalkeeper would have saved it, but that wouldn’t do justice to the shot, the execution, or the extraordinary theatre of the moment.

At that point many teams in England’s position would have collapsed, mentally. I’ve seen momentum change hundreds of times in football matches, sometimes due to cruel bad luck, but despite enduring a tough few minutes when Australia might have scored again, it was the home team who blinked, a defensive error leading to a second England goal, followed by a third a few minutes from time.

Regardless of gender, this was sport at its competitive best.

No-one is arguing that the men’s game isn’t quicker, more physical, or, at the top level, more skilful than the women’s game.

But that doesn’t make the women’s game, at World Cup level, any less enjoyable.

For example, when I watched Chelsea play Liverpool on the opening weekend of the Premier League last Sunday, the greater speed, athleticism and physicality of the men was immediately obvious compared to what I’d been watching in the Women's World Cup.

The first touch of the Premier League players was noticeably better too.

But did I enjoy the Premier League game more than the England-Australia match? No, I didn't. In competitive terms they were equally watchable.

And the drama was greater in the women's match because it was a World Cup semi-final with a capacity crowd of 75,000 compared to the 42,000 at Stamford Bridge.

What I also love are the frequently unguarded interviews given by England’s women players, a highlight of which was midfielder Georgia Stanway cheerfully telling the assembled press, “Sometimes you don't realise that your head coach is actually human.”

Serina Wiegman, England's Dutch coach, was sitting a few feet away with an amused smile on her face.

Sadly, I suspect that much of that unfettered joy, bordering on naivety, will be knocked out of future generations of female pros so, again, enjoy it while it lasts.

I agree that the women’s game can be over-hyped (by the BBC especially) but the same is true of just about every sport, regardless of gender.

The Premier League? The Six Nations? Wimbledon? Give me strength (no pun intended).

The growth of women’s football ought to interest anyone with a genuine passion for the game. And if the Women's World Cup final doesn’t, at the very least, pique your curiosity … well, I’d have to seriously question your commitment.

That said, spare me the johnny-come-latelies - including countless journalists - who have suddenly woken up to the women’s game and are boring everyone to tears with their thoughts on England’s progress.

This includes ‘advice’ on tactics and substitutions, conveniently ignoring the fact that, since Wiegman was appointed England’s head coach in 2021, the team has lost just once in 38 games, and tomorrow will be her fourth major final in succession, including two as coach of the Netherlands.

Yes, she really needs your help and ‘expertise’, lads. (And, yes, it’s usually men.)

Which brings me to the issue of pay. According to the Guardian (who else?), ‘Sarina Wiegman should be paid the same as Gareth Southgate for England job’.

Wiegman is said to earn £400,000 a year, less than a tenth of Gareth Southgate’s salary for managing the England men’s team.

If the USA (now looking for a new head coach) wants to double, triple or quadruple Wiegman’s salary, good luck to them, and good luck to her if she was to accept such an offer, although she says she’s happy in her current job.

The problem is, if the salary of the women’s head coach is increased to match that of her counterpart in the men's game, what about the players? Should they be paid the same as the men as well?

And here I come back to something the Chelsea midfielder Melanie Leupolz said in 2021:

“I don’t think equal pay is appropriate because you have to see what money men bring in and what women bring in.

“What justification do I have to earn millions when on the weekends I play in front of 3,000 people?

“Clubs are making losses for women’s teams. You have to invest now so that women’s football can support itself in a few years and bring in profits.”

Ultimately, this is a question of market forces. To justify equal pay, the women’s game has to generate the same revenue as the men’s game, whether that’s through sponsorship, ticket sales, and so on, and at present it’s a long way from doing that, especially at club level where the top teams are largely subsidised by the men’s teams.

I suspect however that quite soon the wages paid to the top women’s players in England will become more of an issue. It’s happened already in America and Canada where the players demanded equal pay with their male counterparts at international level.

In the US one of the arguments allegedly put forward was that the US Women National Team deserve equal pay because the USWNT has won more World Cups than the men.

But that’s hardly comparing like with like because for many years the competition in women’s football was pitiful compared to the men’s World Cup.

Four years ago in France, for example, the USA beat Thailand 13-0 in their opening game. Thankfully we’ve experienced nothing like that in Australia.

Anyway, following a long dispute, an equal pay deal was reached last year.

In Canada the women’s international team also demanded equal pay and threatened to strike until Canada Soccer agreed to meet their demands.

Coincidentally neither nation has done well in the 2023 Women's World Cup. The Canadians, having won gold at the Olympics in Japan in 2021, didn't even get out of the group stage in Australia, while the USWNT had their least successful World Cup ever.

How much of this was due to money-related tensions and arguments with their respective federations we’ll probably never know, but it can’t have helped.

Let’s hope this likeable England Women’s squad resist making similar demands. I know it’s a short career but the public will love them even more if they keep their feet on the ground.

That will bring its own reward and I can’t imagine them being short of commercial opportunities.

But that debate is for another day. They haven’t actually won the World Cup yet and Spain - who outplayed England for a large part of the Euro quarter final in Brighton last year - are extremely dangerous opponents.

If England overcome them again it will be one of the country’s greatest and most joyful sporting moments. I wouldn’t miss it for the world, and nor should you.

See also: Hate football? Look away now (2011), European Super League? Who cares, my love of football died years ago (2021)

Why I ❤️ GB News

I was on the GB News Breakfast Show yesterday.

It followed the announcement on Monday that the Department of Health and Social Care is proposing to add inserts to tobacco products that will feature information designed to encourage smokers to quit.

Having appeared on The Live Desk, the lunchtime news programme, the previous day, I was invited this time to go head-to-head with Hazel Cheeseman, deputy CEO of ASH, on the wider question, ‘Should the Government introduce stricter rules for smokers?’.

I had one or two problems on Monday with my internet connection, which seems to be a bit slow at the moment, so I offered to go the GB News studio in London instead of doing the interview on Zoom.

The producer said they would take a chance on the connection being OK, which at least saved me from a very early drive into London, and thankfully it seemed to be alright, although I think I may need a new wireless router.

Anyway, the ten-minute ‘debate’ went reasonably smoothly, with no technical issues, and despite Hazel having the inevitable dig at Forest’s funding there was none of the slightly unpleasant edge that has come to characterise interviews involving me and her boss, Deborah Arnott.

On Monday, for example, I was on the Five Live phone-in with Deborah and as soon as I was invited to speak she started to interrupt, despite the fact that I had listened to her in respectful (!) silence.

She then seemed to suggest that I had once ‘recommended’ that people should smoke, a claim I took strong exception to.

That said, I don’t mind Deborah’s barbs because they make her, and ASH, appear rather petty, so as far as I’m concerned she’s welcome to go on making them.

Hazel, on the other hand, comes across as a reasonable and fairly sunny individual. Time, perhaps, to give her the top job and we can all move on.

Anyway, I wanted to praise the GB News Breakfast Show presenters, Isobel Webster and Stephen Dixon, who gave us equal time and the debate was conducted extremely fairly, I thought, in a relaxed and non-confrontational manner.

It was a far cry from the more gladiatorial approach of ITV’s Good Morning Britain where guests are (or were) pitted against one another and encouraged to engage in what, in my experience, often became a loud and boorish argument.

To be fair, I haven’t been on GMB for some time, and since Piers Morgan left the programme I rarely watch it, so perhaps it’s changed, but after one or two uncomfortable experiences in the ‘debate’ slot (does it still exist?) I would take some persuading to return.

(Ironically, the only time I enjoyed being on GMB was when Piers was the interviewer because I found him to be very fair. Susanna Reid too, the yin to his yang.)

Anyway, despite its critics, GB News seems a happy ship, with a growing audience, and as an occasional interviewee I can honestly say I have never (touch wood) had a bad experience.

Guests are treated with respect and allowed to have their say without repeated interruption. That doesn’t mean we go unchallenged, far from it, but there is a refreshing willingness to debate issues in a way that doesn’t always happen on the BBC, for example.

Like all TV and radio stations there are views broadcast on GB News I don’t agree with at all - some might even be described as conspiracy theories - but if you support free speech that comes with the territory. Ultimately the viewer, or listener, can make up their own minds.

Sceptics should also note some of the recruits to GB News, most recently Christopher Hope, formerly chief political correspondent and associate editor at the Telegraph.

Or Nigel Nelson, ‘the longest-serving political editor and political news reporter in the United Kingdom’, formerly with the Sunday People for which he still writes a column, I think.

Then there’s Olivia Utley, a young (ish) Telegraph journalist, who evidently weighed up her options and decided that GB News was a better bet and arguably more fun.

I particularly like the fact that alongside more experienced anchors such as Webster and Dixon (formerly Sky News), Pip Tomson (a recent recruit from Good Morning Britain), and Eamonn Holmes, GB News has given opportunities to a number of young reporters and presenters.

The energy they bring is palpable, and some of the younger regional news reporters are excellent.

There are still issues, of course. For example, I understand it’s not always easy for producers to attract guests, hence the regular appearances of a relatively small cast of contributors, especially in the evenings and at weekends.

Nevertheless, after yesterday’s discussion on the Breakfast Show, I said to my wife, “I love GB News”. And for all its faults, none of which are insurmountable, or even unique, I meant it.

See also: GB News: ‘So refreshing!’ (July 2021) and The unbearable darkness of GB News (June 2021).

Below: With Hazel Cheeseman of ASH on the GB News Breakfast Show

Insert [your response] here

The Government has announced a consultation adding inserts to tobacco product to 'help' smokers quit.

According to the BBC News website, 'Cigarette packs could carry anti-smoking message inserts', which I think would be wrong.

After all, if you've ignored all the health warnings, including the grotesque images on the outside of the pack, I'm not sure a further anti-smoking message inside the pack will make much difference.

Nor do I think messages about the financial cost of smoking – and what you could do with the £2,000 a year you might save if you quit smoking – are going to change most people's minds.

What might make a difference is some constructive information about alternatives to cigarettes – reduced risk products products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches.

The tone however is important. The vast majority of smokers aren't stupid and addressing them like children will almost certainly be counter-productive.

As it is, I think 'insert fatigue' might set in quite quickly once the initial novelty has gone away.

That, after all, is what happened with health warnings on packs and the subsequent grotesque images. Within a few months they're like wallpaper.

Anyway, here's Forest's response to the Government proposal:

Smokers' rights campaigners have given a cautious welcome to a UK government proposal to add pack inserts to tobacco products to encourage more smokers to quit.

Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said:

"If the inserts provide constructive information about quitting there is some merit in the idea.

"For example, inserting information about reduced risk products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches would make a lot of sense.

"Targeting consumers with more anti-smoking messages, which are on the pack already, risks warning fatigue and won't work."

"One question is, who pays for the inserts?

"If the cost is passed on to consumers, who already pay punitive rates of taxation on tobacco, it may be counter productive because more smokers will switch to illicit tobacco products that won't have inserts added."

As a result of this story I was on the Five Live phone-in this morning with Nicky Campbell who asked the question. 'Is it your duty to quit smoking?'.

What I didn't know is that the first hour of the phone-in is also broadcast on BBC Two. (Thank goodness I shaved and put on a shirt!)

Since then I've been interviewed by GB News (see below), and BBC Radio Hereford and Worcestershire, and this afternoon I'm doing TalkTV and BBC Radio WM.

If you want to have YOUR say, details of the consultation can be found here – Mandating quit information messages inside tobacco packs.

The consultation closes on October 10.

Meanwhile it's worth noting that the press release issued by the Department of Health (New inserts in cigarette packs to help smokers quit) features a quote by the CEO of ASH, Deborah Arnott.

That's quite something, is it not? If nothing else, it shows how embedded ASH is within the DHSC.

Mark Littlewood - end of an era

As some of you may have read, Mark Littlewood is stepping down after 14 years as director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

I don’t claim to know Mark very well, but I know him well enough to pay him this small tribute.

Our paths first crossed over 20 years ago but it wasn’t until 2008 that we met and worked together.

After leaving the Liberal Democrats, for whom he was a pugnacious and occasionally controversial head of media, Mark had set up a small think tank called Progressive Vision.

His interest in the smoking issue was evident pretty quickly and in 2008 PV and Forest co-hosted two events at the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth.

The following year we repeated the exercise at the 2009 Lib Dem conference, also in Bournemouth, and that went well too.

Prior to that, in June 2009, we also joined forces for the launch of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign at a pub in Westminster.

I'm sure further collaborations would have followed had it not been for an unexpected development.

In December 2009 Mark was appointed director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

I was a bit surprised, if I’m honest. Previous DGs may have been free market evangelists but their style was very different to that of Mark, who had a rather more abrasive, even populist, approach to politics.

In hindsight though his appointment was a brave and inspired choice that soon bore fruit as the IEA's media presence quickly escalated.

Yes, it could be argued that, occasionally, the IEA under Mark has over-stepped that fine line between think tank and pressure group, but the positives, in my view, have far outweighed the negatives.

The huge amount of media coverage the IEA has enjoyed under Mark’s leadership, and the frequency with which IEA commentators appear on TV and radio, and in the press, is extraordinary.

The case for free markets and less regulation requires constant advocacy, and under Mark the IEA has led the way.

But it's not just about column inches. The arguments have to stand up to scrutiny too and the huge number of IEA pamphlets and reports supports the intellectual rigour behind the operation.

Kudos too to Mark’s eye for talent (and I mean that in the best possible way!).

Chris Snowdon, who joined the IEA in 2011, is one example. Kate Andrews, now economics editor at The Spectator, is another.

Madeline Grant and Annabel Denham were recruited and later snapped up by the Telegraph, and other talents have included Ruth Porter, who left for Policy Exchange (and other adventures!), and Emily Carver, now a presenter at GB News.

As it happens, Forest’s connection with the IEA goes back long before Mark and me, but it was only during Mark’s tenure that it was allowed to develop.

Chairman of Forest from 1987 to 2006 was the late Lord Harris of High Cross. In 1956 Ralph was one of the founders of the IEA, which he led from 1957 to 1988.

Russell Lewis, who died last year and was a non-executive director of Forest for 30 years, was acting director of the IEA in 1992, while John Burton, another non-executive director, is a fellow of the IEA.

Despite those associations, Forest and the IEA were kept largely at arm's length by Mark's predecessor.

Wearing my journalist hat, for example, I remember pitching a proposal to produce a magazine for the IEA but it was rejected partly, I was told, because of my role with Forest.

In contrast, since Mark became director-general the IEA has hosted numerous Forest events although, to be fair, the events space didn’t really exist before Mark took over because it was his idea, if I recall.

Nevertheless, he has also been a guest speaker at several other Forest events, including our 40th anniversary dinner at Boisdale of Canary Wharf, and I can’t imagine his immediate predecessor accepting similar invitations.

We’ve even been on the same side in an Oxford Union debate, but what I value most, perhaps, are the many laughs we’ve had.

Politics is a serious business but there’s no reason it can’t be fun too.

Sadly, Ralph Harris didn't live to see Mark appointed director-general but I'm sure he would have approved and been a huge fan, just like John Burton.

In fact, I think Ralph would have seen in Mark a kindred spirit.

To begin with, don't be fooled by the title, Baron Harris of High Cross. Ralph was brought up by working class parents on a council estate in Tottenham.

He went to the local grammar school and won a place at Cambridge where he graduated with a first class degree, not unlike Mark who went to an all boys secondary school (formerly a grammar school), then studied at Balliol College, Oxford.

At the IEA Ralph was known as the "hustler". It was his colleague Arthur Selsdon who was credited with having the intellectual nous, and it was Ralph (who was no mug himself) who sold Selsdon's ideas to anyone who would listen.

If he'll forgive me, because I don't mean it in a derogatory way, you could describe Mark in much the same way.

But the similarities with Lord Harris don't end there because there are reports that Mark is also in line for a peerage in Liz Truss’s resignation honours list.

If that is the former PM’s legacy to the nation it’s a not bad one because I’m pretty sure Mark would make a fine working peer.

Either way, it's the end of an era, but what fun it’s been.

See also: Mark Littlewood to step down as IEA director general and successor search begins (IEA)

Below: launching the Save Our Pubs & Club campaign with Forest in 2009. Left to right: Mark and his Progressive Vision colleagues Angela Harbutt and Shane Frith; at the Forest Freedom Dinner; and at Forest’s 40th anniversary dinner in 2019.

Arbroath smokies and donkey derbies

The Scottish Championship, the second tier in Scottish football, kicked off on Friday night.

The first match, broadcast live on BBC Scotland, featured Arbroath and Dundee United.

As readers know, I’ve supported United since 1969 when my family moved to Scotland.

Living in Cambridgeshire I don’t get to many matches these days but I try to attend three or four home games a year, plus the occasional away fixture.

The away games I’ve enjoyed most were in places like Inverness and Stranraer because it felt more of an adventure to get there.

For a Scottish Cup match in 2014 I got the sleeper from Euston and arrived in Inverness at 8.00am the following morning.

Seen from the comfort of my bed, the Highland line from Perth to Inverness was breathtaking. It was March and there was still snow on the hills.

The match wasn’t bad either. We won 5-0.

Anyway, last season was a bit of a disaster and resulted in ignominy and relegation, hence the new league season starting at Arbroath.

To those unfamiliar with the area, Arbroath is a coastal town 17 miles east of Dundee.

Gayfield, home of Arbroath FC, is virtually on the beach which makes it especially vulnerable to the wind that blows in from the North Sea.

I’ve been to Gayfield a couple of times and had I not just got back from holiday last week I would have liked to have gone again.

The ground was packed - 5,000 people including 3,000 United supporters - so there must have been a great atmosphere (and that was before United won 4-0).

Shortly after the game I spotted, on social media, the photo above which was taken high above the ground with the use of a drone.

You can see the United fans packed into the away end on the right, with the beach and the sea at the top of the picture.

It’s a fabulous photo and it reminded me why I love Scottish football. The actual games may not be the best quality but the locations of some of the grounds are worth the price of admission alone.

Also in the Championship this season are Airdrie, Ayr, Dunfermline, Greenock Morton, Inverness, Queens Park and Partick Thistle (both Glasgow), and Raith Rovers (Kirkcaldy).

I’ve been to all but Airdrie, Ayr and Queens Park so I’ll try to put that right this season.

Of those clubs, Dunfermline has the best stadium but Cappielow Park, home of Morton, has arguably the best location, overlooking the Firth of Clyde and the hills beyond.

Apart from visiting Gayfield, I have several other memories of Arbroath, all from my childhood.

The first time we visited the town I must have been ten or eleven but I remember it because my father insisted on buying a pair of Arbroath smokies.

I’ve always loved kippers (smoked herring) but a smokie (hot-smoked haddock) is a stronger and more acquired taste. In those days you could buy them direct from the smoke house and take them home. Perhaps you still can.

A year or two later I was invited to take part in a donkey derby in the town. No idea why. All I remember is hanging on grimly in heat after heat without winning a single race.

I also remember visiting the fun fair that sits right next to the football ground.

But the day that really sticks in my mind is when my friend Bill and I were recruited to deliver leaflets to an entire Arbroath estate.

If I remember they were to promote the furniture company his father worked for but, having quickly abandoned the one leaflet per house instruction, we were soon pushing half a dozen through every letter box in the hope that the job might be completed before it got dark and we could go home.

Well, it was December and that North Sea wind was bloody freezing!

Photo courtesy David’s Drone Pictures