So Long, Blairwell

Memories of the Blair Administration; Tony’s Ten Years, by Adam Boulton

For a very brief two years, Tony Blair was almost forgotten in Britain. Gordon Brown’s premiership was the dominant political story and Blair was away from the daily accountability to the media that British politics make unavoidable. Suddenly, Blair’s bid for the EU Presidency and the apparent fatality of Labour’s fourth term have put Blair in the spotlight. The Sky News anchor, Adam Boulton, hasn’t taken his eye off the story, so that his account, though it certainly isn’t the first, and surely won’t be the last, is timely.

Boulton structures his narrative around the ‘Blairwell tour’ – the Prime Minister’s attempt to highlight his own achievements through a departure schedule of speeches, meetings and summits. Unlike most of the public, Boulton was relatively admiring of the Blair’s victory lap. They had been on a long journey together, as the comely title suggests, and Blair had dominated the political scene in a way that did not just play to his strengths as Thatcher had, but had constantly disorientated the opposition.

Moreoever, as Boulton clearly feels, the exit was classic Blair. In a typical display of imperviousness, the Prime Minister shrugged off the constraints that he had placed on himself, and in turn had been enforced on him by backbench rebellions. Further, he did so in a way that genuinely cemented a policy agenda; securing a deal on the EU budget to unfreeze France’s Common Agricultural Policy; keeping troops in Iraq to complement the US surge, and ensuring that Public Finance Initiatives (PFIs) and Academies continued to revolutionise the delivery of public health and education.

The story was, and still is, unfinished. Blair is a Statesman without a State, behind him so many wasted years and the wish he had gone further, and in front of him nothing certain – two well-intentioned foundations, a fragile international role and a reputation that is still to be secured. Boulton gives the impression that Blair is closer to where his instincts are, but pet projects are no substitute for achievement for a man who has held executive office.

A History Yet To Be Written

Boulton is hardly one-sided, but the EU Presidency affair has shown the limits of Blair’s powers. There are a whole host of questions still to be asked of Blair’s career, most of which Boulton serves to highlight, rather than answer.

First, what was the ultimate effect of Blair’s announcement that he would not seek a fourth term? Clearly, it put the third term constantly on edge, and much as commentators have tried to resolve the issue, it has never quite been answered.

Secondly, there is a question over Blair’s style. Peter Hennessy is perhaps the foremost historian of British government today, but he has never studied beyond the wasted energies of the first term. Two things stand out from Boulton’s account. Blair was the most presidential of Prime Ministers. He disliked the legislature and sidelined the Cabinet, though he always kept it well-stocked in ‘Big Beasts’. But given the sheer amount of law that made it onto the statute book, was it really the case that New Labour governed poorly?

The answer may lie in Blair’s upper middle-class penchant for self-abasement, so brilliantly captured by the ‘Yo Blair!’ episode. What is no longer remembered is the more important part of the conversation – where Blair offered to sacrifice his credibility in the Middle East to give Condoleeza Rice the opportunity to make a deal. Blair sacrificed an awful lot in his ten years, and failed to cover his core base. Some commentators say Blair killed triangulation, others interpret his whole career in that fashion. Certainly, the last word has yet to be written about the ‘Third Way’.

Another question that seems particularly resonant today is the degree to which New Labour’s naivety impeded its efforts to govern, at least for the first term. Preparation for government has become increasingly crucial as ambitions and bureaucracy grows. New Labour were underprepared when they came to power, and promised more tangible objects than any government before. The result was a plausibility gap.

The other New Labour preoccupation was the media. Boulton is understandably keen to defend his side and in any case, he believes that it was Alistair Campbell’s one-man-war on the press that so discredited Blair.

Memories of the Blair Administration is unsurprisingly journalistic in style. That need not be an insult. As Timothy Garton Ash has observed, journalists and academics like to use each others professions as insults, but interesting facts need to be taken to their full conclusion. There is a lot of history still to be written about the Blair Administration, something that the Iraq War Inquiry is doing as we speak.

A Makeshift England Makes For A Disappointing Series

Martin Johnson has endured yet another appalling week of press.  Though it would be quite improbable for the RFU to sack him (downgraded from impossible only by the tantalising availability of Ian McGeechan and Jake White), the first calls a coach to be replaced are a step down a road thatno coach wants to be on.

Such is the forensic nature of the coverage that England have been getting – and we really are getting to be like the Kiwis in the pressure we put on our national team – it’s worth reminding ourselves where Martin Johnson is at the moment.  First, there are the seemingly forgotten injuries.  In Ellis, Armitage, Flutey and Flood, England are missing most of the backline that played in the Six Nations.  In the forwards, Simon Shaw has just returned from injury, Phil Vickery, Julian White and Andrew Sheridan are missing up front and Nick East, who though not to everyone’s taste, carries well, is also out.

This is also a team without the core of leaders who were decisive in the player-power revolution that led to Brian Ashton’s good fortune in the 2007 World Cup.  Corry, Dallaglio, Catt, Robinson, and of course Vickery were just four of the hugely-experienced decision makers on the field that year.

Martin Johnson’s team seem to lack a defined style or strategy, which of course is largely his fault.  Two years from a World Cup, that is a big concern.  But injuries have meant that this series was always going to be a mixture of holding on, and giving younger players an opportunity to gain experience.  On that count, they’ve not done too badly.

That’s why Stephen Jones’ ‘report’ of the game, in which he savages the team, is counter-productive.  England’s problem is that they haven’t begun to gel as a team, that leaders haven’t yet emerged.  Borthwick is a quiet and steady presence, unfavourable for the media, but it is not the captain who makes every decision.  Jones risks stamping on the fragile gains in team spirit that England have made under Johnson.  Of course, when measured against the dynamism of the British Lions, or even of England’s 2007 squad, this team comes up short.  However, compared to the last Six Nations, which seems so long ago, there has been a dramatic improvement.  England are at least a little more consistent, and have ironed out their ruinous ill-discipline.

On the other hand, his incendiary article should probably be posted in the dressing room as an incentive for the team.  What Martin Johnson should be doing is creating a group of thirty players he is likely to take to the World Cup and using the negative coverage to fire them up and create a sense of unity.  He has a number of games left, in which England have to get used to each other.

England 6 New Zealand 19

The All Blacks were supposed to be England’s toughest Test. After each game in this series, it was; ‘We’ll get massacred by New Zealand if we play like that.” As it happens, being the underdogs gave England an opportunity to have a go at the underperforming, but still fearsome Kiwis (though not to the same degree as plucky Scotland, who won a deserved victory over Australia).

The early sparring saw England twice go ahead, 3-0, then 6-3, before Dan Carter levelled each time.  Ugo Monye nearly did the team an even bigger favour, just failing to intercept the ball when he had come off his wing and the All Blacks had decided to run from their 22.  In all, however, it was quite a dull first half, with England holding on and Carter missing the kicks that would have allowed New Zealand the comfort to play their own game.

It was in the second half that England began to exert some pressure of their own, but the game was determined in a ten-minute period starting fifteen minutes into the second half.  First, Wilkinson’s chip into the 22 saw a whole pack of England players bearing down on New Zealand.  The All Blacks, however, were quite content to use the space run it out of their 22.  Nonu’s inside pass releasing Zac Guildford, and Wilkinson had to backtrack thirty metres to dislodge the ball from the winger.

Not long afterwards New Zealand took clean ball from a lineout and as the forwards drove into the England 22, created space on the blindside.  Although Sivivatu was marked by Banahan, he jinked and held the defender in place as Richie McCaw and Jimmy Cowan came round the scrum.  Sivivatu slipped the ball inside, for McCaw to play in Cowan.  It was a devastating display of passing, allowing New Zealand to turn a non-advantage into a decisive overlap.

England found themselves in the All Black’s half several times with options, but frequently took the wrong ones.  Wilkinson’s first option when given the ball on the 22 was to take a drop, highlighting the paucity of England’s ambition.  In response, Mils Muliaina sliced through England’s defence before feeding Conrad Smith, who was forced into touch just yards from the line.

Haskell made a few half-breaks, but it was Tom Croft (on for the injured Joe Worsely after two minutes) who ripped the ball from a New Zealand maul after Wilkinson’s teasing kick, and seemed almost certain to cross but for determined defence.  Duncan Bell picked up and dived for the blindside, but was held up short, and the forwards could not clear the ball.  The resulting scrum proved disastrous, and the put-in was reversed.

Late on, Geraghty’s chip could have found Monye but bounced short and a last minute encampment on the New Zealand line turned to farce.  As has become common, England’s attack had wanted composure and received only individualism.

It is getting easy to forget what England are good at, but the scrum and particularly the lineout were solid.  Wilkinson, Borthwick and Moody typified an almost complete defensive performance, but it is possession that seems to worry England most.  In Haskell, Croft and Hartley, they have plenty of quick forwards who love to run, but no stand-out ball carriers who will break the gain line when defences have re-grouped.  For that, they probably missed Worsley and later, Shaw, but the distribution was also inadequate.  Hodgson seems to get drawn into rucks too easily, and Wilkinson plays too deep to encourage players to run good lines.  England miss Flutey desperately.  Unfortunately, Wilkinson’s defence is just too invaluable, so the first-receiver problem is key.

The Stuff of Champions

Saracens 24 South Africa 23

 

How to describe one of the greatest moment’s in Saracens’ history?  Draw a crowd of 46,000 to Wembley – no problem.  Beat the World Champions and vanquishers of the British Lions – of course, if Leicester can.  But to do so in a style that could put an end to several international careers, and prove the starting point for many more?  To come from behind twice, when the game seemed completely against them, to play enterprising rugby and to dominate the scrum of a famous rugby-playing nation?  Certainly, it was effectively a South Africa A-team, but this was worthy of being called championship-winning rugby.

The first quarter turned out to be an awkward, but end-to-end affair.  For Saracens, defence was primary and Wikus van Heerden led by example, stifling South African attacks.  Unfortunately, he was also typical of Sarries’ occasional attacks, guilty on several occasions of losing the ball in the tackle. The game turned after Derick Hougaard missed an ambitious kick to touch from a penalty.  They began to slip out of the game as South Africa’s greater speed of delivery,  physicality  and lineout began to wear.

First, Earl Rose (continuing a line of South African full-backs with flair) tried a back-hand flip that sat up interminably for Adrian Strauss to run on to.  Then, returning a kick as the crowd began to get restless, South Africa broke down the right wing, their huge lock trading passes with winger Ndungane before charging past Noah Cato, who grabbed hold more in hope than conviction.  The chasing referee signalled that the video referee was needed to judge the score.  Thankfully, Cato had done enough.

Saracens were still absorbing hits of such magnitude as to give the lie to the assumption that both sides would try to avoid injuries at the sacrifice of the spectacle.  Michael Tagicakibau was here an unlikely, but noteworthy hero.  It wasn’t enough.  When de Kock was forced to concede a lineout after a clever kick, South Africa took their chance, drawing in defenders with the forwards before getting the ball out to Juan de Jonge, who slipped through a tackle to dive over.

Fortune then favoured South Africa, when a kick from Rose was knocked on into the path of Jongi Nowke, who ran in the simplest of tries.  The referee had thought that it had come off a Saracens hand.  It was unfortunate, but it favoured the better team at the time and reflected a widening gap between the two sides.  The score, at 6-18 was frustrating, but not necessarily unfair.

Half time brought some relief, and no more than for the audience and a certain cheeky chappy, Stuart Tinner.  News of Tinner’s £250,000 kick and the lift it had given the crowd apparently filtered back to the dressing room.  If it had any effect, it encouraged Saracens to become masters of their own destiny again.

What was more significant was the introduction of Alex Goode at full-back and Rodd Penney for Cato.  These two players turned the game on its head, offering a more unpredictable spark.  First, though, it was the forwards who put Sarries back in the match.  Having dominated the scrum since CJ van der Linde went off early in the first half, Ernst Joubert put pressure of Francois Hougaard’s clearence from a defensive scrum, charged it down, and picked up to return the score to 11-18.

South Africa counter-attacked, but were halted by a superb ankle-tap by Rodd Penney and turned over.  When they kicked again, Tagicakibau secured the ball, allowing Saracens to run from just outside the 22.  The ball was worked to Brad Barritt, who stepped inside and offloaded to release Hougaard.  The fly-half’s chip put the underwhelming Ruan Pienaar under the pressure of Joubert’s chase.  In the next breath, Kevin Barrett, on for de Kock, passed out of the tackle and the ball was sped wide.  Another replacement, Andy Saull, offloaded inside for Penney to race ahead.

If Penney had been able to find Tagicakibau, Saracens would have been level, but they didn’t have to wait long.  A scrum ten metres out gave Barritt the perfect chance to play first-receiver and the combination of his leg-power and Penney’s upper-body strength drove the pair over.

With the scores equal, the game turned into South Africa’s favour again.  Losing a lineout on their 22, Saracens were hit by a swiftly-executed move that saw Ndungane’s forward pass release Nokwe for his second try.  But South Africa’s tendency to live on the margins, shall we say, let them down as the referee began to pick up on their forward passes, halting their attacks.

Meanwhile, the crowd had been roused by the pluckiness on display on the black half of the field.  In a game-defining moment, Hougaard was smashed backwards taking a pass on the loop by Wynard Olivier.  In the next passage of play, Hougaard returned the favour, stopping Olivier dead in his tracks (with a little help from Mouritz Botha). When Hougaard kicked another penalty to make the score 21-24 with ten minutes to go, their was a palpable sense that Sarries might have the final laugh.

Hougaard had been searching for a drop goal since Barritt had levelled the scores.  He had probably missed four or five from the half-way line over the course of the match, so when he tried again with five minutes remaining the crowd were perhaps justified in their chorus of boos.  But as the ball sailed ever so slowly through the posts, the cheers were considerably louder.

The Bokke had been out-fought, out-played and out-sung.  Though a development team, they apparently had less to prove than Saracens, whose ambition and hunger are fast changing the face of English club rugby.  The whole team had proved outstanding, even with a league derby against Wasps fast approaching.  In their desire for the Springbok scalp, Sarries produced one of the great performances in their history, but the way this season is shaping up, victory could prove neither a full-stop, nor even an exclamation mark.  Here’s hoping it’s a semi-colon, and the rest of the sentence is as good.

MUSE @ The o2

Warning: Spoilers

Muse have a following that at times strays close to extremism and turns their concerts into something like rallies.  The band, for their part, are always keen to put on a spectacle.  Their past two albums have seemingly blurred the line between politics and entertainment, and so it’s no surprise that the three towers that are the centrepiece of Muse’s light and video show flash the chorus of the night’s opener, Uprising, from their latest offering, The Resistance;

They will not force us,

They will stop degrading us,

They will not control us,

We will be victorious.

There is something disconcerting in seeing 20,000 people call back those words and throw their arms forward in encouragement.  If Matt Bellamy, self-confessed conspiracy theorist, really so desired he would have little trouble making an impact in politics.  All it would take is a banner and a carefully chosen set-list.

It is probably for the best, therefore, that Muse are on their best behaviour at the moment.  Love, apparently, is their Resistance, and they are just as interested in playing the hits and relying on Bellamy’s rather geeky crowd-pleasing antics as making a stand.  After their tour with U2, they have not picked up any annoying habits, such as speaking at length on stage.

What can be said of Muse’s live show that isn’t already known?  Just as they were the band to fill Wembley, they are the perfect band for the O2 (apologies to the Jackson family).  The last time I was there (for Bob Dylan), it seemed impossible to fill such a cavernous space.  And yet, third row down from the top, watching Muse, it was obvious that the answer is a lot of lasers and a lot of noise.  In fact, further than that, Muse have three platforms that raise or lower the performers during the set.  They start up, descend three songs in for a well-received New Born, are up again for an even more popular Feeling Good, and later on for part of Bellamy’s symphony during the encore.

And as usual, the musicianship is the real draw, particularly drummer Dom, who – and this probably isn’t said enough – holds the group together and gives their live sound the necessary oomph, for want of a better word.  One thing you could say about these concerts, is that Muse seem happy to cut loose, especially as their hyped-up ‘homecoming’ concerts in Devon made them seem just a little wooden.

After an overcooked Unintended, there is a palpable sense of fun as they rattle through Starlight, Plug in Baby and Time is Running Out.  Nonetheless, though this would be a perfect time to leave the stage, they return to their latest ‘message’ with Unnatural Selection, before an encore including Stockholm Syndrome and a harmonica-introduced version Knights of Cydonia that is so comprehensively backed by Dom as to be practically a drum and bass remix.  All in all, a fantastic use of the venue, and another triumph for Muse.  They continue to be Britain’s best live band.

The Great British Band That Might Have Been

Having proved themselves capable of holding the attention of crowds of any size, it seems counter-intuitive to say that Muse might have been anything more.  Still, it seems unlikely that they will endure in the same way that Blur, or even Radiohead, seem likely to.

Part of the problem is that this is the X-Factor generation.  People are increasingly drawn to music as spectacle, and moreover, half the population are focussed on the television – a medium that encourages a buy and sell mentality to new music.  That has hardly helped, but bands like the Arctic Monkeys have hit on to the national consciousness quickly.  Muse have never been as loved by the critics.

I find this hard to believe.  Looking back, Muse’s discography provides an interesting historical record.  They started with the youthful, anxious Showbiz, tried heavy prog-rock on The Origin of the Symmetry, hit a more emotive chord on Absolution and have now gone on to politically and now R&B influenced rock.  Musically, they’ve tried everything, and reflected the growing sense of disenchantment with the Noughties.

But there is a sense that they have followed, rather than led the way. One of the problems with Muse is their timing.  Fans will know how long the gaps between albums have been.

Indeed, their latest, most demagogic efforts in particular have been badly-timed.  Black Holes and Revelations could have had twice the impact, had it been released in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War, rather than in 2006.  The Resistance is the same.  Its paranoia seems more suited to the Blair era, now that the government is viewed more as incompetent than sinister, and had it been released last year, when Duffy was taking no prisoners, its R&B tinges might have been more popular.

That said, Muse are also the victims of their own success, and more specifically their focus on instantly recognisable riffs and tempo changes.  It is far easier to look forward to the guitar solo crashing in on Knights of Cydonia, than think about the call to arms.  We’re back to today’s consumerism, but also the fun the band has on stage.  Who needs seriousness, when you can be so entertaining?

Unfulfilled Promise

John F. Kennedy; An Unfinished Life by Robert Dallek

There are few more fitting subjects in the history of the American Presidency than John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  As a politician and as a person, he inspired a level of devotion, if not faith that raises the spirits of both historians, and more broadly, Americans.  Robert Dallek is one of those who eulogises Kennedy, while drawing a distinct line at the President he might have been.

There was lots to admire, even like, about Kennedy.  He was, in truth, a skilful President.  This extended to more than a careful management of his image to his regular appearances on television and radio.  He spoke to the Nation, and he did so in order to speak honestly.

In spite of his youth, and inexperience, Kennedy saw as well, if not better than many of his contemporaries what the great foreign policy issues of the day were.

Admittedly, he allowed himself to be misled into the Bay of the Pigs debacle – which is not a mitigation of his responsibility, since to balance the competing desires of different factions with the art of the possible is the main occupation of the politician – and compounded it by withdrawing a substantial amount of air cover for the Cuban rebels.  Nor was his administration short of folly in the aftermath of that invasion.  His brother, Bobby, was obsessed with having Castro assassinated (a policy which he tragically came to believe was responsible for his JFK’s assassination as a reprisal).

From that mistake, however, a newfound confidence was born.  Convinced, as he had always suspected, that the military advisors who were meant to serve him served their own perverse interests better, he resumed a great weight of responsibility for deciding American foreign policy.

Having been consistently bested by Khrushchev, he bravely and responsibly refused to submit when Cuba was again the source of discord and the USSR a genuine threat to the American mainland, and won a decisive advantage for the USA by ensuring that the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey would remain secret.  Dallek also gives evidence that his weighing up of the two contrary opinions on Vietnam would have resulted in his holding back American forces from a war they were doomed to lose.

This should not be taken to mean that Kennedy was a great President.  The starting, and ending point of Dallek’s book is that greatness was coming to Kennedy.  There is no guarantee that that is true.  Dallek rightly points out that the six pillars upon which Kennedy’s legacy would have been based – a tax cut to boost the economy, federal aid to education, Medicare, a Civil Rights Bill, a Housing Department and an assault on poverty – were all achieved during the Presidency of Kennedy’s Vice-President, Lyndon B Johnson.

Part of the reason was, as Dallek says, that the composition of Congress was against Kennedy.  And he was certainly progressing.  When he first came to office, Kennedy did not believe that it was his role to champion a Civil Rights Bill from his position as President.  Moreover, he felt that it would directly contradict his desire for the US to lead into a new era of international peace.  He was, in some ways cowardly and was ultimately wrong to think as he did (which, to his credit, he recognised).  But it was to LBJ, a man of much deeper feeling on the issue, and much greater cunning and knowledge of the legislature that the decisive Act, and much else, was left.  It is therefore difficult to tell whether Kennedy was unfinished, or unfulfilled.

Kennedy was quite capable of mastering a brief, and was imaginative in his response to the major questions of the day.  Yet he lost most of his opportunities, his Union Bill while in the Senate, and the Test Ban Treaty in the wake of the Missile Crisis.  In doing so he provided a salutary lesson for American Presidents – that control of the Oval Office is never enough.  It is a lesson that Barack Obama, as he tries to squeeze Health Care out of a Congress that has so far produced two apparently irreconcilable Bills, will rapidly be learning.  Obama may have some tricks up his sleeve, but he should be wary that as in Kennedy’s case, television appearances and moving speeches might not be enough.

However, I think that the last word should go to Kennedy, or at least be about him.  Or rather, as the late, great Alistair Cooke described;

the feeling, which has little to do with [Americans’] political loyalties, that they have lost a brother, the bright young brother you are proud of, the one who went far and mingled with the great, and had no side, no pomp, and in the worst moments (the Bay of Pigs) took all the blame, and in the best (the Cuban crisis) had the best sort of courage, which is the courage to face the worst and take a quiet stand.

Saracens 30 Bath 22

Saracens continued their near-perfect start to the season with a win in their first Anglo-Welsh Cup match against a Bath team lacking composure and creativity.  Though Saracens did not offer the same solid defence that has been the cornerstone of their victories so far this season, and though they repeatedly let Bath back into the game, a much-rotated team still showed moments of creativity and proved too much for Bath to handle.

Saracens dominated the first half.  Rodd Penney, by far the most creative player on the field, stepped and went from his own 22 to Bath’s.  Though he couldn’t finish as he did against Bath in last year’s 100-metre sprint, the ball was allowed to move wide quickly, though Ethienne Reynecke was rolled into touch after failing to break on the outside (Reynecke was typically solid during his time on the pitch, but threw two poor lineouts).

Minutes later, Jackson was seeking to emulate Penney’s play-making.  The fly-half, whose kicking from hand this season has been depressing, sought to make up for it by playing flat and picking out miss-passes throughout the game.  His first foray was after five minutes, a dummy inside the Bath 22.  It didn’t create much space, but it did lead to Saracens winning a penalty, duly converted.

It was not long before Sarries weaknesses, and Bath’s unilateral strengths made themselves apparent. Jonny Faamatuainu picked up from the base of the scrum, sold a dummy pass and charged through the criminally hesitant Saracens defence to score. 

Less than ten minutes later, Bath scored again from a lineout that Richard Haughton was forced to concede from a kick into space.  The Bath pack, which also squeezed penalty after penalty from the Saracens scrum, easily drove over Scott Hobson.

However, the greater dynamism of Saracens was instrumental in returning the score line to the home side’s favour just before the break.  Haughton kicked forward and chased, together with Wikus van Heerden isolating and turning over Bath fly half Nicky Little.  Scrum half Kevin Barrett (conservative in the first half, quicker and more threatening in the second) fed Penney, who kicked across field to Justin Melck, who ran in the try unopposed. 

Saracens, the more cohesive and less error-prone side, were in front, but Bath had taken their two opportunities to maximum effect.

Haughton was again involved in Saracens’ second try, just after half time.  Although Sarries’ backs were largely predictable, typically drifting rather than running straight lines, on this occasion the wing stepped inside his marker after a sustained encampment on the Bath line.

Bath would not lie down, however, and Faamatuainu scored a second try when Saracens’ defence was drawn in by phase-play, leaving an overlap.

The last fifteen minutes of the game were scrappy, with Saracens wasting opportunities to push their advantage home.  When Saracens elected for a lineout, instead of a kickable penalty, they could not press home.  And when De Kock kicked upfield from a scrum in the Sarries 22 and a determined chase resulted in a penalty, that too was squandered.  Horak’s poor kicking from fullback saw him replaced by Alex Goode, meaning the latter failed to get his chance at 10.

Indeed, the only lively entertainment came from the introduction of Saracens’ own Scrappy Doo.  Schalk Brits, today a replacement blindside flanker, bought into his role with all the enthusiasm of a dedicated trick-or-treater.  He carried the ball several times, always looking to offload, and always making ground, even if he did get carried away.  There was even an ambitious (but not terribly successful) kick, leaving most people wondering where he will be deployed next.  However, it was Brits tackling that was most exuberant – including some late hits that suggested a little too much hunger for blood.

Despite their lack of fluency, this Saracens team still played for each other, as two dramatic turnovers in the last fifteen minutes showed.  Jackson kicked a further two penalties to seal the win, and Bath’s threatened comeback dissolved.  In truth, the only disappointment was the Kevin Sorrell’s day was not marked by something more impressive.  Instead, the big 300 was more than a little Spartan.

Fiery Australia disappoint improved England

England 9 Australia 18

England were counting on a victory against Australia today.  Though the hosts were had more than twenty elite squad players sidelined through injuries, the visitors were missing captain, Stirling Mortlock, and had rolled over for both New Zealand and South Africa in the Tri-Nations.  England meanwhile were last in action in a Six Nations they were ultimately runners-up in, but were ill disciplined and inconsistent.  A win would give England momentum and start their autumn series with a view to a successful World Cup campaign in two years.

Though the lust for victory was plain to see, England faltered yet again.  Australia, for their part, did not let themselves down.  While England dominated the first half, Australia got the only try.  And when Australia had the opportunity to dictate the pace of the game in the second half, they did so beyond England’s capacity to absorb it.

England looked a more comfortable outfit in the first half than they had done in the two years since the World Cup final.  They didn’t concede turnovers, nor many penalties, and moreover, were dominant in the set-piece.  Steve Borthwick, in particular, was imperious in either side’s lineout and Jordan Crane made his mark early on with five carries within as many minutes of the game starting. 

Indeed, England were off the mark after only two minutes, as Jonny Wilkinson dropped a goal following good progress by the forwards.  Not long afterwards, the rejuvenated fly half had added another three-points from a penalty and hit the post from forty metres.

Wilkinson was a joy to watch, tackling everything that came his way, and running the ball menacingly at the Australian defence.  What was even better, however, was that the combination of Wilkinson and Geraghty, the form fly half in the Guinness Premiership, worked wonderfully.  With Wilkinson operating at first tackle and Geraghty with his superior pass and sidestep as first-receiver capable of mis-matching forwards against weak tacklers, England looked worthy of the quick ball Danny Care provided. 

Another positive was the willingness of England’s back three to run the ball.  Monye is continuing the form that saw him selected for the Lions, and the addition of a competent kicking game makes him a suitable fullback.  That said, he needs to stay on his feet more if he is to create genuine scoring-opportunities.  Banahan and Cueto on the wings offered both pace and brute force, and their height gives them an advantage when it comes to cross-field kicks.

That said, England scored no tries, and their best sustained pressure came from forward play.  Danny Hipkiss always seems to break the game line, but Ayoola Erinle seemed more capable of offloading.  All in all, no one seemed to be running the lines to take advantage of Geraghty’s awareness of what was on.

Australia were quite the opposite.  Their backs attacked at pace and were rewarded by breaking the gain line.  The fly half-centre axis of Matt Giteau and Quade Cooper was almost impossible to second-guess, so that England’s resolute defence nevertheless was always in reverse. 

After a poor decision from the touch judge gifted Australia an attacking lineout, the visitors broke into the 22, and from five metres out, the scrum half, Will Genia picked up, sold Louis Deacon the dummy and scampered around the ruck to score their first half try.  Nonetheless, Wilkinson kicked a penalty to give England a first half lead.

England never regained the upper-hand that they had enjoyed.  Too frequently the ball was knocked on after promising starts – as with a weaving run by James Haskell and a chip and chase by Monye.  They also surrendered their advantage in the set-piece by failing to contest the scrum or lineout effectively.  The most disappointing moment of the second half saw Australian fullback drive twenty metres for a try, with Monye and Cueto unable to bring him down.

One Step Forward, Two Back

The new-look England team, however long it lasts, is a leaner, faster one. The bulkier three-quarters, quick back row and Dylan Hartley at hooker offer ball-carriers all over the field.  Geraghty looks like the play-making stand-off England have been crying out for, without being the loose cannon that Cipriani proved. 

However, there is a long way to go.  Experience should help settle a back line that is not used to playing together.  Nevertheless, backs coach, Brian Smith (who did so much to increase London Irish’s attacking potential), has his work cut out.  England have not begun to ape the Lions formula of dynamic supporting runners.  Whether Hipkiss would be better utilised at inside centre and Geraghty at ten is a question that will not get asked as long as Wilkinson is around, but the existing arrangements will have to be made a lot less static.

The statistics will probably not be too harsh on England.  They missed relatively few tackles, but were still unable to halt Australian advances.  This bodes poorly for when England have to face more physical opponents, which they will in the next few weeks.  They may be able to maul, but will need to focus on the tackle area, from both an attacking and a defensive perspective.

Martin Johnson would not, in an ideal world, have used this series to experiment.  He sees it as far too late and in a way is right.  Injuries present immediate and long-term problems.  Does he ignore the opportunities presented by this exciting team of rookies and draft the regulars back in? 

Andrew Sheridan and Julian White will not be left out (neither, unfortunately, will Vickery, in all probability).  Simon Shaw and Joe Worsely are probably too strong and experienced defensively not to be included.  Paul Hodgson played well when he came on, but the scrum half position will not be crucial. Mike Tindall should not be required, but the centres are still a problem area.

These autumn internationals will therefore be critical to England’s development under Martin Johnson, and unless they can win one or two against the odds, the pressure will mount. That is why a good performance was not good enough.

Man on Wire

David Miliband has had a mixed few years, and specifically, a mixed few weeks.  A few weeks ago he made a speech to the Labour conference (the graveyard slot) that most media described as unhinged, and that I heard one Labour member describe as brilliant.  This week he could be lauded as Europe’s saviour, or he could reverse the West’s recently improving but schizophrenic relationship with Russia.

Of all the decisions Gordon Brown has made in his short premiership, two stand out as almost uniquely successful.  Bringing Mandelson back into the Cabinet was one.  Elevating David Miliband to the foreign office was another. 

Miliband was the strongest candidate when Brown faced the prospect of a stalking horse after Blair’s departure.  When Brown’s premiership was on the rocks, it was to Miliband that first plotters, and then James Purnell turned to, as the last great hope.  Miliband betrayed both (persuaded by Mandelson to remain in the Cabinet), and as a result saved the government and condemned himself to be passed over for the Labour leadership.

But Miliband’s inertia within the Labour Party are only a part of the story of his decline.  As significant has been his confinement in the foreign office.  It is a position – perhaps the only one – that does not offer a weapon with which to consolidate support to use against Brown.  Instead, it offers one of the most difficult conundrums in British policy – one that can’t be solved by money, that offers no easy choices and no photo ops; how does Britain deal with Russia?

Miliband is an intellectual, not a conviction politician, which shows itself more in his Russian policy than in anything else.  This week, when Miliband should be making his pitch to be the EU High Representative of Foreign Affairs (the best way to restore his credibility in the Labour Party and ride out possible opposition), he has to walk the high-rope that is a diplomatic visit to Moscow.

Going, Miliband was optimistic.  On his Foreign Office blog he wrote,

“We don’t always see eye to eye with Russia, but we share the same global challenges and it is important that we work on them together.  And as we are both permanent members of the UN Security Council and members of the G8 and G20, there is a wide range of questions where, by working together, we really can make a difference.”

The implication is that Britain is giving up the passive resistance that has been the hallmark of Anglo-Russian relations.  Over the past three years, the Litvenenko affair, the British Council controversy and the Georgian war have been unprofitable.  It quickly became clear that Russia would not compromise, and that Europe did not have the unanimity to respond.

In recent weeks, Russian has shown some receptiveness to the American State Department’s re-setting initiative.  In return for the USA withdrawing its missile defence system, Russia made a vague statement on imposing sanctions on Iran.

I can only assume that Miliband’s visit is part of these developments.  However, it has hardly gone to plan.  The Litvenenko affair has been allowed to resurface, putting Miliband in an impossible bind. 

To be contrary, and go against the mood (very current, unsecure, but potentially powerful), or stand up for individual cases and abstract principles?  Either way, the issues are unavoidable.  Extending NATO or the EU to Russia’s borders could raise the chances of war (probably with Ukraine).  Too much emphasis on business means sacrificing the Russian civil society Miliband said he was keen to hear from to the dictates of the Kremlin.

Wittingly or not, Miliband’s visit has raised two uncomfortable debates at a time when they could least be afforded.  On the one hand, Labour faces a choice between a realist (dealing with the Russian government as is) or ethical (actively seeking to influence the internal balance) foreign policy.  Secondly, he raises the question of Europe’s approach.  Are European interests best served by trying to close the door on Russia, or by engaging with her?

The latter is the most immediate concern (the former is age-old, and still unresolved).  The Lisbon Treaty was designed to streamline European decision-making and maximise Europe’s collective influence.  The argument that Miliband seems likely to provoke could yet be good for Europe, but it is more likely to create divisions than to resolve them.  Britain will be seen as an awkward partner, or European countries simply will not be able to agree.

As for Miliband’s EU prospects?  They will not be helped, although Russia is not the most significant issue at stake.  Whether a diplomat can be an intellectual and still be effective is a serious question that was raised by Bill Clinton’s presidency.  Miliband may answer it.

The Blair Ultimatum

All the words needlessly spilt over this week’s controversy have turned up very few interesting arguments – either for or against – the prospect of Tony Blair becoming the first EU president.  In fact, most have been very bad, and the obsession with a British perspective has only obstructed intelligent debate.  It doesn’t much matter that Blair is from Britain, even though we are at times out of step with some European initiatives, and even though the next British government may be even more Eurosceptic.  Neither should politics be so important.  I’ve heard it said that pressure for a centre-right candidate is behind Merkel’s reluctance.  But what is Blair, if not a Christian democrat? Frankly, both his ideology and his contacts are secondary to his profile and his abilities.

There are two things working against Blair.   One is an almost visceral dislike of him, more as a person than as a professional.  Take this ridiculous article from Jeff Randall;

‘Mr Blair is a fake, a charlatan, a shameless twister. He is not “a pretty straight sort of guy”. Who else would play down his faith lest it be seen as a vote-loser?’

Most accuse Blair of free-loading, or jumping on the EU gravy train, as Randall puts it.  This argument is patently absurd.  If Blair were to take a role in the EU he would inevitably sacrifice a far more significant portion of his current income than he could possibly gain directly from the job, as perhaps the one decent article on the subject has made clear.  For a start, there’s the £2m annual salary from JP Morgan.  Then there’s the speaking engagements and consultancies.  Money has nothing to do with it.

Personal attacks are not rare in politics, but the only worthwhile ones concentrate on a candidate’s suitability for the role.  No one opposed to a Blair presidency has yet faced up to the question of how effective he would actually be.  Some views, admittedly, are based on his actions in office, but almost exclusively examples have little or no relation to the job that he would actually be doing.

This leads me nicely to the second argument against Blair, that he would be divisive.  It is ridiculous that Iraq is still so contentious, especially amongst European socialists, six and a half years after the event.  Blair’s pro-European endeavours – common defence, the social chapter, pro-active engagement – have all been forgotten.  And in a sense, joint military engagement has now been so decisively removed from the agenda that it should be easier to ignore the elephant in the room than it actually appears.

Blair is a natural diplomat.  His engagement with the gritty details in Palestine will only have added to his natural charm.  He managed the transition in British diplomacy from Clinton to Bush effortlessly, so the argument that his appointment might send a hostile signal to Obama is nonsensical.

The trouble is that Iraq exposed how disunited Europe really was, and the concern is that too vigorous a president might do so again.  The question then, is really about the kind of president Europe wants.  There has been some discussion about the two possible ways this could turn out. 

The bureaucrat would chair summits and make sure that the EU was well-administered.  There is no denying that Blair would be unsuitable for this role, and yet the right-wing critics, who seem the most vociferous in this country at least, would be ill-served by this model.  It would almost certainly mean more European government, and the status-quo, including the Common Agricultural Policy.

Blair is suited to the second model.  The virtue of his candidacy is that he could be a diplomat, without being diplomatic.  He would effectively represent the EU outside of its borders, but would also offer initiative.  Critics of his government have often said that there were too many initiatives, but it is a style that would suit the needs of the EU, where balancing interests is a pre-eminent concern.  Inevitably, it would involve banging heads together, but Blair has the right instincts on climate change, aid, and dare I say it, the Middle East to make Europe a big player.

Very few people inside the EU have yet gone on the record about Blair’s chances.  The latest is that Sarkozy and Merkel, who were very keen, are now holding back their support.  Momentum is important in decisions like these, but there is no explicit campaign, so the wider concerns have their place too.  These might still sway the decision-makers.

Still, I find it peculiar that, as the BBC is reporting, a three-man panel is in place to decide.  Bigger names will surely have a proportionate say, but the doubts of one of that panel, the Austrian Chancellor Werner Fayman, put Blair at a disadvantage.

Belatedly and exceptionally, some reasonable articles about Blair from The Economist’s David Rennie;

Blair – a moderate

The politics and the disappointment