The Leisure Review letters

Dear Sir
Letters of significance in reverse order of receipt

6 August 2008

Floam-flecked and challenging

There’s nothing like the subject of ISPAL to provoke a foam-flecked rant. Like your previous correspondent on the subject, Vanessa Bone, [see correspondence below] I too regret that there is no longer a professional body pushing hard for an integrated approach to leisure that includes the arts, heritage and libraries etc. And I wonder what the ‘P’ is doing in ISPAL? Just what is ISPAL’s remit?

Nick Reeves (former FILAM)
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

7 July 2008

Sport England’s new direction

I've been out of sport development for a couple of years but at least some habits never change. From the sidelines I witness the launch of another strategy but this time it’s not my job on the line. It’s much more important than that – it’s sport and physical activity up for grabs. Will this plan deliver? It might, indeed I hope it does. The high-level principles are hard to fault and it makes the right sort of noises (especially for the chief executives of national governing bodies – I bet they've already been out to order their new car).

But the omens aren't good. For English sport to develop – I mean truly develop (you know: make progress, offer better opportunities than it used to, be better here than in other countries, etc) – there needs to be a consistency of purpose over a long period, an enduring approach and philosophy, and one that lasts. The evidence shows, to me at least, that four years isn't enough. It’s not enough to grow an athlete; that takes fifteen years. It’s not enough to develop a sustained participation base; that takes decades. Why? Because the ‘systems’ that underpin sport are complex, they are cultural and they need time to work through.

So I’ve a few questions for Sport England. What proportion of the next four years will be spent developing sport (versus time spent reorganising)? Will the plan be maintained if we get a new government or a change of chief executive? How long will the national governing bodies and the other delivery organisations get to sort themselves out after Sport England has completed its reshuffle?

If your answers aren’t “100%”, “yes” and “enough time” respectively, the plan won’t work.

So to sum up I’d like to thank those involved in the strategy for a well-written and nicely published document (if only strategy writing was an Olympic discipline). Your real challenge is to be patient, have faith and maintain direction – not to find a scapegoat and write another plan.

Richard Ward

2 July 2008

Sport England's new strategy: what are the odds?

Is the fact that county sports partnerships (CSP) are not mentioned (in the executive summary at least) due to the fact that they are such an integral part of the delivery system in England and therefore a ‘gimme’? Or should CSP colleagues be actively looking at ways to reduce the formation of beads of sweat from accumulating on the forehead?"

With the exception of that rather worrying omission, I broadly welcome the 'pure sports development' approach of the strategy and just hope that we can now be left to get on with implementing its aims and objectives with no further alterations until at least after London 2012. What are the odds of that happening?

Ian Jackson
Senior Competition Manager - Suffolk

9 May 2008

The question of the 'C word'

And whilst we’re on the topic of conferences, is it just me, or is this summer’s annual beano by ISPAL giving some of us former ILAM aficionados every justification for staying away? As a culture wallah, I would still fetch up over the years to meet with a diversity of people beavering away in leisure. Indeed, most times I could also enjoy the opportunity to ‘address the nation’ (sorry that’s bore the pants off) on a range of inter-disciplinary topics (Cultural Strategies, Cultural Pathfinder…). The chance, too, to hear the occasional inspiring session from a keynote speaker (and I have great memories of Huw Irranca-Davies talking about the value of the ‘c’ word) was a major draw.

So imagine my disappointment on opening the ISPAL envelope urging my attendance to find that 2008 is going to be devoted to ‘Forecasting the Future of Leisure’, with a totally sporting diet of events, and not a nod to heritage, arts, libraries... Absolutely nothing there for someone even of my catholic tastes (and, yes, I love lots of sports – can watch people do them for hours on end, especially those hunky blokes with baby bonnets and funny-shaped balls). I can’t be the only one, can I, who is so vexed with the replacing of an organisation that wasn’t broken with one that only has three wheels on it?

Yours more in sorrow than in anger

Vanessa Bone
Partner, Creative Cultures (and a former FILAM)

15 February 2008

The ruck: a considered view with a Malbec perspective

John Eady's letter regarding the 'neutering' of the ruck in rugby union sparked a debate amongst some colleagues and friends. We had a similar conversation over several bottles of a rather powerful Argentinian Malbec (Co-op's finest) and came up with various ideas, some similar to the team fouls idea and some so ridiculous that even rugby league administrators would find them hard to adopt.

However, some relevant points came out:

1- If the team foul approach was in place, would teams put minimum bodies into the ruck area? This would clutter the midfield and give us very much a hybrid rugby league game.

2 - If the referees used the yellow card in the way it was intended to be used (for persistent foul play), then they would probably issue enough cards for this to happen naturally. But they don't, so why would they support a rather more contrived foul structure?

3 - In the recent ARC championships in Australia they used some ELVs [experimental law variation], one of which was the use of hands in the ruck ONLY by players on their feet. The general consensus was that this produced much quicker ball, more people competing at the ruck and so more space in midfield. After a few weeks the number of yellow cards per match dropped to an average of 1.2 per game (less than the Premiership and National 1). Would this be better than a 13 v 12 game?

I appreciate the frustration that Mr Eady (possibly a scrum-half?) has with the the current situation but the laws only work if supported by the players AND the officials.

Richard Thomas
Hudson Global Resourcing

1 February 2008

Are the Surrealists in charge of the art world?

The British Council, the body responsible for promoting the very best of our culture abroad, is to close its art department. This came as something of a shock to me and I’m still trying to find out why. And, was any one consulted on the closure? It would seem not. Public consultation is deeply unfashionable right across government. You only have to look at the Government’s position on airport expansion to know that. It thumbs its nose at local people and climate change by announcing its decision to build new runways then has the cheek to consult. How barmy is that?

But we’ve been here before. You may recall the Government’s decision, a few years ago, to dispose of the Regional Arts Boards (aided and abetted by Arts Council, England) when (to the discomfort of our arts panjandrums) they got too big for their boots. A decision was made and leaked before the formal public consultation got underway, rendering the consultation impotent and therefore pointless, and the whole business of public consultation held to ridicule.

With many of our public galleries and museums pretending to offer free public access, with the Natural History and Science Museums pretending not to be amusement parks (my feature article in your pages, Mad About Museums, refers), with public funding of the arts in turmoil and now the British Council’s arts programme under threat, I’m convinced that arts policy in this country has been outsourced to the Surrealists (yes, there are groups still active in London and around the world) who have de-camped to the Treasury and the DCMS. Because this is the kind of mind-bending lunacy that Andre Breton and his chums would have been proud of.

Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of water and Environmental Management

Change the rules or bring back the ruck!

Despite England reaching the final of last year’s Rugby World Cup it was a disappointing tournament in that rule changes designed to make the sport more palatable to a wider TV audience, in particular the neutering of the ruck led to defence-dominated games in which sides were not effectively penalized for slowing down 2nd phase ball. While understanding the need to ‘sanitize’ the game, without corresponding measures to counterbalance the advantage given to the defending team, the more attractive facets of back play and ball handling will disappear. Our suggestions are:

A structured ‘team fouls’ process for offences such as slowing the ball down, handling or offside at the ruck (and related ‘professional fouls’). After the first transgression, yellow cards would be issued for each and every subsequent offence, even if it means the offending team being reduced to 12 or 11 players for a brief period of time.

A change in the offside line at the ruck from behind the rear feet to one metre behind the back foot – allowing slightly more space for the attacking team to develop greater forward momentum.

Drastic? Maybe but unless something is done soon, rugby union’s transition to rugby league with lineouts will be virtually complete!

Responses on a (email) postcard please…

John Eady
Chief Executive
Knight, Kavanagh & Page

30 November 2007

Is it just me...?

Having just returned from the Scottish Sports Development Conference, which saw two days of high-profile speakers, good-quality training sessions, innovative case studies, motivational speakers and all in all a very well-run event, as a normally optimistic person why is it that rather than feel the usual after-event elation, I am feeling a little down and despondent?

Here are three possible explanations. First, an ‘unwell’ minister for communities and sport left MSP Keith Brown to deliver the ministerial address. After six months in power, with the Commonwealth games in the bag and an unparalleled profile for sport and physical activity, would the new government announce a new vision accompanied by new commitments and new resources? Unfortunately not.

Rather depressingly, the ministerial address seemed to be an almost identikit/groundhog day speech from that delivered to the VOCAL conference three months earlier, leaving delegates to ponder whether this new administration has yet to grasp the magnitude of those things that are holding back participation in sport and physical activity in Scotland. Perhaps more pertinently, when it does figure these out, will it be prepared to do anything substantive about them? I’m thinking of the poor state of grass-roots facilities infrastructure, lack of specialist PE teachers, the loss of £12m in funding in the run up to the 2012 Olympics and the slow, ponderous decision-making process and snail-like implementation; it has taken almost five years (and still counting) of trying to implement two hours of high-quality PE in schools.

In what is becoming a traditional annual mantra, “we recognise the important role sport has to play in creating strong communities... etc”. The big ideas transpired to be more community clubs, opening up access to school sport facilities (nothing wrong with these but not necessarily new or big ideas) and, oh yes, scrapping SportScotland. Although there was little flesh on the bones of the last statement, the writing appears to be on the wall as the ‘bonfire of the quango’s’ gathers pace.

The second explanation? The potential abolition of SportScotland will mean the dismantling of strong partnership arrangements with local authorities built up over a number of years, a new funding distribution mechanism that may or may not work being introduced and the sweeping away of an agency that provides ‘open door’ guidance, advice, support and advocacy for the public sector and sports governing bodies. Whilst SportScotland may have some shortcomings, there does not appear to have been any assessment (robust or otherwise) as to whether or not this is a good idea, nor an alternative coherent strategy for how these functions will be picked up. Will this really benefit sport in Scotland going forward or is the Scottish government just taking a punt?

Finally, and I guess most worrying, is the apparent industry malaise and general indifference to all of the above. We need to be wary that we do not get drunk on the fantastic success of the 2014 Commonwealth Games bid and assume that all is well with the world. Unfortunately we don’t have a strong, active and respected professional institute or campaigning body to provide an alternative response to a shrug of the shoulders. And it shows.

This year’s conference was entitled ‘Challenging the Culture’. Perhaps ‘Revolutionising the Culture’ may be apposite for 2008? Let’s rediscover some of the passion and fire that have accompanied sports development conferences of yesteryear and encourage a new generation of outspoken voices who demand that politicians who bask in the glow of sporting achievement should grasp the moment and take bold and historic decisions to bring about the step change improvement that is still desperately needed.

Tim Dent
Director, The Sport and Leisure Consultancy

Parks and health: the killer fact

Reading Ken McAnespie’s letter [TLR 26 October], I was reminded (not that I’d really forgotten) that parks also have a special part to play in healthy living and that much more should be done to make the case. I read something recently which spoke robustly of the health benefits of parks (which are being ignored) and is worth noting. The killer fact is this: what the NHS spends on treating MRSA-type diseases, which they give us, is about the same per annum as the value of the output of the entire landscape sector. But, more to the point, the NHS gets a boost of around £45 billion per annum while parks continue to suffer budget cuts imposed by a government that fails to recognise the health benefits of good parks and green spaces. If the NHS could clean up its hospitals the savings could be used to promote their contribution to the healthy lifestyles that would prevent many serious illnesses and take the pressure off our hard-pressed health services.

Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

26 October 2007

Positioning the role of parks

Those involved in one-off projects are regarded with respect. Those who are left behind to caretake are not. Historically, more enlightened societies respected the role of the caretaker or keeper. Nowadays we seem to assume that it is a demeaning sort of role and something that anyone can do. But worse than this, within the parks world even the designers and the managers are still seen as caretakers and maintainers.

An architect designs a building and the landscape, and moves on to another, leaving behind either a great asset or a monstrosity. The landscaper or parks manager rarely has a say in what it looked like in the fist place but is expected to manage and maintain it regardless. Who is the party that earns the more money and is generally the more respected by society at large? After all, how hard can it be to guard or maintain something that doesn’t change? But therein lies the rub. What we are ‘caretaking’ does change. It alters with the season, it alters with fashion, it alters through natural growth, it alters with legislation, and so on.

Sadly, what we have not been able to achieve in the past twenty years or so is to convince the purse string holders that the role is not just a maintenance role and that the management aspect of it is extremely diverse and complex. It is, and always has been, a role which includes the management of the land, but more than that it includes management of conflict (dog walkers v footballers, bowlers v young children) and the management of staff. And the skills required to fulfil the role are just as extensive.

I have been involved with local government and the private sector for around thirty years and I cannot think of another area of work that has such a widespread portfolio. Nor do I know of many jobs that require such widespread knowledge. That is not to disparage other lines of work, they too are valuable, but it is vital that we manage to convince the right people (namely those who decide how much is going to be spent on any given service as opposed to another) that it is the respect and position within the ‘job hierarchy’ that is wrong. Correcting that is where I believe our efforts within the industry would be best placed.

Ken McAnespie
KMC Consultancy

5 October 2007

Museum access: a continuing debate

I write in response to Vanessa Bone’s letter in which she responds to mine on the vexed question of museums and galleries funding and free public access. Ms Bone kindly invites me to live in the real world and to accept (presumably) that it’s fine (and therefore dandy) for museum and gallery directors, backed by their self-important trustee boards, to charge – pretty much regardless of ability to pay – for access to one-off exhibitions in order to subsidise their permanent collections (much of which is rarely seen).

Well, actually, it is not okay by me and I for one urge that we aspire to a different sort of reality and one that the residents of the very worst of our sink estates might welcome. But, in any case, I can’t possibly allow Ms Bone to deprive me of my dream of (really) free public access to all publicly owned museums and galleries regardless of whether the exhibits on display are part of the permanent collection or temporary ‘block-busters’.

I note Ms Bone’s well-known and oft-rehearsed point that our public museums and galleries have been starved of cash by successive governments (aye, and by philistine governments at that) and that our curators must shrug their shoulders, accept meagre funds and become commercial. But I, in turn, suggest that the public should not continue to accept this mad, sad state of affairs. We (the cultural sector et al) should campaign more robustly (although any sort of campaign would be good enough for now) on the case for universally free access to all of the collections held in trust for the public and to all of the temporary exhibitions hosted and organised by publicly employed curators. It might require that some of us actually do something (but, never mind, it’ll be cathartic and we’ll feel all the better for it). Something very British like writing letters to the press and to our local MPs perhaps. Which is fair enough. But, I’ve got something else in mind involving direct action of the sort beloved of those two great radical journalists and politicians of yesteryear, John Wilkes and William Cobbett. Men who thumbed their noses at other people’s reality in the interests of a fairer and more inclusive world.

Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
For Wilkes, Liberty, the 45 and Cobbett

21 September 2007

Free access no myth

I, too, would like to commend your brave new venture – makes a refreshing change from the tedious Leisure Opportunities with its exciting spa ‘n’ brewers agenda.

Really must take issue with the writer of the first letter to your publication, who needs to live in the real world, frankly. Yes, our national museums and galleries are free and attracting more visitors than ever – but in exchange for this more open access policy, just how big was their increase in Government funding? You guessed it – absolute zero!

Given the huge amount of both temporary and permanent collections which you can still see in the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery and both Tate Galleries free, gratis and for nothing, I do not begrudge them charging as much as they can possibly grab for the odd show. How else, Mr Reeves, do you think they can make some money to cross-subsidise the stuff they have to give for free?

And don’t get me started on the huge range of community activities they put on, for schools and groups from deprived neighbourhoods. Damned good value at twice the price, I say!

On Saturday 9 September I did not go to the Dutch portraits but instead enjoyed the ‘Work, Rest and Play’ exhibition in the National Gallery and had my senses well and truly assaulted at the Beck’s Fusions pod in Trafalgar Square – both even more interesting than dead people in oils and FREE.

Vanessa Bone
Creative Cultures

7 September 2007

The myth of free access

Firstly, congratulations on The Leisure Review, a title worthy of camparison with John Wilkes's North Briton.

However, I write to debunk the myth that our nationally funded museums and galleries are charge-free zones. They are not. A visit to the National Gallery's new show of 16th and 17th century Dutch portraits costs an adult a tenner. Not a huge amount for me but I was saddened to see on my recent visit to the show a number of people turn away having convinced themselves that ten quid was better invested round the corner in one of Soho's many boozers. After all why pay to see one of Frans Hals's smirking buxom trollops when you can ogle scores of the real thing just a few yards away in Greek St for much less?

Apart from catering for a metropolitan cafe-culture elite (like yours truly) I was under the impression that the real point of such exhibitions was to 'get at the sinners' and to educate and illuminate an art-sceptical public. Fat chance of that while museum and gallery direrctors continue to discourage the proles with a charging policy that is more illuminating than the art on display.

Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management