One was a Conservative Prime Minister; the other was an outspoken batsman from solid Yorkshire mining stock who probably thought that he should have been PM.

But after listening to both men ruminate in the past week about Britain's broken society, and the important role that sport can play in transforming lives, perhaps they should be discussing (during any breaks in play at the Headingley Test this weekend) how – to use classic Boycott parlance – "some bloody heads can be banged together".

Both men have much to offer.

Sir John's complaint about the misuse of the National Lottery – a policy that he introduced – is valid. Its original purpose was to provide sport and cultural facilities, particularly in those inner-city areas so blighted by knife crime and gang violence. Now it is used to finance New Labour's social programme.

What chance, therefore, do children have if they have no clubs, or facilities, that can harness their energy and any enthusiasm for sport?

As Sir John said, the Lottery should be doing more to help charities like the Chance to Shine project which is taking cricket to the inner cities.

But, as Boycott was to observe later on Test Match Special, a programme which remains a national treasure when entrusted to the hands of commentators with such vast experience, what does it say about society when it is no longer deemed safe to play sport in the street?

It was Ian Bell's dismissal for 199 in the Lord's Test that brought Boycott to the fore. Typically, he said that the England batsman should have hit the ball along the ground to avoid being caught out – a skill that Boycott learned while batting in a back alley behind his family's home in Fitzwilliam.

Stumps were chalked on the wall, and the wicket was a manhole cover. "Anyone who hit the ball into the garden was out, no argument allowed, so we were pretty selective in our shot-making," he said. "If you wanted to stay in, you hit straight. We may not have been allowed the ball back from Mrs So or So's garden."

As Boycott warmed to his theme, just as he did at the batting crease whenever the prospect of another century loomed, he then pointed out that the closeness of the community meant the word was soon out if any strangers were in their midst.

It was an intervention that went to the heart of this country's social challenges. The breakdown of communities, neighbourliness and, at times, needless paranoia over issues like health and safety, mean that it is now rare to see children playing football or cricket in back alleys – or the local park.

In the past, it was the norm. Now it is frowned upon – either by people who resent youngsters playing sport, or parents mindful about the safety of their offspring.

No government initiative to tackle youth crime, and related matters,
will work unless this issue can be addressed.

Geoffrey Boycott continues to offer tremendous insight on cricket matters. Such wisdom could go even further if it was utilised by politicians so that sport can make a difference to lives of young people.



DAVID Davis's return to the Commons, after his Haltemprice and Howden by-election circus, brings to five the number of political heavyweights languishing on the Conservative backbenchers.

Davis – together with Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith, John Redwood and Sir Malcolm Rifkind – are, arguably, far more formidable
and experienced than David Cameron's top team, or Gordon Brown's equivalent.

Yet, if Cameron wins the next election, the Tories will be the most inexperienced government since Lord Derby's administration, in 1852, when the Duke of Wellington was reputedly heard to shout "Who? Who?" as each Cabinet member was sworn in. Furthermore, New Labour offers an object lesson in what happens when political novices take power.

Consider this. Davis is passionate about civil liberties, Clarke is championing constitutional reform, IDS has become an acknowledged expert on social justice, Redwood would relish scaling back the
many quangos that come under
the remit of the Department of Communities and Rifkind is a former Foreign Secretary.

All have also had the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. Can Cameron, therefore, afford to leave such figures in the wilderness? No.


KATE Hoey is a rarity; an MP who is independent-minded.

Take the likely abolition of the Post Office card account – another nail in the coffin for sub-post offices. Commons leader Harriet Harman declined to answer a question from Brigg MP Ian Cawsey about the scheme's future because of "procurement rules".

Yet, two minutes later, Ms Hoey stood up and complained that pensioners in her constituency were already receiving letters saying the POCA "will no longer exist and asking them to move to a bank account".

All Harman could say, rather feebly in response, was that a letter of explanation would be sent out – proof, if any was needed, that Labour's deputy leader would be even more of disastrous Prime Minister than Gordon Brown.


AT least Gordon Brown does not have to worry about being stabbed in the back by Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary whose
quiet style lacks the passion of his incomparable and incorrigible
father, Tony.

"Being a bit dull sometimes is much under-rated," said the Leeds Central MP.