Skip to main content

Day: 8 November 2011

National Fail

Written by Ben Green on . Posted in Opinion.

Privatisation works by opening up services to a free market, which drives down prices and leads to innovation and improvements in customer service. These improvements over a nationalised system are born out of competition between different providers. The telecoms industry is an excellent example of where privatisation has worked to effect improvements; numerous providers offer the same products and services and so compete with one another, resulting in varying prices and quality. Unhappy with BT? You can get the same services from Virgin Media. Is Sky too expensive? Try switching to TalkTalk. The opening up of the market to competition has provided consumers with the power of choice, and such is the secret to its success.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of our rail system. We are the proud owners of the most expensive train fares in Europe, with some journeys costing up to four times what they would cost on the continent. As an example, an on-the-day ticket to London from 50 miles away can cost in excess of £250, whereas in France (the next most expensive country) no similar journey would exceed £100. Whilst this is disturbing enough in itself, taxpayers are in fact forking out much more cash even than their ludicrous fares; in 2009 the government threw £5 billion into the gaping maw that is rail subsidies.

Before privatisation the railways were nationalised and run by British Rail; an inefficient, expensive and unresponsive national institution, which itself provided the arguments in 1997 for privatisation by John Major. As of January 2009, ticket prices on unregulated (i.e. “peak”) fares were on average 35% more expensive in real terms than in 1997 and they have kept rising since, initially at 1% above inflation, now at 3%. In comparison to today’s annual subsidy in excess of £5bn to the rail industry (it peaked at £6.3bn in 2007), British Rail received £1.07bn in 1993/4. Are the trains at least better run? They are not. According to Network Rail and Hansard, the punctuality and reliability of train services have barely improved since British Rail was privatised.

To summarise, privatisation has led to a train system which is no more reliable than its predecessor, lacks central control and comes with an eye-watering price tag.

Why has the move to a free market failed so dismally in this instance? Because it is not actually a free market; certainly not compared to the telecoms example mentioned above. Let’s say you travel from Manchester to London on a Virgin train, but are so unimpressed at having to hand over in excess of £100 for the privilege that you want to use a different company next time you travel. Tough luck. Train operating companies bid for franchises from the government; the winning bidder then operates given lines for a standard five years. This means that those companies essentially have a monopoly on their section of track – the very antithesis of a free market ideal. If Virgin Airways wanted an obscene amount of money to fly you to Europe, you would simply fly with a different, more reasonably priced airline; if Virgin trains want to charge you an obscene fare to travel to London, you have to pay it. Or walk.

If this was not galling enough, rail franchises are usually granted revenue protection clauses. These innocent-sounding clauses mean that the Department for Transport (DfT) will cover up to 75% of any shortfall between projected and actual profits. In plain English this means that if a company does not make as much profit as it had predicted in any given year, the government will pay the difference. The full effect of this policy was amply demonstrated by Stagecoach in a blazing lawsuit against the DfT in 2010. The company demanded, and won, £100m for their South Western franchise after profits had not been as gold-plated as initially hoped. In 2009 the DfT shovelled a total of £400 million in revenue support into train companies. The results: in that same year, Stagecoach posted profits of £170.8m, Go Ahead Group £123.6m and FirstGroup a measly £94.2m. Yet 2009 was a bad year for train operating companies.

It seems unbelievable that anyone could countenance retaining a system where the railways are run by regional monopolies who have their profits paid for by government subsidy. In reality what we have is not actually a privatised system. An open market demands competition, which does not exist under the current system, and forces out weak or uncompetitive companies, which doesn’t happen since the train operating companies are not allowed to fail. Meanwhile, taxpayers pour ever more money into a system which is no longer a public service, but a shameless money-making exercise. Brian Souter alone, the entrepreneur behind Stagecoach, is now worth an estimated £400m thanks to his public transport wheezes.

The present system of ‘privatised’ rail is impossible to defend. It is more expensive for the taxpayer, more expensive for the consumer, and less accountable than its predecessor. The rail system must be re-nationalised as a matter of urgency.

 

What’s your opinion? @Mancuniondebate

Debate 3: Cuts to legal aid will seriously damage the justice system

Written by Jane Kilpatrick on . Posted in Opinion.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke’s proposals for legal aid reform may sound fairly reasonable when written down; it is hard to argue that “unnecessary litigation” could ever be a good thing (Ministerial Foreword: Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales). However, what he deems to be “unnecessary cases”, which the public should not have to pay for, are far more debatable in practice.

He insists: “the Government strongly believes that access to justice is a hallmark of a civil society”, but chief executive of the Law Society Des Hudson claims that the proposal risks jeopardising the principle that the law should be available to all citizens, irrespective of income.

As reassuring as it sounds that legal aid funding will continue for cases involving asylum, mental health, housing and debt where a home is at immediate risk and domestic violence, the Law Society claims that the potential consequences of this reform have not been properly analysed. That the “most vulnerable” people will be left without access to legal aid. For instance, if an immigrant is not actually detained, his or her legal aid would be cut. Funding for cases involving school exclusion appeals would be dropped, potentially affecting young people already in disadvantaged areas and having a negative impact on the rest of their education and prospects.

The list of those who would be put at risk by these reforms is extensive. While advantages may include cheaper insurance due to the lower payouts required, and a reduction in genuinely “unnecessary” claims, I cannot see that it is worth making legal advice and representation more elusive for those who need it the most. While Clarke claims that the most vulnerable are the ones who will remain protected, Hudson has “severe doubts” that this will be put into practice.

This reform risks not only making it harder for those in real need of legal assistance to find the help they need, but also discouraging genuine claims, leaving ordinary people without the defence and representation they deserve. It is suggested that to make lawyers less liable for unsuccessful defences in court, clients would be liable for costs if they were found to have acted unreasonably. While not only making it less likely that clients would wish to pursue a genuine claim, I cannot help but ask why clients are not told they are being unreasonable before a lawyer agrees to represent them.

A final worry about this proposal is the incentive it could give some people to lie or exaggerate a situation in court, with devastating effects. Making funding available for divorce cases only where domestic violence is claimed, for instance, could have terribly adverse effects on the lives of people in unhappy marriages. Making it harder to claim on smaller issues risks increasing the likelihood of exaggeration or outright lies in court to obtain financial coverage for the case.

According to the currently dominant paradigm, the government has to make cuts and reform areas of government spending. However, it seems unlikely that the positive spin on cutting legal aid will be noticed by any of those adversely affected by these overlooked consequences.

See the other side of this debate.

What’s your opinion? @Mancuniondebate

Debate 3: The case for cutting legal aid

Written by Marlow Upton on . Posted in Opinion.

The government plans to slash the legal aid budget by £350m, yet legal aid will remain in almost all criminal cases or cases that involve areas which are protected by law such as domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction. The current budget for legal aid in the United Kingdom stands at £2bn, which is a higher per capita expenditure on legal aid than any other country.  Despite this large spend, only 29 percent of British citizens are currently eligible for legal aid and after the cuts that amount is likely to drop. Cutting the budget for legal aid is probably a good thing since it will force would-be litigants to pursue cheaper alternatives to the Court.

The problem is not the amount of money assigned to the legal aid budget, or the government’s attempt to cut it. Our problem, as a nation, is the vast amount of criminal offences and convictions which are a result of our increasing habit of taking legal action when confronted with civil problems. With both the political left and right wanting to be “tough on crime”, the amount of criminal offences has risen swiftly in recent years – the Labour government introduced more than 3,000. The people who typically commit these offences disproportionately fall into the eligible 29 percent. We also have developed a habit of seeking legal action rather than mediation. So when a neighbour’s tree grows over our fence we are more likely to take them to court to defend “our rights” than to attempt to negotiate and understand one another. There are moments when judicial intervention is the right option, but it should only ever be a last resort after exhausting all other possible avenues for resolution.

What needs to increase is the amount of education and advice given to those seeking to resolve their problems in court. Currently the Citizens’ Advice Bureau provides this function and eats up most of the annual £2bn. In Scotland, a scheme is planned whereby law students (the second most common type of student, after nurses) would give free advice over the phone in exchange for some excellent real life experience of law in action. Introducing a similar scheme over the rest of the UK would provide a useful cost-saving measure to prevent some of the damage from the cuts and at least allow the newly disqualified to seek free advice before potentially wasting their money. However, this cannot replace what is really needed; a way of encouraging people to negotiate, see the other person’s side of an argument, or accept that sometimes, accidents do happen.

See the other side of this debate.

What’s your opinion? @Mancuniondebate

Sex attack sentencing needs reform

Written by Lisa Murgatroyd on . Posted in Opinion.

As reported exclusively in The Mancunion last week, the number of sex attacks is on the rise in student areas of Manchester. What, then, can be said of the number of convictions? Or the sentences these offenders are likely to receive?

Earlier this year, new plans for a consultation on sentencing reform came under fire following a BBC interview with Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. Building on an established discount system brought in under the Labour Party, offenders who pleaded guilty would be eligible for early release, including rapists. The Green Paper, entitled “Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders” was first proposed by the government in December 2010.

In 2009, the average length of time a sex offender spent in prison was just over four years. Some 64 percent of offenders have known convictions or cautions; up to 15 or more apiece. This trend has been consistent for the last decade, according to the sentencing statistics of the Ministry of Justice. The Green Paper recommends continuing to provide programmes for the ‘treatment’ of sex offenders whom have “proven their worth”. However, the facts would seem to disagree with this recommendation.

While trying to ease the burden of cost and deal with issues of space within the prison system, corners are being cut in the judicial system. Sentences in general have become shorter; offenders now typically serve only half of their sentences behind bars and the other half under the supervision of a probation officer.

In line with the new plan, sex offenders could see their sentences cut by half. The supposed logic behind this new thinking is that the victims of sex attacks will be saved the ordeal of a court appearance. Yet, there are already pre-existing measures in place for such instances, and so the decrease is surely a redundancy that will only further harm the Tories’ battle against the image of being “soft on crime.”

For those subjected to sex attacks, the process of coming forward and identifying an attacker is daunting enough – let alone the abundant horror stories of some ordeals faced by victims when being processed through the court system.

There is a clear need for a reform of the sentencing guidelines and court procedures when dealing with sexual assaults, which has yet to be realised by the government. In my view and that of many others, shortening already-lenient sentences for sex attackers is clearly not the answer.

 

What’s your opinion? @Mancuniondebate

Medical Waste..?

Written by Paul Haslam on . Posted in Opinion.

As previously reported in these pages (Issue 3, 3 Oct.), it seems that our humble Manchester is following in the prestigious footsteps of institutions such as Stanford University and UC Irvine Medical School in providing free iPads to our medical and dentistry students. While it’s tempting to rail against the waste of money, the blatant buying-off of dissatisfied students, and the privileging of some and not others (where’s my free iPad, you bastards?), I can see why this has been done. In all likelihood, the iPad and its descendents will be among the most important drivers of medical innovation in years to come; and it’s difficult to argue with the rationale of providing the devices to students on placement to facilitate access to e-resources. If the trend takes hold- and it looks likely to- it will have been admirably forward-thinking of the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences to encourage medical students here to take early advantage of the new generation of powerful, ergonomic touchscreen devices.

Although iPads currently lack many specialised apps for medical use, they will be coming, just as they did for the iPhone and similar devices – applications for anything from learning anatomy to viewing radiology results, to hunting down obscure symptoms and diseases, all will be accommodated by iPad and the increasingly powerful tablet computers that will follow. Innovation in learning methods should always be embraced, cautiously – if they prove maladaptive they can always be dropped.

With all of that said, there are a couple of problems with the scheme. Foremost is the cost – assuming that it is a good idea to do this, not deferring the decision until after the forthcoming iPad competitors arrive has made the equipment much more expensive; essentially, a massive gift of both money and prestige to Apple (not that they need either) out of our stretched University budget. Secondly, it’s been claimed that the pilot scheme has benefited a few final year students, and if successful it will be implemented with the medical and dentistry students arriving next year: in which case four years’ worth of students will miss out on the scheme. This seems unfair, although of course the argument over cost still stands – if this is to be done, perhaps it’s better for the University that those not on the pilot scheme get a tough break on this one. I’m sure they’ll survive, although if it were me in that position I’d be fuming too.

At heart I’m a supporter of this and other technological learning improvements – which of us now can imagine the University without its behemoth IT structure, ill-functioning as it sometimes is? I can access my lecture slides remotely, and ‘hand in’ work virtually, online – which is as good for me and my deadline-shaving ways as it is for others, who this way get to avoid encountering the twitchy, unshaven, half-dressed, coffee-infused mess that I am at those times.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all students at the University should be given free tablet computers – that would be silly. However, the ‘trial group’ for this scheme are a special case. They’re on placement off-campus, and need to access online resources remotely. If desktop computers are unavailable, this means either lugging a laptop around, or putting up with the less-adequate abilities of a smartphone. So it seems that the ‘solution looking for a problem’ (as iPads have been semi-affectionately termed by some) has found a niche after all.

Even more, in the near future it’s looking probable that textbooks will be made available in electronic form (read: lighter to carry, potentially much cheaper, and easily annotated, conceivably updated remotely in much the same way as a smartphone app is, meaning that instead of being out-of-date as soon as published, e-textbooks will retain their cutting-edge status for as long as the user’s subscription lasts). The possibilities of collaboration between practitioners at great distance, the ability for information regarding treatments to be disseminated incredibly quickly and then confirmed or refuted with equal alacrity, and for practitioners to develop their own software tools quickly and effectively to help solve whatever problems they face, remain tantalising to my mind. All these might lie in the murky future of medicine, but whether or not they come to be the mere possibility is enough to at least partially justify acquainting our students with the technology. If nothing else, they make awesome coasters…

 

What’s your opinion? @Mancuniondebate

Live: Alice Cooper @ The Apollo

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Music.

Alice Cooper

Apollo

30th October

5 stars

What better time could Alice Cooper come to Manchester and play a show than the day before Halloween. The undisputed king of shock rock has been perfecting the art of his stage show for decades, with on stage monsters and massive hits. But is age catching up with him yet?

Support came from New York Dolls, themselves legends of protopunk. Whilst the band are in danger of looking a little bit silly (dressing like they’re still 20 didn’t exactly flatter themselves), David Johansen’s deep vocal style still cuts through the air like it did on record back in 1973, a genuine surprise given most aged punk bands vocal decline over the years. There is however a definitive split in song quality live. Songs pre-1976 (before their hiatus) like ‘Jet Boy’ and ‘Personality Crisis’ bring down the house, where as post reunion tracks such as ‘Dance Like a Monkey’ fall flat. Still, it is impressive to see the energy is still there.

Alice Cooper however smashed it. Start to finish, vocally and visually Cooper was flawless. Whilst one expects ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy’, ‘Poison’, ‘I’m Eighteen’ and ‘Schools Out’ to be impeccable and well received, it’s clear once Cooper struts around to new song ‘I’ll Bite Your Face Off’ (complete with the self awareness to wear a jacket emblazoned with “New Song”) that not one song is filler. As for visuals, any show which involves a ten foot Frankenstein’s monster appearing out of nowhere, a shockingly real looking decapitation by guillotine and a tender love song being sang to a life size ragdoll is bound to be a success.

The energy with which the 63 year old Alice, or if you want to be honest, Vincent, bounds around stage is phenomenal. The only thing better than Alice Cooper playing the day before Halloween, is Alice Cooper playing on Halloween itself.

Alice Cooper – Poison

Alice Cooper – I’ll Bite Your Face Off

New York Dolls – Personality Crisis

Live: Volbeat @ Academy 2

Written by Tom Geddes on . Posted in Music.

Volbeat

28th October

Academy 2

4 Stars

In mainland Europe, Volbeat are huge. Last year they headlined Greenfield festival, which might not seem like much, but that put them on a level with Foo Fighters and System of a Down. Back in Manchester, they have to make do with Academy 2.

Support band Black Spiders, usually on fine form in support slots, had to make do with a four song set after being dogged by technical problems. PA problems forced them off stage half way through ‘Stay Down’, appropriately enough immediately after the lyric “Fuck you and this one horse town.” Twenty minutes later, returning to the stage looking ready to kill whoever responsible, they pick up right where they left off. Impressive determination, but not even ‘Kiss Tried to Kill Me’ couldn’t save them.

Volbeat however picked things up a little. Mixing frontman Michael Poulsen‘s rockabilly vocal style with Metallica’s guitar onslaught may not sound great on paper, but it’s infectious. ‘Hallelujah Goat’ alone impresses by showing off just how dynamic his voice can be, whilst moving tribute to Johnny Cash ‘Sad Man’s Tongue’ starts off playing on country music before powering straight into their signature style. Volbeat are about as crowd pleasing as a band can be, calling for cover requests and knocking out twenty second snippets without missing a beat. But it’s the cover of Dusty Springfield’s ‘I Only Wanna be with You’ which Volbeat truly make their own, making a room full of mainly metalheads dance about to it. It has to be seen to be believed.

Overall, Volbeats unique sound works in their favour. With nothing else like it, the band knows they can have you eating out of their hands. The strangest thing is, you don’t even realise quite how heavy the show has been until you get outside and question why your ears are ringing so much.

Volbeat – Guitar Gangsters and Cadillac Blood

Volbeat – I Only Wanna Be With You (Dusty Springfield Cover)

Black Spiders – Stay Down

Inflation and joblessness will make you miserable

Written by Oliver Taylor on . Posted in News.

Recent times have been tough for students. Graduate unemployment was at 20 percent in 2010, and the most recent unemployment figures are 8.1 percent. With no sign of abating, inflation will make the lives of students as well as others (mostly vulnerable groups in society) miserable.

Unlike normal borrowers who benefit from inflation, as the relative value of their loans decreases, students are disadvantaged because the repayment rate of a student loan is linked to the Retail Price Index which stands at 5.6 percent, the highest recorded since October 1992. Furthermore students tend to spend higher proportions of their income on food and fuel, which have been the main drivers of inflation. Not only will inflation make it harder to pay back student loans, but it’s also making it harder to simply survive.

Soaring utility bills have proved particularly painful for students. Who usually, due to inexperience and the relatively temporary nature of their rents, end up getting a raw deal.

“I could be getting ripped off, but I don’t even know. I probably am,” says Jessica Toomey, a History of Art student at the University of Manchester

“We were charged for electricity use over the summer when we didn’t even live here.” Remarks drama student Megan Holland, studying at the same institution.

Green regulation and investment requirements have been blamed for the recent hikes in price but Chris Huhne, the minister for energy and climate change, has hit back. Instead he blames Ofgen, the industry regulator’s lack of power. Huhne has also suggested that “lazy” consumers are to blame and they should take a more active role in finding the best price.

Even if you are one of the 80 percent of graduates who manage to secure a job, you may not escape the misery. With wages rising at an annualised rate of 1.8 percent from June to August and inflation at 5.2 percent during the same period. The real value of your pay will probably have shrunk.

Another measure to illustrate how hard things are for recent graduates is the misery index. It was created in the ‘60s by the economist Arthur Okun and is calculated by adding the unemployment rate to retail price inflation. The current rate for the general population is 13.7 whereas for recent graduates it’s 25.6. To put that in perspective, the misery index was at 30 during the winter of discontent. If the data were available, it would be interesting to see what it would be for current students.

With the twin evils of joblessness and inflation, it’s apparent how bleak things are for students and recent graduates alike.

 

Investment banking-still male dominant?

Written by Kirti Vasta on . Posted in News.

With unemployment becoming a lingering grey cloud above the intellectual minds of many, the most noble step for students is to carefully carry out research into the careers options out there, but more importantly, decide which ones are best for each of them. With investment banking being amongst the popular career paths, the widely spread stereotypical view of its male dominance is becoming increasingly disputed.

Many go as far as questioning whether the financial crisis would have even occurred if there had been greater dominance of women within key roles of the financial services sector. Research by the Financial News in March 2011 showed that of the 200 most senior or executive bankers, at a sample of 20 renowned investment banks and corporate and investment banking divisions, just 17 were women, which equates to less than 8 percent or, on average, fewer than one women in executive positions at each bank.

Given such startling information banks have expanded agendas for equal opportunities and gender diversity to level the playing field. Banks such as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, UBS and other competing rivals got together to host two ‘Footpath to Finance’ days in Sydney in the aim to target all high school students, particularly females, into this field of work by providing a greater insight into the available careers within investment banking.

Karen Butterworth, careers consultant at the University of Manchester’s Careers Service, said: “Generally, there are more males than females enquiring about investment banking, however over the past two years I have worked as a careers consultant, this has changed with a greater interest from females.”

 

The Careers Service offers plenty of help to all students in many specific fields of interest: “I have seen an increased number of females taking part in the group sessions we hold for students interested in investment banking maybe suggesting the spread is becoming more even,” Karen added.

 

Hence, it appears all is not doomed for the courageous business-women out there. Marjorie Scardino, the CEO of Pearson, an international media conglomerate based in London, is a great example of a talented business-women excelling in the field and is the first woman to head a top 100 firm on the London Stock Exchange. Investment Banking may be a tough path for women, but it is a possible one.

21st October: Best in Standup

Written by Flora Anderson on . Posted in Arts, Theatre.

Manchester’s comedy store has been open since 2000 and, like its sister stage in London, is one of the most established venues in comedy. Best in Standup is one of the club’s weekly shows.

Compare Ben Norris was relaxed and irreverent, and did the usual crowd warm up banter with ease and fast-paced wit.

Opener Michael Fabbri’s jokes often erred on the offensive-but-not-quite-funny-enough side, relying on pretty generic material on the Internet and domestic routine for bigger laughs.

Andrew Bird, by contrast, made similar subject matter hilarious. He was relatable, sharp and had great energy, livening up the whole audience with jokes about video recording and MTV sign language interpreters.

Rob Deering’s guitar goofiness was fast paced and filled with quick one liners and pun-tastic song titles, ending on a failsafe acapella techno dance routine.

Paul Tonkinson was the crowd favourite doing jokes on ecstasy in the 90s, and a torrent of impressions about his ‘lardy wife’ and their sex life which was frankly hilarious.

The night was a success for classic, unchallenging standup. Tonkinson and Bird made the night for me and, although not pushing any boundaries the Comedy Store was stocked with a great fun-filled atmosphere.

 

18th October: Jimeoin, Lovely at The Comedy Store

Written by Martha Craig on . Posted in Arts.

To be able to start a show successfully with a string of bird walk impressions, including a chicken in a minefield, can only prepare the audience for a good 2 hours of comedy.

Jimeoin is not only hilariously funny but also has the most inviting smile and a charming Irish accent. His comedy is not fancy or farfetched, it’s mainstream and plays well off deliverance.

 He cleverly manipulates the audience into laughing at themselves through everyday, mundane situations like stubbing a toe or slipping in the shower. This style reminds me of Michael McIntyre’s comedy, yet with the perk of Jimeoin being fantastically different and infinitely less irritating in deliverance.

 He is not only a comedian but also a fairly competent musician, incorporating his comedy rather deftly into rock songs. I found myself crying with laughter during his song ‘What’, where the words were mostly unintelligible and completely ridiculous.

 At the end he very bravely took out his book of comedic thoughts to try out on the audience. I was immediately sceptical as comedy thrives off the appearance of improvisation, however he managed it pretty well and the audience loved it.

 Jimeoin really showed the audience what comedy is at its basic best.

20th October: Frisky and Mannish at The Lowry

Written by Harriet Cherry on . Posted in Arts.

Arriving late and being uneducated in what the Frisky and Mannish experience involved, I admit I lacked the necessary enthusiasm for the duo’s introductory round of audience participation that had already begun.

Fighting the initial urge to run straight back out of the door, the show gathered momentum and we couldn’t help but pick up the infectious energy of their cabaret-comedy stylings.  

The duo:  Laura Corcoran and Matthew Jones, the latter clothed in the typical attire of Dick/Dom off of Cbeebies, manage to pull off a potentially heinous sugar-pop Gaga look.

The format of a Pop Centre Plus was a good vehicle for presenting their many musical numbers but it felt a little desperate at times. I can’t decide if the clunky filing cabinet and desk-piano hybrid, combined with their extreme over-acting was brilliant or just plain annoying. With her amazing singing voice, Corcoran can imitate anyone from Adele to Kate Bush yet her comedy became shrill and shouted on occasion.

However any comedian who can disarm their audience to the extent that a 65 year old man was willing to be sat on, onstage, by his four new “band mates”, and photographed must be a winner.

20th October: The Best in Stand-up at The Comedy Store

Written by Martha Craig on . Posted in Arts.

Ben Norris hosted an evening of comedy stylings at The Comedy Store with acts from Paul Tonkinson, Michael Fabbri, Andrew Bird and Phil Nichol. Ben was a great host; his comedy was witty and quick in improvisation with some urban-based Hip Hop.

The crowd was suitably drunk and rowdy and dealing with a raucous audience can be the making or breaking of a compare, but Norris dealt with them elegantly and in style.

Tonkinson was very amusing and brilliantly expressive, but with enough sexual references to border on the vulgar. Mike Fabbri’s laid-back style acclimatised to the chilly Manchester climes, with locale-relevant anecdotes of times wiled in the Camberwell Job Centre, and more than embarrassing trips to the doctor.

The second half proved to be more energetic than the first, with top quality jokes from Andrew Bird about Tiger Woods, the American belief in ‘sex addiction’, and pilots made redundant mid-flight.

To end the show, Canadian Phil Nichol, burst forth with impersonations of the local (and almost-local) likes of Morrissey, Oasis and Elvis. To round off the evening, Nichol sang the hilarious, ‘I’m the only gay Eskimo’, now firmly stuck in my head.

Live: The Answer @ Academy 3

Written by Tom Geddes on . Posted in Music.

The Answer

Academy 3

24th October

3.5 Stars

A couple of years back, if you wanted to see The Answer you’d have to pay forty quid and you’d be lucky if you got within spitting distance. Back then they were jetting around the world as support for rock and roll legends AC/DC. In the present, a slightly more humble Academy 3 is their stomping ground, though admittedly it is packed to the rafters.

Throwback rockers and nicest band in the world Gentlemans Pistols opened the night, tearing through a set with enough seventies vibes to fill an episode of Life on Mars. Perhaps it’s the tongue in cheek lyrics, most notably of ‘The Ravisher’ and ‘Some Girls Don’t Know What’s Good for Them’, or maybe it’s the infectious grins and geeky appearance; either way, by the end of the set the originally ambivalent rabble had become both enthusiastic and rapt (at least five people asked me for their name afterwards.)

With a suitably warmed stage, The Answer bounded straight into a set of favourites peppered with a few songs from new album Revival. Cormac Neeson’s vocal style brings to mind Free’s Paul Rodgers, with a powerful range which is, to be honest a little overbearing in the tiny venue. The songs stood up consistently well however, with new numbers ‘Tornado’ and ‘Vida (I Want You)’ slotting seamlessly between established classics ‘Too Far Gone’ and ‘Under The Sky’. Highlights of the set however are the tender ‘Why’d you Change Your Mind’ and Rose Tattoo cover ‘Rock ‘N’ Roll Outlaw’. But as the set drew to a close, one couldn’t help but think this was a band that had evolved past this size venue whilst honing their skills with ‘DC. With powerful vocals that could deafen from one hundred paces and a steady guitar onslaught, this is a band that needs an Academy 1 slot to truly impress.

The Answer – Evil Man

Gentlemans Pistols – The Ravisher