Here's a question: if you were a doctor whose patient was complaining of vomiting, would you (a) give him a bucket to try to deal with the mess; or (b) try to sort out the underlying sickness?
Going on recent evidence of how they are treating our economic woes it would seem that if you are an Irish government politician then you would hand out the bucket. How else can one explain the cack-handed response to Ireland's ever-worsening economic situation? All the talk in recent weeks has been about the absolute necessity of improving the hole in our national public finances. Reducing government spending, primarily through reducing the public service pay bill seems to be the solution, added to increases in tax on the public at large. Certainly, there are any number of people who are quite willing to take a swipe at the public service.
Now, I'm certainly not going to say that public service pay bills are not in need of being looked at: but in what way is that going to deal with our underlying problem? Is it the size of that pay bill that has caused the hole in the public finances? It is not. The public finances are currently in the state that they are in because the underlying Irish economy is not moving. Our economy is stagnating and this has led to a huge reduction in tax revenues for the Government.
If the Government wants to improve the public finances it therefore needs to deal with the underlying problem and do something to increase economic activity. Will a reduction in public service wages increase economic activity? Will tax increases do likewise? Clearly the answer to both questions is a resounding 'no'. The only result of either would be that there would be less money in the economy and an even lower level of public confidence, both of which will lead to even less economic activity and a consequent lower tax take, greater unemployment, higher social welfare costs and - yes, you've guessed it - a bigger hole in the public finances.
The Government needs to do everything in its power to increase the tax take. This means looking at reducing VAT to increase retail sales, direct support for businesses to ensure that they can access funds to do business, and tax measures that increase the individual 'feelgood' rather than reduce it.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Ireland's Rugby Selection Process
Bob Casey; Sean Cronin; Darren Cave; Keith Earls: Each is a player either of immense potential or proven ability given no opportunity to prove how good he is or how good he can be in an Irish context. I'm not even talking about Senior Irish squads here: but even at A squad level opportunities have either been non-existent or perfunctory at best. Would Eoin Reddan be anywhere near the Ireland team if his performances for Wasps hadn't made him the media's darling prior to World Cup 07? Has Neil Best (who was Rugby World's Best No.6 in the world 2 years ago) become such a poor player that he doesn't figure in the frame even as a squad player in 2008? Why is it that Ireland's best natural opensides, Johnny O'Connor, Keith Gleeson and Shane Jennings can't prove to the management that they have something valuable to offer? These examples are only illustrative - I am not suggesting that all or any of them should have played against England earlier this month. But I would certainly hazard a guess that if they and others like them, believed that they really did have a chance to stake a claim based on form, then the competitive pressure would have added at least 15% to Ireland's performances.
How is it possible that in a country with such a small playing population our pool of players is being further restricted by a system of selection that does not provide opportunities for players to put forward their case? Are we in such a comfortable playing position that we can effectively ignore talent, concentrating all our efforts on just a tiny proportion of people that have been lucky enough to get a break?
We need to do everything in our power to ensure that not one single player of international standard is lost to us. We need to turn the selection process into a feeding frenzy of ambition and competition for places. We need to make all players feel that they can make it into the national set up if they play well enough and that once there they need to keep performing at the highest level. Ask many of the current professional players in Ireland and I doubt very much if they currently feel that that is the case. It may well be that this is purely down to Eddie O'Sullivan's ridiculously rigid approach to selection (laughably called 'loyalty' in some circles), but whatever the reason, I certainly doubt whether Casey, Gleeson, Jennings and others feel that how they play matters a jot.
Here's a suggestion: How about reintroducing a national trial. I'm not talking about probables v possibles but perhaps two 120 minute games over a weekend, each split into 3 40 minute periods, in which the top 50 or so players (chosen based on any of experience, form and potential) are mixed up and told to play for their positions. Clearly it's not perfect and there will be some players that the coach will pick one way or another, but we have to create a larger pool of players all of whom feel that there is a chance that if they push themselves to constantly improve then the ultimate honour can be theirs. We also need transparency so that we can trust that the players representing us the fans are the best possible. To my mind that trust is not there at the moment and neither, for that matter, are the best players necessarily.
How is it possible that in a country with such a small playing population our pool of players is being further restricted by a system of selection that does not provide opportunities for players to put forward their case? Are we in such a comfortable playing position that we can effectively ignore talent, concentrating all our efforts on just a tiny proportion of people that have been lucky enough to get a break?
We need to do everything in our power to ensure that not one single player of international standard is lost to us. We need to turn the selection process into a feeding frenzy of ambition and competition for places. We need to make all players feel that they can make it into the national set up if they play well enough and that once there they need to keep performing at the highest level. Ask many of the current professional players in Ireland and I doubt very much if they currently feel that that is the case. It may well be that this is purely down to Eddie O'Sullivan's ridiculously rigid approach to selection (laughably called 'loyalty' in some circles), but whatever the reason, I certainly doubt whether Casey, Gleeson, Jennings and others feel that how they play matters a jot.
Here's a suggestion: How about reintroducing a national trial. I'm not talking about probables v possibles but perhaps two 120 minute games over a weekend, each split into 3 40 minute periods, in which the top 50 or so players (chosen based on any of experience, form and potential) are mixed up and told to play for their positions. Clearly it's not perfect and there will be some players that the coach will pick one way or another, but we have to create a larger pool of players all of whom feel that there is a chance that if they push themselves to constantly improve then the ultimate honour can be theirs. We also need transparency so that we can trust that the players representing us the fans are the best possible. To my mind that trust is not there at the moment and neither, for that matter, are the best players necessarily.
Six Nations Ireland Blues
So the 2008 6 Nations Championship ends with Wales winning a Grand Slam and Ireland a pretty poor 4th place. Not only did we only manage to get wins over Scotland and Italy, but over the course of the entire tournament we played unimaginative and undistinguished rugby.
After the Scotland game, we were being talked up again, not least by Eddie O'Sullivan. However, in doing that, it struck me that experience and expertise don't seem to translate into an ability to analyse in an objective way the evidence of one's eyes. We beat Scotland comfortably on the scoreboard but the reality was that we were dominated in most aspects of the game and if Scotland had had a cutting edge we would have been well and truly beaten. Against Italy the same thing could be said, while it was only against France that we dominated any of our opponents (and even then France still won).
Ireland have been running on empty since the end of the 2007 6 Nations. Quite clearly an infusion of new ideas and new blood is required. To all those who say that Eddie has done great things for Ireland and point to his win/loss statistics, I would just say this: the coach of any sporting team has one job and one job only - that is to consistently get the best out of his players. Has O'Sullivan achieved this? Quite clearly he has not. Because of his failure in this regard, Ireland have only won 3 Triple Crowns under his tenure. Regardless of what Tony Ward and others might think, that is a paltry return in an era when England, France and Wales have all won Grand Slams, Championships and World Cups between them. Have we been poorer than those teams since 2001/2 in terms of personnel? I certainly suggest not.
It's not rocket science: Ireland need a modern and innovative coach who can provide inspiration, is not afraid of change and promotes players on the basis of form and ability. I have to hope that the IRFU confines to the dustbin their stated intention of promoting Irish coaches because there is not a single Irish coach who could bring Ireland on to the next level the way that Pat Howard, Wayne Smith, John Mitchell or even Matt Williams could.
After the Scotland game, we were being talked up again, not least by Eddie O'Sullivan. However, in doing that, it struck me that experience and expertise don't seem to translate into an ability to analyse in an objective way the evidence of one's eyes. We beat Scotland comfortably on the scoreboard but the reality was that we were dominated in most aspects of the game and if Scotland had had a cutting edge we would have been well and truly beaten. Against Italy the same thing could be said, while it was only against France that we dominated any of our opponents (and even then France still won).
Ireland have been running on empty since the end of the 2007 6 Nations. Quite clearly an infusion of new ideas and new blood is required. To all those who say that Eddie has done great things for Ireland and point to his win/loss statistics, I would just say this: the coach of any sporting team has one job and one job only - that is to consistently get the best out of his players. Has O'Sullivan achieved this? Quite clearly he has not. Because of his failure in this regard, Ireland have only won 3 Triple Crowns under his tenure. Regardless of what Tony Ward and others might think, that is a paltry return in an era when England, France and Wales have all won Grand Slams, Championships and World Cups between them. Have we been poorer than those teams since 2001/2 in terms of personnel? I certainly suggest not.
It's not rocket science: Ireland need a modern and innovative coach who can provide inspiration, is not afraid of change and promotes players on the basis of form and ability. I have to hope that the IRFU confines to the dustbin their stated intention of promoting Irish coaches because there is not a single Irish coach who could bring Ireland on to the next level the way that Pat Howard, Wayne Smith, John Mitchell or even Matt Williams could.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Up and coming talent in Irish rugby
I'm just back from watching Ireland A lose 50-22 against the New Zealand Maori. The papers are all talking about a cruise for the Maori and their power and pace being just too much for Ireland. I've often heard it said that the Maori would beat most full international teams and are probably one of the top few teams in world rugby. Well, that may or may not be true, and I have my doubts, but from an Irish perspective the story of the night was a couple of excellent individual performances.
All those interested in Irish rugby are aware that the issue for the national team is ensuring that there's a stream of players coming through the system. There are lots of players that can become international class but only a few who will ever be world class: the difference between the two is raw talent. The Irish system has proved itself extremely effective in recent years at making the most of limited numbers and it's essential that with the playing base that we have that talent is recognised and brought through. These Churchill Cup competitions are not about winning, they are about providing an opportunity to identify talent.
With that in mind, what did last night's game prove? To my mind, it proved that in Darren Cave and Keith Earls, Ireland have two absolutely top class centres for the future. As an Ireland supporter of relatively long standing, I have seen many Irish centre combinations that were full of endeavour but lacked that spark that is needed to cause damage to a defence. Of course we have that at the moment in O'Driscoll and Darcy, but I think I saw enough last night to suggest that the future is bright in that most important of areas. Another spark was provided by Sean Cronin at hooker. His lineout throwing was off the mark on a couple of occasions but that can be fixed with work. With the natural ability that he would appear to possess he's another who looks like he could go all the way if he's properly managed.
For what it might be worth, what did I think of the Maori? The Maori team that is playing in the 2007 Churchill Cup is a team of great pace and attacking flair. They are fantastic at creating scores off turnover ball. From one to fifteen they can run and offload as well as anyone. But to my mind they are the Harlem Globetrotters of rugby. Great going forward, great in a loose game, but give them a well organised defence in a tight pressure game and I think that they'd find it hard to cope. In the Churchill Cup the Maori are playing against third tier international teams. The Senior Ireland team is currently being rested and the next best 25-30 are out in Argentina. The Ireland 'A' team in the Churchill Cup is made up of the next level down - players on the fringes of their clubs or provinces; up and coming young guys; and players returning from injury. Yet Ireland A caused them huge problems in the tight, scored 4 tries and had plenty of pressure on the Maori line. In their previous game the Maori had leaked 3 tries and more than 20 points against Canada. In my view, this raises doubts, and a win for the Engalnd Saxons would not appear out of the question for the final. But apologies if I appear churlish. The NZ Maori can only beat the teams that they are up against, which they have done with some style. Credit where it's due for that.
While the game represented a loss on the scoreboard for Ireland, the only real results that matter are those of the senior team. So long as we can keep developing the talent to work its way up the ladder, then it has been a success.
All those interested in Irish rugby are aware that the issue for the national team is ensuring that there's a stream of players coming through the system. There are lots of players that can become international class but only a few who will ever be world class: the difference between the two is raw talent. The Irish system has proved itself extremely effective in recent years at making the most of limited numbers and it's essential that with the playing base that we have that talent is recognised and brought through. These Churchill Cup competitions are not about winning, they are about providing an opportunity to identify talent.
With that in mind, what did last night's game prove? To my mind, it proved that in Darren Cave and Keith Earls, Ireland have two absolutely top class centres for the future. As an Ireland supporter of relatively long standing, I have seen many Irish centre combinations that were full of endeavour but lacked that spark that is needed to cause damage to a defence. Of course we have that at the moment in O'Driscoll and Darcy, but I think I saw enough last night to suggest that the future is bright in that most important of areas. Another spark was provided by Sean Cronin at hooker. His lineout throwing was off the mark on a couple of occasions but that can be fixed with work. With the natural ability that he would appear to possess he's another who looks like he could go all the way if he's properly managed.
For what it might be worth, what did I think of the Maori? The Maori team that is playing in the 2007 Churchill Cup is a team of great pace and attacking flair. They are fantastic at creating scores off turnover ball. From one to fifteen they can run and offload as well as anyone. But to my mind they are the Harlem Globetrotters of rugby. Great going forward, great in a loose game, but give them a well organised defence in a tight pressure game and I think that they'd find it hard to cope. In the Churchill Cup the Maori are playing against third tier international teams. The Senior Ireland team is currently being rested and the next best 25-30 are out in Argentina. The Ireland 'A' team in the Churchill Cup is made up of the next level down - players on the fringes of their clubs or provinces; up and coming young guys; and players returning from injury. Yet Ireland A caused them huge problems in the tight, scored 4 tries and had plenty of pressure on the Maori line. In their previous game the Maori had leaked 3 tries and more than 20 points against Canada. In my view, this raises doubts, and a win for the Engalnd Saxons would not appear out of the question for the final. But apologies if I appear churlish. The NZ Maori can only beat the teams that they are up against, which they have done with some style. Credit where it's due for that.
While the game represented a loss on the scoreboard for Ireland, the only real results that matter are those of the senior team. So long as we can keep developing the talent to work its way up the ladder, then it has been a success.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Realpolitik, Irish-style
So what can we take from the Irish election just past? Out of 166 seats, 130 went to either of the big two parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Decimation for the Progressive Democrats, stagnation for Labour and the Greens, and a clear lack of interest in Sinn Fein. A resounding vote in favour of pragmatism and flexibility and a rejection of idealism on either the right or the left.
And in truth, this is a reflection of the state of the country in 2007. Ireland is the home of the pragmatist. Idealism and dogma are too close to be trusted in a country that has suffered so much over the past 100 years from an excess of the latter. What counts now is the ability to constantly judge which way the wind is blowing and change tack as needs be to ensure that we stay ahead of the weather. We have become a nation of individuals looking to react to events and our environment, unencumbered by deep-seated beliefs or hardened positions. (The point might be made of course that this was always the Irish way - in 1840, Soren Kierkegaard wondered whether he might have Irish blood in him, given his own lack of consistency and the Irish willingness to sacrifice principle in the interest of having their cake while also eating it, saying 'For the Irish have not the heart to baptise their children completely, they want to preserve just a little paganism and whereas a child is normally completely immersed, they keep his right arm out of the water so that in the after life he can grasp a sword and hold a girl in his arm').
What both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael offer to the Irish people is political acceptance that idealism is a tainted philosophy. Both are willing to drink from whichever well has the sweetest water at any time (which has the effect of giving us a self-proclaimed socialist Taoiseach who pursues apparently right-wing policies on healthcare and finance). Both occupy the centre ground, which stands for nothing in particular but everything in general. And most importantly, both offer the electorate the assurance that they understand that people are no longer interested in vision, but rather in maintaining a comfortable status quo for the majority.
This is democracy without a capital 'd'. This is knowing on which side our bread is buttered and being confident that with friends in high places there will be more of the same. This is realpolitik, Irish-style.
And in truth, this is a reflection of the state of the country in 2007. Ireland is the home of the pragmatist. Idealism and dogma are too close to be trusted in a country that has suffered so much over the past 100 years from an excess of the latter. What counts now is the ability to constantly judge which way the wind is blowing and change tack as needs be to ensure that we stay ahead of the weather. We have become a nation of individuals looking to react to events and our environment, unencumbered by deep-seated beliefs or hardened positions. (The point might be made of course that this was always the Irish way - in 1840, Soren Kierkegaard wondered whether he might have Irish blood in him, given his own lack of consistency and the Irish willingness to sacrifice principle in the interest of having their cake while also eating it, saying 'For the Irish have not the heart to baptise their children completely, they want to preserve just a little paganism and whereas a child is normally completely immersed, they keep his right arm out of the water so that in the after life he can grasp a sword and hold a girl in his arm').
What both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael offer to the Irish people is political acceptance that idealism is a tainted philosophy. Both are willing to drink from whichever well has the sweetest water at any time (which has the effect of giving us a self-proclaimed socialist Taoiseach who pursues apparently right-wing policies on healthcare and finance). Both occupy the centre ground, which stands for nothing in particular but everything in general. And most importantly, both offer the electorate the assurance that they understand that people are no longer interested in vision, but rather in maintaining a comfortable status quo for the majority.
This is democracy without a capital 'd'. This is knowing on which side our bread is buttered and being confident that with friends in high places there will be more of the same. This is realpolitik, Irish-style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)