A masterclass in risk-taking from the New Orleans Saints

Big occassions need big men. Men that will rise to the challenge, galvanise their team and take some big risks - when it really counts. When history is in the making you dont want Mr Timid knocking at the door. Opportunity rewards the bold and the brave. So it was with sheer delight that I watched the underdogs - the New Orleans Saints- scoop the biggest prize of all - the Superbowl.

If you did not watch the game, this may mean nothing to you - go watch it. But Sean Payton (the Saints coach) proved himself to be one of  the gutsiest coaches ever to come to a Superbowl game.

The Colts came into the game clear favourites. The first quarter went  as expected. It was all Colts; at one point they were leading 10-0 and many thought, I am sure, that it was game over. The Saints seemed to be taking too many risks - like going for a touchdown when a field goal could have been banked.  But by the end of the second quarter the Saints had fought their way back into the game not by changing their game plan - but by staying true to it. By half time it looked clear to me that the Saints could only win if they DID take those risks - and by jove that is what they were doing . With the score standing at 10-6 to the Colts (and much of the money on the Colts) I put my money on the Saints.

Coming out at the opening of the second half - Sean Payton did the unthinkable - he took another, huge, risk calling for an onside kick to keep posession with the Saints. Yes it was risky but it proved to be as brilliant as it was unexpected. From there on in the Saints never really looked like losing. Nor did they lose their willingness to take risks - going for a two point conversion, with all the risks that entailed (and challenging the call when it was ruled foul). These boys were going for it. They kept the brilliant (arguably the best ever ) Colts quarterback Peyton Manning out of the game for over an hour and that probably proved decisive. When he did get onto the field they kept the pressure up - eventually winning that well deserved (and brilliantly taken) turnover. Actually I think the Colts were technically the better team on the night but they had no answer for the passion, the risk-taking and team spirit of the Saints. The Saints won 31-17.

So what has this to do with politics or the Liberal Democrats ? I think that Nick Clegg can learn a great deal from the Saints coach Sean Payton. And I urge all Liberal Democrats to go watch the game. It is a masterclass in leadership - of stepping up to the plate when the big game is on - of taking risks - of having faith in your team and your team having faith in you - giving them the belief and the tools to win - and win when it mattered.

After 43 years of mediocrity these first time finalists had not fared too well in recent years. They had been the also rans for too many years. So when opportunity came knocking, boy were they hungry for it. Second was not enough.

Offensive tackle Jon Stinchcomb said “You know you’re going to be competing to win, ” …. “..You want to know that Coach backs you, he has faith in our group, and he’s going to put us in situations to be successful.” ….”So those aggressive points -(risks!) - he’s putting the ball in our court, saying, ‘Go make a play, guys. I’ve got faith in you. Go make me right.’ That’s exactly what you want.”

Linebacker Scott Fujita agreed “(The coach) came in playing to win this game….You like that… He’s got a certain swagger about him, it carries over to the offense….Now you’ve got a lot of guys playing aggressive, playing confident”

Thats what we want to see from Nick, (ok not the swagger but) but  leader of men that says “go for it” . We will take risks, because playing it safe is not good enough - and the prize is worth winning. This is the best chance we have had in a very long time so lets not have regrets later about where we should have been bolder. Lets be brave.

Ok we can’t win the Superbowl (can you imagine Vince in shoulder pads?) . We can’t win the election. But we can make history. We can change politics forever - and thats our Superbowl. I am not sure who our quarterback is, but Nick needs to be our Sean Payton. Please go watch the game Nick.

Class War and Power Play

Here’s the reasoned piece on class war that I originally promised HoT:

The longer I am involved in politics the more I grow to dislike class war. The world in which class war exists is a world where no one holds political viewpoints beyond their own vested interests.

That’s a bleak view of humanity isn’t it?

Allowing class war to be successful is a consequence of an apologist society. If you are an administration that has been in power for 12/13 years you should not be able to absolve yourself from failure by simply saying “we’re not toffs”. The prospect of Labour doing this from now until the election is a wretched one, indeed.

But is there any truth to the claims that “Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest”? Well, yes. But what’s true of the Tories is also true of Labour. The Tories like wealthy individuals and Labour like wealthy organisations i.e. the Unions. Either way both parties facilitate power being transferred from the people to a small wealthy elite. They both protect the vested interests of the rich and use the apparatus of the state to do it. As for the LibDems, well, we are not powerful and/or important enough to have any vested interests at all. But if you can tell me the liberal equivalent of Lord Ashcroft or the Trade Unions, please, do let me know…

As far as I’m concerned class belongs in the same dustbin as the gender card and the race card.

Some of you may scoff at the suggestion that classism is as bad as racism or sexism but ‘class war’ does share similar characteristics with the former in that it is a reductionist proposition. It simplifies every issue and mode of human interaction to a single factor. If you are a feminist you see suppression and exploitation in every conscious decision and unconscious consequence. This, I hope you’ll agree, is an unattractive lifestyle and puts off many who sympathise with it’s proponents legitimate claims. The same can be said of classism.

Making the odd joke using a gender, race or class stereotype is funny. But using gender or race stereotypes consistently for political gain is now recognised as meaningless. The same should be true of class stereotypes. It is one of the most off putting aspects of UK politics and I look forward to a day when we can shake off this last residual hangover from our political past.

Happy birthday, Schumpy

Today is the birthday of Joseph A. Schumpeter, the Moravian philosopher largely responsible for the term “creative destruction”.

Here’s one quotation of his on the subject:

“The process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism … it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from . . . new technology . . . competition which strikes not at the margins of profits . . . of existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.”

Liberal Vision’s Barry Stocker has previously summarised Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy text: click here to read it.

Lib Dem AM Mick Bates “cannot remember” punching paramedic

Oh dear - the Beeb is reporting that Mick Bates, Lib Dem AM for Montgomeryshire, is being accused of assaulting a paramedic who had been called to help him during a night out last month.

Bates was apparently kicked out of a restaurant, before allegedly verbally and physically assaulting the paramedic. He was then “kept under observation by security” at A&E.

LD head Kirsty Williams has seemingly claimed that he was knocked unconscious, a claim refuted by the paramedic. The relevance of this is that Mick Bates says he “cannot remember” what happened during the incident. It has previously been understood that he will stand down from the assembly next year (irrespective of these allegations).

The case continues.

Update: Steph Ashley got in there first, with her take on the incident (and timing of the report) over at Dib Lemming.

Lib Dems - go back to your constituencies and prepare to complain….

ITV has announced that on 14th Feb 2010 it plans to broadcast a one hour “interview” with Gordon Brown. Not a hard hitting political examination of the Prime Minister - his policies and actions over the last four years. Not a series of interviews where Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg (and possibly others) are likewise interrogated.

No. This is Piers Morgan interviewing the PM.  No other politician at any other point, just the PM. This is Piers Morgan - former editor of the pro-Labour party Mirror newspaper, up until 2004 (when he was sacked). This is Piers Morgan, Gordon Browns mate. Piers Morgan who interviews the likes of Cilla Black, Katie Price, Boris Becker,Dannii Minogue,Ronnie Corbett, Vinnie Jones,  and.. er…oh.. the Prime Minister (weeks before a general election must be called). Piers Morgan who says of Gordon Brown (presumably with a straight face (and fingers crossed behind his back)) “He’s one of the most famous people in the country, yet remains a man of mystery to many.  I have known Gordon Brown for over 15 years – he is a man who has enjoyed great triumph, suffered terrible tragedy, and will soon face the biggest challenge of his career.” Sound like a one hour party political election broadcast to you too?

Much has been said about how cynical Gordon Brown is to use this programme as a vehicle to gain public sympathy etc. I dont care whether he cried or stripped naked and did the hokey Cokey - what I care about is how the hell those people in charge of ITV let Gordon Brown’s mate interview Gordon Brown within weeks of a general election without any regard to their internal or external commitments to impartiality.  

ITN must be spitting teeth. All that time and effort ensuring that their news coverage over the course of any one period is “balanced” and “fair”and then boom! some idiot head of Light Entertainment who can’t see past the ratings or dare not challenge the over-inflated ego of Mr-Big-Bucks-Morgan goes and blows it. What useless, dim-witted idiots are in charge down there these days?  

Personally I cannot see how this can be allowed under OFCOM rules - there is a whole section (Section Five) concerned with ..”Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions“.

The mad thing is, you can’t actually complain to OFCOM BEFORE the programme is broadcast. Once it has been broadcst and everyone complains, presumably ITV will have to ensure that Nick Clegg  and Dave Cameron get their moment in the sun with their best mates in the interviewers chair too …and before the general election is called. If I were Dave or Nick I would get my mates to nip over and get an interview in the can now and just send them to ITV for broadcast - seeing as how thats TV is made down there now. What a joke ITV are.

COMPLAIN TO OFCOM :

Sadly their website is broken at the moment. UPDATE: The website is now working - it makes it very difficult to complain prior to programme transmission but you can try https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480 or you can call OFCOM on 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3000 or write to them at  Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road,London, SE1 9HA and simply ask them to post date your complaint about the “Party Politcal Broadcast brought to you by Piers Morgan” to Feb 15th (day after the interview is broadcast). Just tell them it seems to break just about every rule in section 5.

COMPLAIN TO ITV:

This you can do by emailing dutyoffice@itv.com (duty officers logs get sent round the big boys - or at least they used to) copied to the viewerservices@itv.com or call 0844 88 14150.

I understand that some libertarians out there will shrug and say that OFCOM should be scrapped and every broadcaster allowed to do what the hell they like. And I have some sympathy with that view. But until the point that OFCOM is scrapped and whilst ITV pretends to operate a news code of conduct then I think we have a right to expect it to adhere to its and OFCOMs rules.

Sally Bercow is 12 Years Old

Okay, she is tweeting in a personal capacity and I would say it’s not her fault who her husband is but that’s not entirely true, I guess. What’s more important is that Sally Bercow is a public figure in her own right, she is a prospective candidate for Westminster City Council and on Labour’s approved list for potential parliamentary candidates. So I watched in amazement as her twitter feed became full off quite ugly snippets mocking not only the Tories Green policies but digging in to her slice of the class war cake. For example:

And other such gems…

So I replied:

(Sara Bedford also agreed) and followed up with:

I must have hit a nerve because her response was to Direct Message me rather than reply publicly:

And don’t quite know how I compromised my feminist credentials in this case. Obviously I couldn’t reply to her because she’s not following me. But nevermind:

To which I got another curt reply:

Meow. Well, it’s only fair to be polite:

But as Sally explains:

But it’s not quite as simple as that, protecting vested interests are not the same as protecting class values. (Thank god the Labour party have no vested interests of their own to protect… Oh no, wait!) Trade Unions are rich organisations, so isn’t Labour protecting the rich as well? The thing about class war is that it is anti- the individual. Labour like rich organisations, the Tories like rich individuals. So the Labour party’s policies are based on class too. Moving the goal posts to favour which side you like more isn’t okay either way.

Oh and there’s another little issue as Cllr Karen Chivers so wonderfully points out:

Since some Labourites are more seriously considering how to win back the female vote, may I suggesting ceasing the off putting class war. So I’ll leave you with this:

I believe the corresponding hashtag is #fail.

UPDATE:

It gets better…

Oh dear…

Coming soon to a safe seat near you…

Greg Mulholland shows his liberal credentials

Having given Greg Mulholland a bit of a hard time recently, it’s only fair that I highlight this Early Day Motion (EDM) - also from Greg. Great stuff. This particular EDM concerns the Sec state for health “considering” an extension of the smoking ban to include beer gardens and the outside of pubs. I did not agree with every word in the EDM and would have liked some reference to some of the other measures (such as the possible move to enforce plain-packaging on all cigarette packs) but I did approve of his point that  ”there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke”. Nice one Greg. 

It should be noted that NO OTHER MP signed this motion. Not one. I am not sure quite how an MP goes about getting signatures- but, assuming there was not some clerical cock up of some description, where or where are the Liberal Democrat MPs signatures?

You can read the EDM here…

EDM 785: EXTENSION OF THE SMOKING BAN 03.02.2010 ” That this House is concerned over the Secretary of State for Health’s review of the current smoking ban legislation and its possible extension to include beer gardens, outside pubs and designated smoking areas; notes that pubs, bars and other similar venues have already had to make considerable alterations to their premises in order to adapt to the smoking ban; further notes that pubs have already suffered serious economic repercussions since the introduction of the smoking ban by way of lost revenue and the costs incurred by building smoking shelters; observes that smoking has serious health implications and supports measures to discourage it; however believes that there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke; deems that this balance would not be maintained if smoking in an open air beer garden or legal smoking shelter were banned; further believes that pubs play a hugely important function in the communities they serve; fears that if pubs are required to place further draconian restrictions on smoking then people will choose to stay at home and pubs will no longer be able to perform an important function at the heart of the community; and is concerned that if people are forced to stay at home and smoke this may have health implications on family members and visitors, including young children, due to the dangers of passive smoking”

 Update: Simon Clark over at ”Taking Liberties”  has echoed our nod to Greg Mulholland. He says.. “Obviously I don’t agree with every single word - the dangers of passive smoking on “family members and visitors” has been greatly exaggerated - but beggars can’t be choosers so congratulations to Greg Mulholland for making a stand on this issue”

Clause 26 Update

The Liberal Democrats have moved a motion to decline a second reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES BILL: Second Reading. [Until 10.00 pm]

Mr Nick Clegg Mr David Laws Annette Brooke Stephen Williams Dr Vincent Cable Mr Paul Burstow

   That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children, Schools and Families Bill because it adds hugely to the bureaucratic burdens on schools and colleges without improving real opportunities and educational standards for pupils and without genuinely empowering parents; its proposals for the regulation of home education introduce powers which are excessive and risk undermining key freedoms for home educators; it fails to put in place a coherent system for delivering school improvement; its provisions on family proceedings have not been properly consulted on and do not take account of existing reforms; and it does not include much needed policies to introduce a Pupil Premium to support the education of children from disadvantaged homes or to establish a new Educational Standards Authority to restore confidence in educational standards and to reduce the extent of destabilising political interference in English education.

Fabians, Co-Operativists and the Living Dead of the Left

The news that our Prime Minister was going to rake the Co-op Party over the coals for Labour’s GE manifesto upset me. It really did. Everything the man touches turns to dust before our eyes. I went to bed last night dreading the possibility that the sensible discussion on mutualist solutions that this country so desperately needs was never going to happen having been further cursed by Gordon “Jonah” Brown.

Those of you who read this blog will know that I’m not a big fan of the Co-op Party being an “affliate constituent” of the Labour Party. State socialism and mutualism are not compatible. In fact they are mutually exclusive. So all this talk of co-operative schools and housing settlements mean nothing in the context of a welfare state.

As Simon Cooke quite rightly points out there is nothing remotely ’socialist’ about the John Lewis Partnership. But there is a lot to be said for individuals having a stake in the company or institutions they work for and feeling more connected to the profit that they generate. But there has to be profit.

On further thought what struck me was this: why all this emphasis on co-operativism from Labour all of a sudden? I find unlikely that Gordon Brown is seriously considering dismantling the welfare state… But where are the Fabians? Am I the only one who finds it interesting, however, that instead of harking back and shoring up the core vote in the typical manner, the Labour Party are changing their tack slightly?

Could it be that the Labour Party’s faith in Fabianism is faltering? Afterall we literally cannot afford Fabian style social democracy anymore. I would so much like for this to be to an acknowledgment of that. Alas, I fear this is not likely. Instead what we’ll see is the conflation of the remains of Fabianism conflated with soft mutualist rhetoric, the unfortunate hybrid of which will taint the name of genuine mutualism for years to come. These are very sorry days for any genuine mutualists, indeed.

Govt proposals written on a back of a fag packet..

Andy Burnham today announced his plan to cut the number of smokers from 21% of the population to 10% in the next decade. This seems to be at the cost of intellectual property rights and freedom of trade of tobacco companies; will result in a huge increase in counterfeiting, causing pain for legitimate companies and consumers; put money into the pockets of organised crime, whilst reducing government tax revenue; and will impinge on our rights as European citizens to move goods and trade freely around the EU. How many lawsuits will follow? Plenty I reckon.

 To be specific. Todays illiberal plans announced by Oberführer Burnham include…

*A review of the law to consider if areas like entrances to buildings should be included in the smoking ban as part of further measures to protect children which would include the promotion of smoke-free homes and cars.

Yes folks they really are thinking of banning people from using a perfectly legal product within their own homes. If Government had its own way we would have neighbour spying on and reporting neightbour. Remind you of anything? Mr Burnham has said that he thinks that banning smoking in ones own home may be a step to far against freedom of choice - ha! - but you can tell he would do it if he could. More likely this will involve a ban on smoking within say 10 (20?) yards or so of any entrance to a public building. Assuming that is in anyway enforcable, non-smokers entering a pub may not have to walk past a dozen cold and wet individuals puffing on their smokes - but where does anyone expect smokers to go. You may say glibly “into the side alley”. But if you are really proposing that young women are forced to stand in dimly lit side alleys to indulge in a perfectly legal activity - then be prepared to see a increase in assaults, rapes and goodness knows what else as a result. Expect a further reduction in smokers visiting pubs - and therefore another swathe of pub closures - as people choose to stay at home.

* Stopping the sale of tobacco from vending machines, considered a significant source of tobacco for young people.

The argument is that this is to stop easy access of cigarettes to children. Never mind that solutions such as machines requiring a token to be handed from the owner of the vending machine for the machine to work would solve this problem. And if kids want to smoke - trust me they will find a way - they always do.

* Immediate investment in extra overseas officers to stop 200 million illicit cigarettes entering the UK every year.

I dont have a problem with this - except I can think of ooh about a hundred ways to spend the money on things that actually matter. And by the way has no one told Mr Burnham we know , even if he doesnt,  that we dont have the money for this sort of frivolity. And if this becomes an excuse to stop the ordinary consumer from purchasing large quantitities of cigarettes for their own consumption from countries within the EU then I do have a problem - you cant pick and choose which bits of free trade within the EU you are going to allow and which bits you are not.

* NHS support for every smoker who wants to give up, at times and in places that suit them.

Did no one tell this Govt that we are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy - yet here we have a government spending money like a man with no arms. This is because, we are told, that the NHS bill of smokers is £2.7 billion a year. Whats the Government income from excise and VAT from tobacco companies? About £10 billion? What is the government doing with the other £7billion that’s what I want to know?

* Government consideration of the case for plain packaging for cigarettes.

The most obvious result of such a move will be mass counterfeiting - mainly from organised crime I imagine, and it will impinge on intellectual property rights and freedom of trade of the legitimate tax-paying companies.  This will surely be vigorously challenged in courts of law -and rightly. I wonder how much tax revenue the Government will actually lose as  result? Consumers will no longer know if they are buying authentic or phoney products. Lawsuits aplenty will follow. I also fail to see what real EVIDENCE there is that branding on cigarette packets is causing people to take up smoking. Sure, without branding people may SWITCH from an expensive brand to a cheaper one - but that is about market share, not the size of the market. Cigarettes are sexy to kids because they are not allowed them - not because Marlboro or Silk Cut have marketing skills on a par with Derren Brown.

CONFUSED?

I am . The Health Bill 2009 was introduced to Parliament on 15 January 2010. It already includes proposals to tackle smoking. Specifically it proposes to remove tobacco displays in shops and to restrict the sale of cigarettes from vending machines. So why are the government proposing a DOUBLE ban on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines or is Andy Burnham and this decaying Government up to their old tricks - cobbling together new iniatives that are not throught-through and rehash old initiatives ( just not THAT old on this occassion)to make it look more impressive than it is. Why introduce a HEALTH BILL dealing with tobacco on January 15th, then introduce FURTHER regulation on smoking a couple of weeks later.? I will tell you why. Because this sad and sorry Government has announced yet another set of “initiatives” cobbled together on the back of a FAG packet to grab a few cheap headlines.

So muggers, rapists, crime lords, counterfeiters and lawyers rejoice.This charter is for you. Liberals, law-abiding citizens, young women, pub-goers, parents, taxpayers, publicans and newsagents, be afraid because its you they are out to make your life a whole lot harder if not down-right dangerous.