Show Hide image

Forget the Prem, eighth division is where it’s at

Welcome to Champion Hill, London SE22 - home to Dulwich Hamlet Football Club.

"Toes, Daz, toes!" the burly centre back with blond highlights and semi-mullet barks at his wayward full-back, whose dedication to the art of defending is not, at that moment, what it might be. Daz (Darryl to his mum and dad) does what he's told - he's now on his toes, goal side and just about willing to get his shorts dirty if forced.

Another player, another barked order: "Take a touch, son. Take a touch." Sure enough, "son" takes a touch - a heavy one - and loses possession.
Despite the highlights and the semi-mullet (because of it?), the Bognor Regis number six is a man of authority, his instructions obeyed however misguided. In a game played by alpha males, he is Alpha Plus.

At the other end, on the shallow western terrace, there is a knot of five or six dozen Bognor fans in green-and-white scarves. Behind them is clear, blue sky and a large, if ineffectual, orange sun reaching the end of its short, January shift. In front of them, a portly goalie wears an XL jersey and a rictus grin. The Bognor fans chant: "You're just a fat Ian Walker." The reference is to the former Tottenham and Leicester keeper. It's a decent, if cruel, taunt - the likeness is difficult to dispute. Hence the frozen, false smile. You can't fight the mob with banter. Or grumpiness.

The quality of the football is indifferent, the afternoon is getting ever colder and the match ends goalless, but these fans appear to be having a great time.

Innit to win it

Welcome to Champion Hill, London SE22 - home to Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (founded: 1893; colours: pink and blue). Hamlet and Bognor play in the Ryman League Division One South, aka the Isthmian League, aka the eighth tier of English football. Premier League football this isn't - and hallelujah to that.

There are many joys of watching non-league football, in contrast to its bloated, corporate cousin, and near the top of the list is the ability to eavesdrop the on-field cajoling and screaming that's inaudible in a crowd of thousands. The players are noisy but so, too, are those in the dugouts - throughout the match, one or other manager can be heard bellowing his discontent, pleas (unheeded) increasingly desperate. Every now and then, you even catch snatches of the ref, a rare thing. At one point, the middle-aged man in black feels moved to explain his reasons for giving a contentious free kick. "Little bit late, innit," he reasons. Presumably, he's referring to the poor timing of a tackle but I'm not sure the age-inappropriate "innit" does much to enhance his standing. Perhaps a mullet would have helped.

Another pleasure is knowing that you can arrive a few minutes before 3pm and still make kick-off. Even when top (Bognor) plays second (Hamlet) and a season-high 717 have turned up, we are still inside in time to hear the parp of the referee's whistle. And the queue for a half-time cupper or pint (which, under one of the more bizarre Premier League rules, you wouldn't be able to drink while facing the pitch) is bearable.

Oh, and it's much, much cheaper. At Champion Hill, it costs £8 for adults, free for under-12s. I'm not sure how many under-12s you can sneak in but I found two in my house and a neighbour found another. I suspect I could have rounded up a parkful and the friendly chap on the turnstile wouldn't have objected.

Because of the larger than average attendance, the seats were already taken in the Tommy Jover stand (named, trivia fans, after the club's former winger who scored 236 first team goals either side of the Second World War). So, in another nod to the past (at least for fans of top-tier clubs), we stood. And here's something else you can't do at the Etihad, Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge: change ends at half-time. The Bognor fans duly moved from west terrace to east so they could have another crack at the Hamlet goalie and watch their own team's strikers routinely miss the target.

According to a match report on the Hamlet website that followed the game: "Champion Hill rocked to its biggest crowd in many a year." I can't remember the rocking but I'll certainly be back.


Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

This article first appeared in the 23 January 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Has the Arab Spring been hijacked?

The Prime Minister still has questions to answer about his plans for Syria

Cameron needs a better plan for Syria than mere party-politicking, says Ian Lucas.

I was unfortunate enough to hear our Prime Minister discussing the vexed issue of military action in Syria on the Today programme yesterday. It was a shocking experience - David Cameron simply cannot resist trying to take party political advantage of an extremely serious crisis. It is quite clear that there are massive humanitarian, military and political issues at stake in Syria. A number of international and national powers including the United States and Russia are taking military action within Syria and David Cameron said in the broadest terms that he thought that the UK should do so too.

The questions then arise - what should we do, and why should we do it?

Let me make it clear that I do believe there are circumstances in which we should take military action - to assist in issues which either affect this country's national interest and defence, or which are so serious as to justify immediate action on humanitarian grounds. It is for the Prime Minister, if he believes that such circumstances are in place, to make the case.

The Prime Minister was severely shaken by the vote of the House of Commons to reject military action against President Assad in 2013. This was a military course which was decided upon in a very short time scale, in discussion with allies including France and the United States.

As we all know, Parliament, led by Ed Miliband’s Labour Opposition and supported by a significant number of Conservative MPs, voted against the Government’s proposals. David Cameron's reaction to that vote was one of immediate petulance. He ruled out military action, actually going beyond the position of most of his opponents. The proposed action against Assad action was stressed at the time by President Obama to be very limited in scope and directed specifically against the use of chemical weapons. It was not intended to lead to the political end of President Assad and no argument was made by the governments either in the United States or in the UK that this was an aim. What was proposed was short, sharp military action to deal specifically with the threat of chemical weapons. Following the vote in the House of Commons, there was an immediate reaction from both United States and France. I was an Opposition spokesman at the time, and at the beginning of the week, when the vote was taken, France was very strident in its support for military action. The House of Commons vote changed the position immediately and the language that was used by President Obama, by John Kerry and others .

The chemical weapons threat was the focus of negotiation and agreement, involving Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his connections with Syria.  The result was that Assad agreed to dispense with chemical weapons on a consensual basis and no military action took place.

David Cameron felt humiliated by this outcome and loses no opportunity to suggest that the decision was wrong.  He is determined that he should revisit the issue of bombing in Syria, though now action there has elided to action against Islamic State. He has delegated Michael Fallon to prepare the ground for a vote on military action in Parliament. Fallon is the most political of Defence Secretaries - before he became a minister he was regularly presented by the Conservative party as its attack dog against Labour. He gives me the impression of putting the Conservative Party’s interest, at all times, above the national interest. Nothing in his tenure at Defence has changed my view of him.

I was therefore very sceptical what when, in September, Fallon suggested that there should be briefings of members of Parliament to inform us of the latest position on Syria. It turns out that I was right - at the Conservative party conference, Mr Fallon has been referring to these briefings as part of the process that is changing minds in the House of Commons towards taking military action in Syria. He is doubtless taking his orders from the Prime Minister, who is determined to have a vote on taking part in military action in Syria, this time against Islamic State.  

If the Prime Minister wishes to have the support of the House of Commons for military action he needs to answer the following questions: 

What is the nature of the action that he proposes?

What additional impact would action by the UK have, above and beyond that undertaken by the United States and France?

What is the difference in principle between military action in Syria by the UK and military action in Syria by Russia?

What would be the humanitarian impact of such action?

What political steps would follow action and what political strategy does the government have to resolve the Syrian crisis?

The reality is that the United States, UK, France and other western powers have been hamstrung on Syria by their insistence Assad should go. This situation has continued for four years now and there is no end in sight.

The Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary have yet to convince me that additional military action in Syria, this time by the United Kingdom, would help to end Syria's agony and stem the human tragedy that is the refugee crisis engulfing the region and beyond. If the Prime Minister wishes to have support from across the House of Commons, he should start behaving like the Prime Minister of a nation with responsibilities on the United Nations Security Council and stop behaving like a party politician who seeks to extract political advantage from the most serious of international situations.

Ian Lucas is the Labour MP for Wrexham.