Kevin Pietersen: The England dressing room during the Ashes series was no fun - I'm glad to be out

By Kevin Pietersen

in The Telegraph 10:59PM BST 08 Jun 2014

I will have no anger, no negative thoughts whatsoever when England walk out without me at Lord’s on Thursday to play their first Test since the winter. I wish my friends in the England team well. I have moved on from the England and Wales Cricket Board’s decision to end my international career and have put things in perspective.

Fourteen years ago, I was an off-spinner from Pietermaritzburg who did not know where his life was going. I had a notion that I wanted to make a life in England but had no idea if I would succeed.

Now I have played 104 Tests, batted at all the best grounds in the world and been lucky enough to score hundreds everywhere. Could I play more Test cricket? Yes of course, but should I sit here thinking I should be playing on Thursday? No, because that is when jealousy and negative thoughts come into your head.

I am grateful for what I have had and moved on with my life. I have scored 13,500 international runs for England and it would be greedy to want more, so I am at peace with everything.

It took only a couple of conversations with my family to start thinking this way because of how much I really did not enjoy the winter. 

In fact, it has been a relief to be out of the dressing room because it was not a pleasant place in Australia. We were losing and in my opinion the environment was poor and I was not alone in thinking that. It is a view shared by a number of the players who have spoken their minds since coming back from the tour.

Now I have had time to reflect on the winter it is clear to me that back-to-back Ashes should never happen again. It was really hard for the England team to go to Australia and defend the Ashes just weeks after winning at home.

As soon as we arrived the Australian media turned the heat up on us. I have had that for years so it did not bother me. It was fun. But for other players you could sense it was a problem. The senior players were tired and it soon became a really long grind against an Australian side that had their backs up in their own country.

Australia knew they came close to winning here. The 3-0 defeat last summer was not a true reflection of that series in terms of the way they played their cricket and we played ours, so I knew it was going to be a tight return contest and we were not equipped to handle it.

Mitchell Johnson was sensational on those pitches and he was handled brilliantly by Michael Clarke. Even if he picked up a wicket in his third or fourth over of a spell, Clarke would take him off and save him for later in the day. It was brilliant captaincy. Johnson’s bowling was the best and most aggressive I have seen during my career, and I told him so at the end of the Test series when we shared a beer.

By then I thought that Andy Flower wanted me out. After the Sydney Test, a headline came out claiming Flower had said to the ECB it was either “him or me”. He denied saying that but the damage was done.

But my relationship with the other players was fine. We had an incredible tour on and off the field. I was helping all the bowlers out with their batting, and the night we lost 5-0 we were all having a drink in the bar together with our wives and girlfriends, which proves all was OK between us and still is.

I have no issue with the players, as many have said in interviews since the tour ended. I speak to Stuart Broad and I even organised for Graeme Swann to go on holiday to one of my friend’s hotels after he retired.

On a personal note, I did not score the runs I would have liked in Australia but I have played a certain way throughout my career and will continue to do so. There is method to my batting but I play on instinct as well and I would absolutely play that way again if we could go back in time.

In the first innings at Brisbane, I was caught at midwicket. As soon as the ball left Ryan Harris’s hand I thought ‘four’. I saw the angle and thought ‘bang it through midwicket’, but I got caught out. In the second innings, all I tried to do was help a short ball from Johnson to fine leg because it was too tight to pull, but I was caught again.

In Adelaide, I walked out to the crease and felt like I did not know which side of the bat I was holding. I felt that terrible and that is why I was walking at Peter Siddle and playing him on the full.

As soon as I was dismissed I walked out of the dressing room to the nets with Richard Halsall, the assistant coach, and spent 45 minutes trying to figure out how to bat again. I felt that bad, the worst I have ever experienced in an Ashes series.

Why? I do not fully know. But my knee was hassling me a bit. I had an injection a few weeks before and during that innings it was hurting. In the dressing room everyone takes the mickey out of how I bend my knee during my stance because of how exaggerated the movement can be. But in Adelaide, because of the knee pain, I was standing a lot taller in the crease and that changed my game. I said to Halsall and spin coach Mushtaq Ahmed: “I can’t bat like that again.” I had to work hard to get myself back to playing normally again. In the second innings I made 53 and played very responsibly.

My dismissal in the second innings at Perth has received a lot of attention. I was caught at long on trying to hit Nathan Lyon for a second six. But if I see that ball again, I will still try to hit it for six. No problem. As he tossed it up I thought ‘six more there’. If you look at my career, that is how I play. People say it is irresponsible but it was not; it was successful.

Look at the innings that started it all off – the 158 against Australia in the 2005 Ashes at the Oval. I was hooking Brett Lee at 95mph into the stands. Any one of those shots could have gone straight up in the air and been caught. The 186 in Mumbai in 2012 is talked about as the best innings by a foreigner in India. I took risks during that hundred. I am England’s leading run scorer in all forms of cricket because of playing that way.

People say I should have ground it out. Should I? What would have been different?

What I have done during my career is ignore the ridiculous praise and the ridiculous criticism. I have stayed even and been mentally strong enough to keep believing in my methods and what I think is the best way for me to be successful.

It would have been easy for me to start defending a bit more. Would that have made me a better player? No. I am a risk-taker in cricket, in business and all parts of my life.

Coaching needs to focus more on natural talent

I have kept busy since my England career ended. I loved the Indian Premier League, even though results were disappointing for Delhi and now I am focused on Surrey and my business life.

I am extremely excited about establishing my cricket academy and foundation, which will launch in October in Dubai.

In total we have identified seven countries, including England, where we want to establish academies. The first is being built at the moment on a great plot in Dubai which will include a cricket field, pavilion and classrooms with the plan to coach kids between the ages of eight and 18.

My foundation will fund 13 disadvantaged kids and two chaperones from seven countries to come to my facility to be trained there for two weeks, guided by our coaching, taught the fitness and mental side of the game but to also have fun too. Then two years later I will pay for all the kids from the seven countries to come back and play a mini World Cup in Dubai against each other.

At the moment we are setting down how I want the kids to be coached and making sure we get that set up right.

My guiding principles are that I want to coach kids the way they play and not from a textbook. You want kids to grow up believing in their own natural talent and strengths.

I do not have a good technique at all. Sometimes I watch myself on television and I am embarrassed about my technique. I do not know how I score runs other than through self-confidence and belief in my ability.

Look at Lasith Malinga. How the hell does he get wickets bowling like that?

But his technique works for him. If he was a young England player he would probably have drifted out of the game. I have seen how coaching is now especially for kids. Ball on a cone, high elbow and hit through the ball.

In my opinion that is not the only way to coach and its holding back some natural talent. The game has changed and coaching has to change too.

Muslims must be honest about Qur’an

“We Muslims are caught in a conundrum. If the Arab general bin Qasim is our hero for enslaving non-Muslim women in India in the eighth century, how could Boko Haram be judged wrong for doing exactly the same in Nigeria today?”

May 21, 2014

Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Sun

In the aftermath of Islamic jihadis — the Boko Haram — enslaving Christian school girls in Nigeria, the Muslim intelligentsia, instead of doing some serious introspection, has chosen to exercise damage control.

Columns by my co-religionists have appeared in newspapers ranging from the Toronto Star to The Independent in London and on CNN.com, where they avoid any reference to Sharia laws that permit Muslims to take non-Muslim female prisoners of war as sex slaves.

The fact is Muslim armies throughout history have been permitted under Islamic law to make sex slaves of non-Muslim prisoners.

Here is chapter 33, verse 50 of the Qur’an:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”

When asked for a clarification, A Saudi cleric issued a fatwa permitting sex slavery. He said:

“Praise be to Allaah. Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married … Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah (his companions), the righteous and the scholars.”

In the eighth century, when Arab armies invaded India, they took thousands of Hindu POWs as slaves back to the Caliph Walid in Damascus, who distributed the women as gifts to the newly emerging Arab nobility.

The ninth-century Persian historian al-Baladhuri writes in his book The Origins of the Islamic State that when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim invaded India in the year 711AD, the non-Muslim prisoners taken were given a choice of death or slavery.

Sixty thousand captives were made slaves in the city of Rur, among whom were “thirty ladies of royal blood.” One-fifth of the slaves and booty were set apart for the caliph’s treasury and dispatched to Damascus, while the rest were scattered among the “army of Islam.”

The nineteenth century Indian Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose translation of the Qur’an is considered the most authentic, had the courage to be honest when he put a footnote to the Quranic verse mentioned above:

“The point does not now arise as the whole conditions and incidents of war have been altered and slavery has been abolished by international agreement.”

But courage to face facts is rare among many Muslims today. I asked the writers of the Toronto Star and The Independent columns why they had not addressed the passages of the Qur’an that permit Muslims to take slaves. They did not answer.

I wrote to a woman who told Christiane Amanpour of CNN that “Boko Haram do not understand Islam.” I asked her why she had not addressed Sharia law that permits taking non-Muslim females as POWs. She too, did not respond.

We Muslims are caught in a conundrum. If the Arab general bin Qasim is our hero for enslaving non-Muslim women in India in the eighth century, how could Boko Haram be judged wrong for doing exactly the same in Nigeria today?

All we Muslims need do today is to echo Abdullah Yusuf Ali by saying, “what was permitted in the seventh century, is no longer applicable in the twenty-first.” But alas, neither honesty nor courage comes easy.

Fasting for three days can regenerate entire immune system, study finds

By Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent in The Telegraph

Fasting for as little as three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as "remarkable".

Although fasting diets have been criticised by nutritionists for being unhealthy, new research suggests starving the body kick-starts stem cells into producing new white blood cells, which fight off infection.

Scientists at the University of Southern California say the discovery could be particularly beneficial for people suffering from damaged immune systems, such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.

It could also help the elderly whose immune system becomes less effective as they age, making it harder for them to fight off even common diseases.

The researchers say fasting "flips a regenerative switch" which prompts stem cells to create brand new white blood cells, essentially regenerating the entire immune system.

"It gives the 'OK' for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system," said Prof Valter Longo, Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the University of California.

"And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting.

“Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or ageing, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system."

Prolonged fasting forces the body to use stores of glucose and fat but also breaks down a significant portion of white blood cells.

During each cycle of fasting, this depletion of white blood cells induces changes that trigger stem cell-based regeneration of new immune system cells.

In trials humans were asked to regularly fast for between two and four days over a six-month period.

Scientists found that prolonged fasting also reduced the enzyme PKA, which is linked to ageing and a hormone which increases cancer risk and tumour growth.

"We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system," added Prof Longo.

"When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged," Dr Longo said.

"What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?"

Fasting for 72 hours also protected cancer patients against the toxic impact of chemotherapy.

"While chemotherapy saves lives, it causes significant collateral damage to the immune system. The results of this study suggest that fasting may mitigate some of the harmful effects of chemotherapy," said co-author Tanya Dorff, assistant professor of clinical medicine at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital.

"More clinical studies are needed, and any such dietary intervention should be undertaken only under the guidance of a physician.”

"We are investigating the possibility that these effects are applicable to many different systems and organs, not just the immune system," added Prof Longo.

However, some British experts were sceptical of the research.

Dr Graham Rook, emeritus professor of immunology at University College London, said the study sounded "improbable".

Chris Mason, Professor of Regenerative Medicine at UCL, said: “There is some interesting data here. It sees that fasting reduces the number and size of cells and then re-feeding at 72 hours saw a rebound.

“That could be potentially useful because that is not such a long time that it would be terribly harmful to someone with cancer.

“But I think the most sensible way forward would be to synthesize this effect with drugs. I am not sure fasting is the best idea. People are better eating on a regular basis.”

Dr Longo added: “There is no evidence at all that fasting would be dangerous while there is strong evidence that it is beneficial.

“I have received emails from hundreds of cancer patients who have combined chemo with fasting, many with the assistance of the oncologists.

“Thus far the great majority have reported doing very well and only a few have reported some side effects including fainting and a temporary increase in liver markers. Clearly we need to finish the clinical trials, but it looks very promising.”

The Indian Pharmaceutical Sector

 

By Jill E. Sackman, PhD,Michael Kuchenreuther

Biopharma companies should not overlook India's growing market.

ABHIJITMORE/ROOM/GETTY IMAGES

Recognizing that emerging markets continue to play a significant role in terms of future growth, most major pharmaceutical companies have accelerated efforts to strengthen their presence within these markets through R&D investment, licensing deals, acquisitions, or other partnerships. However, with global markets facing dynamic demographic and disease trends, changing market demands, and evolving regulatory requirements, it has been hard for manufacturers to devise the strategies needed for success in each of these areas.


India, a member of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), is much more comparable to the United States in terms of market size and must be included in this list of promising potential markets for global pharmaceutical manufacturers. Recent changes in India’s population and economy have contributed to a shift in the country’s epidemiological profile towards ‘lifestyle’ diseases that are more prevalent in Western markets. Such changes have increased the demand for better healthcare and for medications that address chronic diseases. Furthermore, India’s own pharmaceutical industry, a recognized world leader in the production of generic drugs, offers manufacturing expertise to organizations looking to outsource or create networks of collaboration and discovery. However, a more granular assessment of India’s pharmaceutical market reveals growing concerns over patent protection, price capping, quality, and safety. Understanding this country’s complex market dynamics will be crucial for manufacturers exploring new opportunities for growth in India.

India health and pharmaceutical market overview

India is the second most populous country in the world with about 1.27 billion people, and is projected to surpass China by 2028 (1). As the Indian population has continued to grow in recent years, so too has the country’s economy. Over the past decade, India’s economy grew above the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average, which can be attributed to rising average income levels, an expanding middle class, and a drive toward urbanization (2). These socio-economic changes are contributing to a significant shift in India’s epidemiological profile. With working-age adults accounting for the majority of the overall population and more people becoming affluent and living longer, Indian health service users are facing increasing challenges associated with the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes (3).

At the same time, India continues to be challenged by a range of infectious disorders. Despite economic advancements, significant income inequality still exists throughout the country. In fact, per capita gross national income in India was only $3,391 in 2012 when adjusted by purchasing power parity (compared to $50,000 in US) (4).  In rural areas, where two-thirds of the nation’s citizens are located, hundreds of millions of people are still living in severe poverty, and vaccination coverage for children remains poor.

RELATED CONTENT Global Instability Affects the Pharma Market in Brazil1 The Affordable Care Act's Impact on Innovation in Biopharma2 More Global Report Topics3

Taken together, this high incidence of infectious and chronic disease and the large number of disadvantaged communities have created an even greater need for patient access to quality healthcare delivery as well as new and innovative therapeutic products. Historically, India has had one of the world’s lowest levels of health spending as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). In 2011, India’s total health expenditure was 3.9% of GDP (public expenditure was only 1.2% of GDP) compared to 10.1% of GDP, an average across all G-5 countries (4). The lack of government funding in healthcare has led to significant gaps in the quality and availability of public facilities and has pushed an increasing proportion of Indian patients to use private healthcare facilities that are associated with high costs. Where other countries have a well-established insurance sector that seeks to reduce this economic burden, health insurance in India is still in its infancy.

Approximately 243 million people are covered by different forms of government-sponsored insurance schemes while approximately 55 million rely on commercial insurers (5). With the vast majority of people in India uninsured, out-of-pocket payments are among the highest in the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 70% of Indians are spending their entire out-of-pocket income on medicines and healthcare services (6). On top of this, most insurance plans only provide coverage for inpatient healthcare services and do not include coverage for outpatient treatments, including prescription medicines. Thus, it is no surprise that approximately 90% of India’s pharmaceutical market is currently made up of branded generic drugs (7).

Against this backdrop, India’s Ministry of Health has been focused on improving access to healthcare facilities, increasing population coverage by way of healthcare insurance, and creating initiatives for the prevention and early stage management of chronic diseases. In 2012, as part of the country’s 12th Five-Year Plan, the government proposed to double its public expenditure on healthcare to 2-3% of GDP in an effort to boost local access and affordability to quality healthcare. In light of these efforts, the Indian healthcare industry as a whole is expected to reach $158 billion by 2017 (8).
India’s pharmaceutical market accounts for about 10% of the global pharmaceutical industry in terms of volume and represents a major component of growth for the country’s healthcare industry (9). The Indian pharmaceutical market was estimated at $18.4 billion in 2012 and is expected to almost double by 2016. Although India’s market is currently dominated by generic drugs, rising incomes, enhanced medical infrastructure, and insurance coverage could provide a valuable opportunity for manufacturers’ higher-priced branded healthcare products moving forward.  

Key market challenges and considerations

Regulatory. Similar to many other countries, India’s medical regulatory structure is divided between national and state authorities. The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is the national authority responsible for the regulation of pharmaceuticals. The DCGI registers all imported drugs, new drugs, and biologicals in selected categories and has responsibility for approving clinical trials and quality standards in the country. Recently, these standards have come under question by FDA, citing quality-control problems ranging from data manipulation to sanitation. While FDA and regulatory bodies in other countries step up inspections of Indian plants in response to these developments, global manufacturers have had to reassess their contracted relations with these plants and give careful consideration to developing new strategic partnerships in this country moving forward (10).  

Concerns over quality and data integrity have also impacted manufacturers’ perception of India’s clinical trials system. India’s large and diverse patient pool and low drug trial costs have made the country an attractive destination for multinational pharmaceutical clinical trials. However, India has recently seen the number of clinical trials fall dramatically among allegations that protocols were not being conducted properly and that companies were taking advantage of disadvantaged patients (11). In response to these developments, manufacturers have been forced to either shift their trials to another country or encounter significant delays in clinical trial approval--both of which are holding their organizations back.

Market access and pricing. The high prevalence of self-pay generic drugs throughout the country has created little incentive for the development of certain market access disciplines such as health economics and outcome research (HEOR) and reimbursement. Government affairs and pricing functions, on the other hand, play an important role and have been broadly cited as the most crucial challenges global manufacturers face in the Indian marketplace.

India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) controls product pricing throughout the country. In 2013, the NPPA expanded the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) to include 652 drugs, a substantial increase over the 74 drugs previously listed. These products will now be subject to price controls that are projected to reduce prices by more than 20% for half the drugs (12). As if this did not challenge manufacturers enough, the Indian government recently decided to revise the NLEM later this year in response to complaints that the list should include all dosages, strengths, delivery mechanisms, and combinations of these previously identified drugs (13). The NPPA is also allowed to control prices of patented drugs that lie outside this list, and last month the government began exploring the possibility of using a reference pricing system for these products (14).  With intense generic competition already driving down drug prices in India, these additional controls pose a significant threat to international manufacturers’ ability to generate revenue.

Intellectual property. Aside from pricing, patent protection has also come under the microscope as of late. In an effort to ensure greater accessibility to higher-cost, branded drugs, India, as well as other BRIC countries, has begun to allow generic-drug manufacturers to market these drugs at dramatically reduced costs without consequence through compulsory licenses.  While only one compulsory license has been approved by India’s government to date (Bayer’s Nexavar), other manufacturers have recently had their patents weakened, revoked, or rejected. While appeals to some of these rulings are still in process, precedents have been set, leading manufacturers to question their future investment in India.

Implications for successful market entry 

Despite the aforementioned challenges, major pharmaceutical companies recognize the long-term prospects of this market and continue launching new patented drugs and pursuing unique business opportunities in India. To encourage future investment, the government has made tax breaks available to the pharmaceutical sector, including a weighted tax deduction of 150% for any R&D expenditure incurred. In addition, the government recently declared that all drugs that offer some form of innovation would be exempt from price regulation for the first five years following approval. Here, innovation refers to drugs or drug delivery systems that arise from native R&D efforts or existing drugs that are improved upon by an Indian company. This measure is aimed to spur growth in the domestic pharmaceutical market and to ensure that pricing regulations do not turn global manufacturers away from India. Thus, companies that develop strategic partnerships with local businesses and outsource some of their R&D and manufacturing activities will be well-positioned to maximize revenue by avoiding steep price cuts. This opportunity for manufacturers will only apply, however, for those products that offer true innovation by providing economic and/or clinical value.

Uncertainty over patent security and obstacles to clinical trials are discouraging Western companies from conducting drug research in India. With that said, the government has already initiated clinical research reform efforts through new amendments and regulations that could quickly restore the growth of clinical trials throughout the country.  At the same time, there is speculation that a transfer of power in India’s upcoming election could dampen fears of additional compulsory licenses (15). Manufacturers should closely monitor these internal developments and react accordingly.

Moving forward

A growing middle class that is projected to see a significant rise in noncommunicable diseases provides an excellent opportunity for global companies to launch their premium products and expand their market share. India’s underdeveloped insurance industry and high poverty rates, however, require that manufacturers first develop a careful pricing strategy. Pricing products appropriately can go a long way towards ensuring future growth as well as avoiding disputes over patent protection and licensing agreements.  In a country that holds about one-fifth of the world’s population, India’s market is too big for pharmaceutical companies to shy away from, despite all of the hurdles placed in front of them.  

I feel for Sachitra Senanayake

by Girish Menon

When the English mob and commentators unleashed their self righteous 'spirit of cricket' indignation on Sachitra Senanayake I felt the need to find out more about this unheard of cricketer who has caused a minor tempest in England's favourite brew container.

So, I looked up his career stats to find out that Sachitra is 29 and had already played 1 Test, 34 ODIs and 17 T20Is. I also learnt that prior to his 'Mankadding' of Buttler, in earlier ODIs of the current series he had been reported for a faulty action and asked to report to Perth for a bio-mechanical examination about the degree of flex in his action.

I happened to listen to Test Match Special (TMS) at the time of Sachitra's Mankadding incident and at the time the commentators were insistent that Sachitra had not warned Buttler earlier before running him out.  The commentators also alleged that English bowlers, unlike Sachitra and Murali before him, were unable to bowl the doosra since it would be ironed out by coaches at the junior stages itself.

Personally, I feel any bowling action which does not threaten the life of a batsman should be permitted. This will balance the equation between bat and ball and make for interesting cricket.  

In his book Lila, Robert Pirsig describes the English reaction when the first stuffed platypus was shipped there. At first, the traditionalists were aghast that nature had betrayed their classification. Also, they denied that platypi could lay eggs and then suckle their young. The traditionalists also tried to ban the platypus out of existence since it did not meet their classification code. It was only much later that the traditionalists accommodated  the platypus in the field of biology. 

At 29, Sachitra may feel like the stuffed platypus on its arrival in England. After investing so much time and effort in developing his skill, he is now being told that if he does not obtain a clearance from an Australian he will not be allowed to ply his trade.  England may or may not have had a role in the reporting of Senanayake, but surely this could have been done discreetly at the end of the series so that the Sri Lankan team would not be compromised in the middle of the tour. Isn't this a case of giving the home team an unfair advantage?

Yet, when Sachitra legitimately runs out Buttler after warning him twice against cheating, the umpires had the audacity to ask the Sri Lankan captain whether he wished to withdraw the appeal. The crowds aroused by a partisan TMS commentariat then boo the Sri Lankans and Sachitra in particular.

So, Sachitra you are not alone. I empathise with your situation. I also hope that you have an alternative career mapped out for I am not aware of any cricketer who has retained his wicket taking skills after his action has been re-modelled. So power to you.

Where is the cheapest place to buy citizenship?

 By Kim Gittleson

BBC reporter, New York

It is a cliche used from Bond to Bourne: the classic spy image of a suitcase filled with cash and multiple passports for a quick getaway. But increasingly it is not spies that are looking for a second passport, but a growing number of "economic citizens".

Henley and Partners citizenship expert Christian Kalin, who helps to advise clients on the best place to spend their money, estimates that every year, several thousand people spend a collective $2bn (£1.2bn; 1.5bn euros) to add a second, or even third, passport to their collection.

"Just like you diversify an investment portfolio, you want to diversify your passport portfolio," he says. The option has proven popular with Chinese and Russian citizens, as well as those from the Middle East.

Cash-strapped countries have taken notice. In the past year alone, new programmes have been introduced in Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Malta, the Netherlands and Spain that either allow direct citizenship by investment or offer routes to citizenship for wealthy investors.

However, concerns have been raised about transparency and accountability.

In January, Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, said in a speech: "Citizenship must not be up for sale."

But for now, at least, it seems that those with money to spare are in luck, with half a dozen countries offering a direct citizenship-by-investment route with no residency requirements.

Essentially, citizenship that is very much for sale.

Dominica

By far the cheapest deal for citizenship is on the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica.

For an investment of $100,000 plus various fees, as well as an in-person interview on the island, citizenship can be bought.

However, experts caution that because the interview committee meets only once a month, actually getting a Dominican passport can take anywhere from five to 14 months.

Since Dominica is a Commonwealth nation, citizens get special privileges in the UK, and citizens can also travel to 50 countries, including Switzerland, without a visa.

Dominica country profile

St Kitts and Nevis

The Caribbean islands of St Kitts and Nevis have the longest running citizenship-by-investment programme (CIP) in the world, which was founded in 1984.

There are two methods to obtain citizenship, with the cheapest option being a $250,000 non-refundable donation to the St Kitts and Nevis Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation, a public charity. A second option involves a minimum $400,000 investment in real estate in the country.

The programme has recently been singled out by the US Treasury, which cautioned that Iranian nationals could be obtaining passports and then use them to travel to the US or make investments, which could violate US sanctions. (St Kitts closed its programme to Iranians in December 2011.)

However, Mr Kalin of Henley and Partners, which helped to set up the programme, says that while the programme has its issues, "St Kitts is relatively well run - it's in a way a model."

He adds that Caribbean locations are good for interim passports for "global citizens" who are looking to eventually establish themselves via investments in other "economic citizenship" programmes like those in Portugal or Singapore.

St Kitts and Nevis profile

Antigua and Barbuda

Antigua and Barbuda introduced its CIP in late 2013, with similar parameters to the St Kitts model: a $400,000 real estate investment or a $200,000 donation to a charity.

In a speech announcing the programme, Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer cited a common reason that countries have increasingly introduced CIPs: an economic slowdown and "the virtual disappearance of traditional funding sources".

He cited both the St Kitts example as well as the United States, which allows foreigners to obtain a green card under the EB-5 visa if they invest $500,000 in a "targeted employment area" and create 10 jobs. (Since 1990, foreigners have invested more than $6.8bn and the US has given out 29,000 visas through the EB-5 programme, although there is a yearly cap of 10,000.)

However, Mr Spencer also said: "The Antigua and Barbuda Citizenship by Investment Programme is not an open-sesame for all and sundry."

Antigua and Barbuda profile

Malta

"Citizenship-by-investment programmes are certainly on the rise, especially in Europe," says University of Toronto law professor Ayelet Shachar.

The tiny nation of Malta recently came under fire when it announced plans to allow wealthy foreigners to obtain a passport for a 650,000 euro investment with no residency requirement, which would have made it the cheapest European Union (EU) nation in which to purchase citizenship.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat estimated about 45 people would apply in the first year, resulting in 30m euros (£24m; $41m) in revenues.

After pressure from EU officials, officials changed the rule to require potential passport holders to reside in Malta for a year and raised the investment to 1.15m euros.

The uproar exposed rising tensions over the definition of citizenship, according to Prof Shacher.

"At stake is the most important and sensitive decision that any political community faces: how to define who belongs, or ought to belong, within its circle of members," she says.

"The heft of the applicant's wallet is the new answer, according to citizenship by investment programmes. This is in breach of our standard naturalisation and citizenship requirements that focus on establishing a genuine link between the individual and the new home country."

Malta country profile

Cyprus

Cyprus is the other EU nation to offer a direct citizenship-by-investment route.

The cost of the programme was slashed to 2m euros in March, partially in an effort to placate mostly Russian investors who lost money when Cyprus was forced to accept a strict European Union bailout.

(The 2m euro figure applies when one invests as part of a larger group whose collective investments total more than 12.5m euros; an investment of 5m euros in real estate or banks is still required for an individual.)

But Mr Kalin cautions against a Cypriot investment, noting that the programme initially cost 28m euros, then 10m euros, then 5m euros.

"It's a good example of how not to do it - you bring a product to market and totally misprice it and it gets cheaper every six months. It is ridiculous," he says.

Cyprus country profile

Meritocracy is a myth

James Bloodworth in The Independent

What do you want to be when you grow up? I remember a careers advisor asking me just that question shortly before my sixteenth birthday. Like most of my peers I had very little idea as to what I wanted to do with my life when the seemingly endless horizon of school came to an end. Drink beer, smoke cigarettes and chase girls was about the sum of it.

Looking back, though, the question was a strange one. We insist on asking children what they want to do with their lives when most of the time it’s set in stone when they pull on their first school uniform. If they are born poor they will almost certainly stay poor; if their parents have money then it’s likely that they will too. The more unequal a society is the truer this statement becomes. 

Yes we insist on telling children that they can be ‘whatever they want to be’, knowing full well that crushing disappointment lies further in their future. Every nation relies to some extent on fairy tales. In Britain we cling to the idea that you can be or do anything in life so long as you put your mind to it. In the process we hand our politicians the one thing they can use to justify the obscene privileges at the top and the revolting squalor at the bottom: the indomitable myth of meritocracy.

Meritocracy is what’s politely called a dead duck. A child from a ‘modest’ background can only go from rags to riches in the sense that a human being can take off if they flap their arms around wildly enough. A disadvantaged child will nearly always and everywhere become a disadvantaged adult, and if you ignore the right-wing rhetoric and look at the data you might be a little less keen on hearing the 'M' word in future.

The children of wealthier parents are more likely to go to the best schools (houses in desirable catchment areas cost on average 42 per cent more), eat the best food, have access to ‘high culture’ and have a quiet place to do homework when they get home from school. As a result, poor but bright children get overtaken by their less intelligent classmates from wealthier backgrounds in the very first years of schooling, according to a 2007 study. 

As children become teenagers these inequalities are entrenched further. Around 10 per cent of young people at the bottom rung of the social ladder go to university compared with over 80 per cent of those from professional or managerial backgrounds. A student from a private school is 55 times more likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge University than a state school student on free school meals. And as universities minister David Willetts likes to point out, graduates will earn around £100,000 more over a lifetime than non-graduates.

Thomas Piketty’s ground-breaking book Capital in the 21st Century looks at how wealth concentrates when the returns on capital are higher than economic growth. Or in plain English, how it’s easier for a person who already has lots of money to make more of it. But it isn’t only wealth that concentrates; opportunity does too. Or as Picketty’s predecessor Karl Marx put it, “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they make it…under circumstances…given and transmitted from the past”.

Take a look at political life in Britain today and the truth of that statement becomes self-evident. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 around 40 per cent of Labour MPs had done some form of manual or clerical work before they entered parliament. By 2010 that figure had plummeted to just 9 per cent. The shape of the labour market undoubtedly accounts for some of the change, but the extent to which parliament is rapidly becoming the talking shop of the middle classes is evident in other ways too. An astonishing 91 per cent of the 2010 intake of MPs were university graduates and 35 per cent were privately-educated. This is a rise on previous elections and, in the case of the latter, compares to just 7 per cent of the school age population as a whole.

If nothing else, the fact that a tweed-suited former stockbroker can pose as just an ordinary bloke when contrasted with other politicians should set the alarm bells ringing. The ossification of politics is made worse by a media which increasingly resembles the establishment talking to itself.

The unpalatable truth that no politician will dare acknowledge is this: meritocracy can only exist if the rich have a little less and the poor a little more. Countless studies show that social mobility improves in more equal societies. Norway has the greatest level of social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Britain and the US are the most unequal western societies on earth in terms of income distribution and, surprise surprise, have much lower rates of social mobility than their more equal Scandinavian counterparts.

Despite the well-intentioned rhetoric of Ed Miliband, we are not ‘one nation’, and the first step in creating a genuine meritocracy would be an admission that the interests of the banker are not the same as those of the nurse or the refuse collector. While huge inequalities exist there can be no serious talk of social mobility or meritocracy, and careers advisors up and down the country will have to keep on lying to our children.