I’m not sure what comments I can make about the Australian election as I haven’t been keeping all that up to date with news. It does look like Rudd is going to win. I think there is certainly an element of a desire for change amongst the feelings of the Australian population. Howard has been in 10 years so it is just human nature for people to want change. Howard should really have gone out on top and handed the reigns over to Costello before this campaign. I think it has harmed his party that he says he will not complete the full term if re-elected. If that is the case then he shouldn’t have run as leader.
I think Rudd though has moved the Labor party further towards the centre. In a similar way to how Blair moved Labour over here towards the centre. There isn’t a great deal of difference now between the left and right parties over here, both of them hover around centre because that is the changing nature of the societies we live in. There is no longer a large distinction between socio-economic classes and little difference now between blue and white collar workers. As technology improves, so does the need for manual labour decrease. Everyone is middle class now and so the traditional classes of people that were represented by labor parties in the past, no longer exist. So political parties now have to fight over the middle ground. It would seem that Rudd has managed to move the party towards the centre and in a position to win this election.
Those are my comments based on my limited knowledge of the situation.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Ing-er-land Ing-er-land Ing-er-land
The mood in England today has been somewhat of disappointment. MacLaren has been sacked, but we were all expecting that. It’s just a shame you can’t sack the players who are clearly very poor indeed. I don’t feel anything particularly about the result though it will mean that there isn’t much interest in the tournament next summer which is a shame because there is always a good atmosphere in England when they are playing the world cup or Euro championships.
The goalkeeper Scott Carson who has played very well for Aston Villa this season, should have not however been picked. Paul Robinson has had a poor season for club and country so far; he has let in far too many goals and made far too many mistakes. But MacLaren stuck by him for England which is fair enough. England played a friendly last Friday against Austria where he gave Carson a chance, then decided to leave him in there for last night’s game. But why stick by Robinson as your number 1 for ages, only to drop him for the final and most important game of the year? Robinson is a far more experienced keeper and Maclaren really should have left him in the side.
I think England really need to get over themselves. The print media in this country are very antagonistic and I think they are to blame for the negative attitude that exists towards England, and the supposed ‘born to rule’ mentality that exists here. It certainly seems that when it comes to football, there is an attitude that England have a divine right to be amongst the best teams in the world. It is very much fuelled by the print media and I think many would agree it was a large part of their downfall in last year’s world cup.
What has really irked this year is that the media have continually referred to the event of England not qualifying for Euro 2008 as “the unthinkable.” Why should it be so unthinkable that England not qualify? It is indicative of the attitude here that England have a divine right to win everything. The England team are no where near as good as the country thinks they are and if they are to get any better, then they need to wake up and accept this fact; then they can work on getting better. It’s no good to think you’re the best and then blame the manager, or blame the goalkeeper for making a mistake that means you don’t win. If they were as good as the press say they are, then the goalkeeper could make mistakes like that and it wouldn’t matter because they’d be enough goals in front.
My colleague says he thinks it’s the best thing that could have happened to them so that hopefully they will wake up and sort themselves out. I think they need to accept that they’re actually a bit rubbish first; it’s simple psychology, you can’t get better if you keep denying the fact that you are ill!
The goalkeeper Scott Carson who has played very well for Aston Villa this season, should have not however been picked. Paul Robinson has had a poor season for club and country so far; he has let in far too many goals and made far too many mistakes. But MacLaren stuck by him for England which is fair enough. England played a friendly last Friday against Austria where he gave Carson a chance, then decided to leave him in there for last night’s game. But why stick by Robinson as your number 1 for ages, only to drop him for the final and most important game of the year? Robinson is a far more experienced keeper and Maclaren really should have left him in the side.
I think England really need to get over themselves. The print media in this country are very antagonistic and I think they are to blame for the negative attitude that exists towards England, and the supposed ‘born to rule’ mentality that exists here. It certainly seems that when it comes to football, there is an attitude that England have a divine right to be amongst the best teams in the world. It is very much fuelled by the print media and I think many would agree it was a large part of their downfall in last year’s world cup.
What has really irked this year is that the media have continually referred to the event of England not qualifying for Euro 2008 as “the unthinkable.” Why should it be so unthinkable that England not qualify? It is indicative of the attitude here that England have a divine right to win everything. The England team are no where near as good as the country thinks they are and if they are to get any better, then they need to wake up and accept this fact; then they can work on getting better. It’s no good to think you’re the best and then blame the manager, or blame the goalkeeper for making a mistake that means you don’t win. If they were as good as the press say they are, then the goalkeeper could make mistakes like that and it wouldn’t matter because they’d be enough goals in front.
My colleague says he thinks it’s the best thing that could have happened to them so that hopefully they will wake up and sort themselves out. I think they need to accept that they’re actually a bit rubbish first; it’s simple psychology, you can’t get better if you keep denying the fact that you are ill!
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Jol Out?
Jol has certainly done well in the last couple of seasons; consecutive 5th place finishes and qualification for Europe is certainly an achievement and has brought the club closer to where we want to be. However we should consider that the club has spent a lot of money and brought in a lot of talent so it should not have been beyond a lot of managers to achieve what Jol has achieved.
The board's issue with Jol is that, while he has done well to bring Spurs to where we are now, they are not sure whether he has what it takes to break the club into the top 4. Indeed you only need to look at Jol's record against the top 4 sides, and see that he has won once against them since becoming manager. This does not give the board confidence that Jol is capable of taking the club to the next level.
He does though deserve a chance. When the first reports came out, I was appalled by the behaviour of the board and, like most Spurs fans, would have been pretty disgusted if Jol was sacked. He has done more than any other Spurs manager in the Premiership and should be given the chance to continue improving the club's standing.
However. After the utterly abhorrent tactical blunder made by Jol on Saturday against Fulham, I have now suddenly sympathised with the board. With Robbie Keane on the pitch, Spurs were totally dominating the game and even though they should have been more than 2 goals ahead, Keane was controlling the play and Fulham did not have the ball. The best form of defence is attack and if you are attacking, the opposition does not have the ball and they cannot score. Once Keane came off for the utterly useless Defoe, Spurs had only one more shot for the rest of the game; Fulham were allowed posession and you know what happened next.
It is not the first time Jol has made this mistake, let's hope it is the last, but that is where one is able to see where the board is coming from. These kind of blunders cannot be made if Spurs want to crack the top 4. Forget about keeping all your strikers happy, if Bent and Defoe spend most of their time on the bench, then so be it. Put your best team on the field and if some people are unhappy about being on the bench then so be it. Bent knew the stikers this club already had when he signed up; this game is not about keeping players happy, it's about keeping the fans happy by getting points.
Having said that, it would be a mistake to sack Jol now; all the players and most of the fans are behind him, and there will only be a negative atmosphere at the club if he is sacked in the near future. He should be given his chance but if, as the season progresses, it is looking increasingly like Jol will not be taking the club any further this season than he already has, then it is time for him to go. Next Saturday against the Arse is where he needs to prove he can challenge the top 4 sides.
A top 4 finish or at least a Cup trophy this season is a must!
The board's issue with Jol is that, while he has done well to bring Spurs to where we are now, they are not sure whether he has what it takes to break the club into the top 4. Indeed you only need to look at Jol's record against the top 4 sides, and see that he has won once against them since becoming manager. This does not give the board confidence that Jol is capable of taking the club to the next level.
He does though deserve a chance. When the first reports came out, I was appalled by the behaviour of the board and, like most Spurs fans, would have been pretty disgusted if Jol was sacked. He has done more than any other Spurs manager in the Premiership and should be given the chance to continue improving the club's standing.
However. After the utterly abhorrent tactical blunder made by Jol on Saturday against Fulham, I have now suddenly sympathised with the board. With Robbie Keane on the pitch, Spurs were totally dominating the game and even though they should have been more than 2 goals ahead, Keane was controlling the play and Fulham did not have the ball. The best form of defence is attack and if you are attacking, the opposition does not have the ball and they cannot score. Once Keane came off for the utterly useless Defoe, Spurs had only one more shot for the rest of the game; Fulham were allowed posession and you know what happened next.
It is not the first time Jol has made this mistake, let's hope it is the last, but that is where one is able to see where the board is coming from. These kind of blunders cannot be made if Spurs want to crack the top 4. Forget about keeping all your strikers happy, if Bent and Defoe spend most of their time on the bench, then so be it. Put your best team on the field and if some people are unhappy about being on the bench then so be it. Bent knew the stikers this club already had when he signed up; this game is not about keeping players happy, it's about keeping the fans happy by getting points.
Having said that, it would be a mistake to sack Jol now; all the players and most of the fans are behind him, and there will only be a negative atmosphere at the club if he is sacked in the near future. He should be given his chance but if, as the season progresses, it is looking increasingly like Jol will not be taking the club any further this season than he already has, then it is time for him to go. Next Saturday against the Arse is where he needs to prove he can challenge the top 4 sides.
A top 4 finish or at least a Cup trophy this season is a must!
Monday, September 03, 2007
Not much to say
I wish I had the commitment to keep this blog regular, I really do. It's inconvenient being a lazy, borderline alcoholic sometimes you know.
I'm going to go back to the gym this week, well maybe next week, I'm not sure yet. Of course I said this last week, and the week before.
There's a tube strike starting here in about 2 hours. Fortunately the Jubilee and Northern line will still be running through the strike though you can imagine they'll be ridiculously busy. I think I'll stay at the office until well after peak hour has finished and head home then. Tube workers striking is ridiculous; they can't run the damn thing properly, it always breaks down and now they think they have reason to strike. For something so iconic, and for something with such potential to be run efficiently, it really is a joke how incompetently run the whole thing is. Anyway, I'm sounding like a broken record on this blog now.
I'm going to go back to the gym this week, well maybe next week, I'm not sure yet. Of course I said this last week, and the week before.
There's a tube strike starting here in about 2 hours. Fortunately the Jubilee and Northern line will still be running through the strike though you can imagine they'll be ridiculously busy. I think I'll stay at the office until well after peak hour has finished and head home then. Tube workers striking is ridiculous; they can't run the damn thing properly, it always breaks down and now they think they have reason to strike. For something so iconic, and for something with such potential to be run efficiently, it really is a joke how incompetently run the whole thing is. Anyway, I'm sounding like a broken record on this blog now.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Unauthorised Overdrafts
I resolved to my friend Steve last night that I would resume blogging in some capacity. So since it is Friday afternoon and I have no intention of doing any more work for the rest of the day; here I am.
The topic that left me screaming at the television last night was the row over banks charging customers large sums of money for having their banks accounts go into overdraft without authorisation from the bank.
The Office of Fair Trading are now bringing a legal case against all the major banks in the UK over what they perceive to be unfair charges to customers who allow their accounts to be overdrawn.
I personally find this to be utterly ridiculous. In Britain it is appallingly easy to obtain credit. Almost every bank will offer you an agreed overdraft without question. So what this means is that the people who end up being charged for going into overdraft, have already reached their agreed overdraft amount and then gone over it. They have already been spending someone else's money up to a certain level; then, since they cannot stop spending, they have taken someone else's money, without first asking if it's ok.
That is what I feel this all boils down to: theft. These people have spent money that is not theirs, without asking. I think the banks should be allowed to charge as much as they want if someone spends their money without permission. Of course last night's news story was filled with the usual sob stories of people who only go into overdraft by a little bit and then rack up a whole load of charges. Well here's a message for you people; don't go to the pub on Friday night for a couple of weeks because you can't afford it. Learn to live within your means instead of spending the bank's money and then whingeing about the fact that they've charged you for it.
Right that'll do for now
The topic that left me screaming at the television last night was the row over banks charging customers large sums of money for having their banks accounts go into overdraft without authorisation from the bank.
The Office of Fair Trading are now bringing a legal case against all the major banks in the UK over what they perceive to be unfair charges to customers who allow their accounts to be overdrawn.
I personally find this to be utterly ridiculous. In Britain it is appallingly easy to obtain credit. Almost every bank will offer you an agreed overdraft without question. So what this means is that the people who end up being charged for going into overdraft, have already reached their agreed overdraft amount and then gone over it. They have already been spending someone else's money up to a certain level; then, since they cannot stop spending, they have taken someone else's money, without first asking if it's ok.
That is what I feel this all boils down to: theft. These people have spent money that is not theirs, without asking. I think the banks should be allowed to charge as much as they want if someone spends their money without permission. Of course last night's news story was filled with the usual sob stories of people who only go into overdraft by a little bit and then rack up a whole load of charges. Well here's a message for you people; don't go to the pub on Friday night for a couple of weeks because you can't afford it. Learn to live within your means instead of spending the bank's money and then whingeing about the fact that they've charged you for it.
Right that'll do for now
Friday, February 23, 2007
NFI
It's been a while; I have been very busy and still am. Not much time for opinions really. I think the direction of this blog will take a direction involving smaller, more precise comments, than long, rambling commentaries that I have become so used to.
I will kick off this new regime by asking how, in the modern age of communication, can the second most powerful man in the world, be so out of touch with the rest of it?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorists-aiming-for-empire/2007/02/23/1171734021090.html
I really do not want an answer to that question
I will kick off this new regime by asking how, in the modern age of communication, can the second most powerful man in the world, be so out of touch with the rest of it?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorists-aiming-for-empire/2007/02/23/1171734021090.html
I really do not want an answer to that question
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
