To be fair, Gary, its the attitude that’s all wrong. Some have said that its better to get a result, than to play the game in the way its meant to be played. Now that attitude might go down well with some fans, but for the majority that excuse is just not going to cut it. The fact is, Gary, the opposition came out early, took us by surprise, and put us off our game. We’ve gone on the defensive, and the fans are saying “what’s going on here, I don’t recognise this team any more.” They’re not playing the kind of game that made the fans support them in the first place. Maybe you’ll get away with it if you’re playing school-boy stuff, Gary, but not at this level. The fans deserve the best.
At the end of the day, Gary, the manager is not handling this right. For the team to play so badly frustrates the fans, and for the manager to say “everything is fine” is just insulting. At the start of the season, Gary, the manager can, when all is said and done, rely on the fans to get behind him and the team, and if they slip-up once or twice, then they’ll take it on the chin and say “well, OK, this is our team, and they’re bound to make a few mistakes, but at least we’re trying to play properly.” And the fans have got to appreciate that mistakes might get made, its not going to be 101% right, 101% of the time. But when the manager says that everything is fine, but the fans can see for themselves that this is not quite right, well, you’ve got to question the manager’s judgement Gary. He can’t just say “trust me, I’m the manager” and do nothing, because the same mistakes are going to be made again. At some point, the fans are going to stop supporting the team, and when that happens, the opposition wins.
And then there’s this talk of a new manager. The fans don’t know who to look to Gary. You’ve got players going on press conferences and not knowing what to say. They don’t even know if they’re going to be in the team next week, or what position they’re playing. That’s not good for the side. Its not good for the fans. Its not good for the game.
You can’t simply say that we need to win this at any cost, Gary. This game doesn’t work like that. If you cheat, as we’ve seen some players do in the last few games, then the whole game gets devalued. The fans at home are going to switch off. Winning is important Gary, but you have to win right, even if that means going to extra time, or a replay. Its a beautiful game, Gary, but by the time we declare “mission accomplished” we want to be worthy champions. In spirit as well as letter, Gary. At the moment, I’m just wondering whether any fans will be left in the stadium to watch us lift the trophy.
Squandering Political Capital
Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads makes a much quoted appeal to oust Tony Blair from power.
For the good of the Labour Party, for the good of the country, and for the good of the whole bloody world, Tony Blair must not leave Downing St voluntarily… and if he does, he must be forced to resign in shame.
Tim itemises the transgressions of the Blair administration, following the lead of Chicken Yoghurt, earlier in the week. The message is similar in both cases: We are going too far down an authoritarian road, and it is up to us to take a stand, and make it stop. And moreover: How have we let it come this far? Why hasn’t Blair been ejected?
Criticising Blair and everything he stands for has become a noble art. For those of us still angry over major abuses of power, it would be galling if he resigned over some trifle, some minor scandal. The same is true for George W Bush: That the Republicans may lose the Congressional Mid-Terms over the Dubai Port Scandal is something of an insult. How come a benign administration issue destroys so much political capital, while torture seems to barely register, and might even be a vote winner (via Daily Dish).
It is in the concept of ‘Political Capital’, and indeed Blair’s own “Hisotry Will Judge Me” comments, that I find some succour in these depressing times. He began his time in office with an astonishing amount of ‘Political Capital’ to spend. Each scandal of the Blair administration (remember Peter Mandelson resigning twice, remember how 9/11 was a good day to “bury bad news”, remember Stephen Byers’ ministerial career) eroded that capital. Each act of hypocrisy, each doublethink declaration that someone has acted with propriety, erodes that capital. Each disgraceful statement from Charles Clarke that we deride, ensures another voter, and more importantly, another political ally, distances themselves administration. As Labour’s political capital is consumed, Blair’s personal support wanes. It is beginning to look like he can no longer govern.
There is a lag in politics that surpasses anything that the economists may be able to calculate. Events that happen today have an effect many years down the line. The protests against Blair’s policies in 2003 – indeed, all the criticisms since 1997 – may not have achieved their stated aims, but they had an effect that we only begin to perceive now. They were not pointless, they did not fail. Blair was not ejected from power in last year’s election, but he was crippled, fatally wounded. He cannot run the country properly, because he no longer has the majority to push through the reforms he planned.
someone has to be called to account or the next batch of power-mad bastards – here or abroad – will think they can get away with exactly the same thing.
It may appear as if Blair is not being called to account. When he goes, it will indeed be over some small matter. It will be even more irritating for those of us who were annoyed by the big things. But make no mistake, when he resigns, Nick Robinson and the rest will say: “It was about time.” Blair’s departure from the field will not be to the applause of a cup-winner, but the collective sigh of relief as a poorly performing striker is substituted, early. He may announce his own resignation, but history will chronicle an incomplete Premiership, a job half-done. Let us hope that this example of potential wasted, greatness squandered, will serve as a lesson to all future leaders.
Terror, Tyranny, and Tony
Between them, Unity at Talk Politics and CuriousHamster at A Big Stick and a Small Carrot have done a fine tag-team job of dissecting today’s debate and votes on terror legislation, and the appalling news coverage that has let some rather sickening abuses to our civil liberties slip by without proper account.
From CuriousHamster:
The politicisation of the threat of terrorism is one of the worst things the Blairbrown government has ever done. Playing politics with such an issue is deeply irresponsible….
Laws. Are. Not. A Signalling. Device.
By declaring that we must send a signal to the terrorists, Tony Blair once again proves that the terrorists have indeed succeeded in changing our values and way of life, and for the worse. What a signal, Tony!
The argument that I find most sickening is that which holds that since the current government is trustworthy and ethical, it follows that no future governments will abuse the powers they inherit. Never mind that I have no respect for the ethics of this government – Blair’s argument is a nonsense on its own terms. He cannot predict what future governments (or future police forces for that matter) will be like. Nor can he fortell the events that might give them cause to abuse their powers further. Therefore, he cannot guarantee against the abuse of these new powers.
Funny how laws that were introduced apparently in the public interest, have the effect of making me feel less safe. Thank goodness I have a full decade of biometrics/ID register/fingerprint-free passportness ahead of me. Thank goodness I am leaving the country tomorrow. Should I bother returning?
Letter to Lord Falconer
Today begins what I anticipate to be a long series of posts. It shall consist of letters written to prominent politicians and public figures, asking for clarification to particularly ambiguous statements made in other parts of the media. The point raised with Lord Falconer (below) is perhaps of minor importance, but I do believe his comments are characteristic of The Government’s tendency to present non-arguments as something more substantial. Blogs and The Internet are the perfect place to examine such comments in more detail.
I am writing to ask for a clarification on comments you made to journalist Marie Woolf, published in The Independent newspaper today (5/09/2005).
You are quoted as saying:
That there was a disagreement about that issue [the decision to go to war in Iraq] should not lead to a corrosion in trust. Plainly those who disagree with us on Iraq do not in any way forfeit our trust, and it should not be vice-versa.
Regardless of whether or not the decision to go to war was correct, your comments seem to imply a willful misunderstanding of the nature of the public disagreement the Government has faced over this issue since September 2002. I suggest the Government did not lose trust because of the decision made in light of the facts available at the time. Instead, trust was forfeited due to the perceived Government duplicity concerning the veracity of those facts, and indeed the chronology of the decisions made. Likewise, the BBC also lost a great deal of trust over its presentation of the facts during the Kelly-Gilligan affair.
If you think someone is lying to you, is it not perfectly rational, sensible and prudent to trust them less? Were your comments directed towards campaigners against the decision within the public at large, or against specific sections of the media? In any case, trust is surely not a right, but something to be earned.