Many younger readers will never have seen the Spanish golfer Severiano Ballesteros at his peak. They may well have seen Seve linked to by video link looking like an old man unable to move very much on Sports Personality of the Year from time to time.
However what that man could do with a golf club was unbelievable at times, bold and outrageous but always spectacular when he was on his game. He won the Open three times 1979, 1984, 1988 and The Masters twice 1980 and 1983 (the first of which made him the youngest ever winner until Tiger Woods won his first). He still holds the record 50 wins on the European tour as well as 41 other career wins.
In 1976 aged just 18 he burst unto the scene at Royal Birkdale, leading The Open at the end of day three but ending up tied with Jack Nichlaus two shots behind Johnny Miller. Three years later he won including a shot from the car park to still birdie the 16th at Royal Lytham and St Annes. It was the first win at a major by a player from continental Europe since 1907 and he was the youngest winner of The Open in the 20th Century.
In the Ryder Cup he scored 22 1/2 points out of his 37 matches between 1979 and 1995. He was one of the first from continental Europe to play against the USA when the tournament expanded beyond GB and Ireland in 1979. But it was the all Spanish pairing with José Marie Olazábal that is the most successful in the tournament's history. 11 wins, 2 halves and only 2 defeats from their 15 starts together. In 1997 as non-playing captain his exuberance flooded around almost every shot that was being played as he encouraged his fellow Europeans to retain the Ryder Cup
He had had back problems from the late 90s that limited his ability and he official retired from the game in 2007. Although he had been nowhere near his best for years.
In October 2008 he was taken gravely ill to hospital in Madrid, there he had been diagnosed with a brain tumour and underwent a series of emergency operations. He was discharged from the hospital in December and made his first public appearance after that in June of 2009. Yesterday sadly his family announced that Seve's neurological condition had "suffered a severe deterioration", he died within hours of that announcement this morning.
In tribute as they say too often on reality TV these days, Seve here are some of you best bits.
Severiano 'Seve' Ballesteros Sota 9 April 1957 – 7 May 2011
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Friday, 6 May 2011
It's Friday...It's Halfway Through Michael and Andrew's Wedding
I did last night blog that I was back and free to blog. Well I'm not quite free quite yet, I'm currently at a count for the referendum somewhere.
However, my good friend Michael said yes yesterday, did so earlier on today at Belfast City Hall and will be doing so tomorrow at All Souls' Church. Yeah after voting yesterday, earlier today he and Andrew went through their civil partnership ceremony, but tomorrow at the their Ceremony of Commitment before God only then will they consider themselves fully married*.
Hopefully by now I have my Argyll Jacket to go with my Highland outfit (it still wasn't ready on Tuesday), seeing as this is the only item remaining and I'm not an off the peg jacket I do hope so. But last weekend I got thinking of processionals for weddings as a result of an unusual version played at someone else's. So here today are some other's maybe not played in the way or style you typically associate them with.
As tomorrow I will be wearing my newly purchased Highland outfit (pictures will follow) here is that famous modern Bagpipe processional by German pipers Ulrich Roever and Michael Korb Highland Cathedral played not on pipes but by a brass band.
The one that kicked off this thought process was Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D played on three Bagpipes as at Trinity, Bangor last Saturday. Here is a different take of that
Of course Felix Mendelssohn's Wedding March is another traditional bridal processional. It has been rocked up by many groups, but who better seeing as there was a Royal Wedding last week than Queen's version from Flash Gordon
* Actually they won't until the Liberal Democrat's policy on Equal Marriage is fully implemented, which includes the section that civil partnerships like theirs can be updated to full marriage if they wish.
However, my good friend Michael said yes yesterday, did so earlier on today at Belfast City Hall and will be doing so tomorrow at All Souls' Church. Yeah after voting yesterday, earlier today he and Andrew went through their civil partnership ceremony, but tomorrow at the their Ceremony of Commitment before God only then will they consider themselves fully married*.
Hopefully by now I have my Argyll Jacket to go with my Highland outfit (it still wasn't ready on Tuesday), seeing as this is the only item remaining and I'm not an off the peg jacket I do hope so. But last weekend I got thinking of processionals for weddings as a result of an unusual version played at someone else's. So here today are some other's maybe not played in the way or style you typically associate them with.
As tomorrow I will be wearing my newly purchased Highland outfit (pictures will follow) here is that famous modern Bagpipe processional by German pipers Ulrich Roever and Michael Korb Highland Cathedral played not on pipes but by a brass band.
The one that kicked off this thought process was Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D played on three Bagpipes as at Trinity, Bangor last Saturday. Here is a different take of that
Of course Felix Mendelssohn's Wedding March is another traditional bridal processional. It has been rocked up by many groups, but who better seeing as there was a Royal Wedding last week than Queen's version from Flash Gordon
* Actually they won't until the Liberal Democrat's policy on Equal Marriage is fully implemented, which includes the section that civil partnerships like theirs can be updated to full marriage if they wish.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
The Politics of the Gutter - Or #No2AV This is Your Campaign
For many weeks now I've been getting angrier and angrier with George Osborne and David Cameron's actions and word in the AV referendum .
Before March 16th when we had the deal that would to the referendum we have spend the last 15 hours voting on David Cameron was insistent that he like Nick Clegg were not going to be heavily involved in the front line of the debate themselves, but would get on with leading the Government in this very trying time. All seemed to be sweetness and light if in different corners on the substance of the debate.
But the No campaign then went into personality attacks on the leader of the junior partner in the coalition government. David Cameron had made a promise to Nick Clegg that it would be a reasoned argument on his part, but Cameron and Osborne quickly joined in on the mudslinging at the man they have to work with in Government rather than arguing the merits or otherwise of the two systems that were on offer.
The worse thing was that they joined in with the lies that the No campaign were spurting out. There were questions in the House to try and get the truth to be acknowledged. As nobody can accuse another Member of the House of being a liar this had to be done through the formality of asking questions. Of course I and many others were shouting lying at the TV screen at any point that the lies were being re-iterated, any time that a loaded question from Conservative or Labour No MPs were asked in PMQs, especially the Labour ones as they wasted a chance to hold the government to account.
Cameron has actually taken liberties with the actuality in the House by stating some of the downright lies that have been part of the No Campaign's strategy. Two months ago they were trailing in the polls. So they started, as they had already been doing but with people like the PM in the starting line up now, to get these lies out. The problem is when the PM tells a lie it takes a long time to counter it.
The PM says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq many people believe him.
The PM says that there will have to be voting machines to count an AV count many people believe him.
The PM says his Deputy once said the words miserable little compromise, solely about AV, not the lateness of the offer, or whom it was aimed at, or the desperation of the outgoing previous PM to cling to power and of course it was a miserable compromise it came 12.95 years into a 13 year term of power.
But to stand by posters that attack a member of your cabinet. To stand by an referendum broadcast that talks about broken promises (aimed squarely at one party in coalition) instead of what actually as you said last year of coming together for the common good of the country, both putting things on the shelf. This is shoddy politics from the man who claims he has a good working relationship.
If I had been elected last year I do not know how I could have sat on the same benches as some of Conservatives who were repeating this bile. I may very well have crossed the chamber to sit as an non-Coalition Liberal Democrat, giving my friend Alistair Carmichael a headache in how to discipline me. Maybe it has been because for the last six months I have been living, breathing and making decisions for the Yes Campaign rather than politics as a whole that I feel this way that some colleagues in Westminster haven't got to the stage Chris Huhne allegedly did in cabinet on Tuesday.
Whatever happens tomorrow I know that we have faced the dirtiest opponent in my entire political career. That is probably because most of my other opponents know they will have to go to the polls again within 5 years. The No campaign don't have that constraint on them, they only had to win once, they only had to stop a change. They didn't offer anything positive, some of what they tried to offer was better reform.
If they have won what they have done is kill any hope of electoral reform before I reach the age of retirement maybe even before I reach 100 (and that is two generations away).
Note I told you I'd let rip, bet you didn't guess this early.
Before March 16th when we had the deal that would to the referendum we have spend the last 15 hours voting on David Cameron was insistent that he like Nick Clegg were not going to be heavily involved in the front line of the debate themselves, but would get on with leading the Government in this very trying time. All seemed to be sweetness and light if in different corners on the substance of the debate.
But the No campaign then went into personality attacks on the leader of the junior partner in the coalition government. David Cameron had made a promise to Nick Clegg that it would be a reasoned argument on his part, but Cameron and Osborne quickly joined in on the mudslinging at the man they have to work with in Government rather than arguing the merits or otherwise of the two systems that were on offer.
The worse thing was that they joined in with the lies that the No campaign were spurting out. There were questions in the House to try and get the truth to be acknowledged. As nobody can accuse another Member of the House of being a liar this had to be done through the formality of asking questions. Of course I and many others were shouting lying at the TV screen at any point that the lies were being re-iterated, any time that a loaded question from Conservative or Labour No MPs were asked in PMQs, especially the Labour ones as they wasted a chance to hold the government to account.
Cameron has actually taken liberties with the actuality in the House by stating some of the downright lies that have been part of the No Campaign's strategy. Two months ago they were trailing in the polls. So they started, as they had already been doing but with people like the PM in the starting line up now, to get these lies out. The problem is when the PM tells a lie it takes a long time to counter it.
The PM says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq many people believe him.
The PM says that there will have to be voting machines to count an AV count many people believe him.
The PM says his Deputy once said the words miserable little compromise, solely about AV, not the lateness of the offer, or whom it was aimed at, or the desperation of the outgoing previous PM to cling to power and of course it was a miserable compromise it came 12.95 years into a 13 year term of power.
But to stand by posters that attack a member of your cabinet. To stand by an referendum broadcast that talks about broken promises (aimed squarely at one party in coalition) instead of what actually as you said last year of coming together for the common good of the country, both putting things on the shelf. This is shoddy politics from the man who claims he has a good working relationship.
If I had been elected last year I do not know how I could have sat on the same benches as some of Conservatives who were repeating this bile. I may very well have crossed the chamber to sit as an non-Coalition Liberal Democrat, giving my friend Alistair Carmichael a headache in how to discipline me. Maybe it has been because for the last six months I have been living, breathing and making decisions for the Yes Campaign rather than politics as a whole that I feel this way that some colleagues in Westminster haven't got to the stage Chris Huhne allegedly did in cabinet on Tuesday.
Whatever happens tomorrow I know that we have faced the dirtiest opponent in my entire political career. That is probably because most of my other opponents know they will have to go to the polls again within 5 years. The No campaign don't have that constraint on them, they only had to win once, they only had to stop a change. They didn't offer anything positive, some of what they tried to offer was better reform.
If they have won what they have done is kill any hope of electoral reform before I reach the age of retirement maybe even before I reach 100 (and that is two generations away).
Note I told you I'd let rip, bet you didn't guess this early.
Shackles are Off
Polls are now closed across the country and in Northern Ireland where I've been working since early November to secure a Yes vote in today's referendum.
Over that time there have been many party political stories that I have read about and wanted to make comment about here on my blog, but I've been working with people of many parties and felt that my doing so wouldn't be right. Well as from now I'm expected my blogging to regain that edge that has been lacking over recent weeks. I'm going to be saying what I as a Liberal Democrat (and no those are not dirty words) feels about things that are going on.
The gloves are off, I'm unchained from the shackles that have been holding me back. It may not be tomorrow as I'm at the count or Saturday when I am at a dear friend's 'wedding' but soon, and maybe there will be time in between those two events, I'll be back writing what is really on my mind.
You have been warned.
"Here's Stephen!", back in full glorious bloggery.
Over that time there have been many party political stories that I have read about and wanted to make comment about here on my blog, but I've been working with people of many parties and felt that my doing so wouldn't be right. Well as from now I'm expected my blogging to regain that edge that has been lacking over recent weeks. I'm going to be saying what I as a Liberal Democrat (and no those are not dirty words) feels about things that are going on.
The gloves are off, I'm unchained from the shackles that have been holding me back. It may not be tomorrow as I'm at the count or Saturday when I am at a dear friend's 'wedding' but soon, and maybe there will be time in between those two events, I'll be back writing what is really on my mind.
You have been warned.
"Here's Stephen!", back in full glorious bloggery.
I'm now back.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Happy 90th Birthday Our Wee Country #NornIron
"For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."
The act was voted through on 3 May 1921 and gained Royal Assent the following day so on the eve of an election to a Northern Irish Assembly we mark the 90th birthday of Northern Ireland, Our Wee Country. Ninety years on we do have Nationalists and Unionists prepared to work together for a shared future. We are looking at a democratic future for all the peoples and communities in Northern Ireland.
Tomorrow between 7am and 10 pm we go to the polls here to elect 108 MLAs, members to all 26 district councils and decide on the referendum on the Alternative Vote.
If you live in Northern Ireland don't forget to turn up at the Polling Station with your ID.
- A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part)
- A UK, Irish or EU passport
- An electoral identity card
- A Translink Senior SmartPass
- A Translink 60+ SmartPass
- A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
- A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass
* Repealed in 1999.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Cameron claims to like reasoned argument but fails to provide balance on AV
Do you remember what David Cameron said about his coalition partners back on 18 March just after we knew we were having the referendum we are having on Thursday?
No!
I guess not and neither I feel had he. Let me remind us all.
Then why oh why, has he taken the line of some of the unreasoned, untruthful announcements from the No2AV campaign?
Why has he said that the way that AV works is too complex? When actually it is less complex than the system by which he was elected leader. Why does he say it isn't fair when the system that he was elected leader by is far from fair? To be elected leader of the Conservative Party one group of voters get to choose between candidates. The one with the lowest number of votes is knocked out, then they get to vote again, maybe even changing that vote as they see who may not have a chance, even if they had more than someone else who might be knocked out later. This is repeated until there are only two left. Then a much larger number of people get to vote on who is left, even if maybe the person that the larger group wanted most was knocked out by the small clique.
Why does he propagate the lie that counting machines will be needed? As this is something that has been denied by the Treasury is he actually in breach of the ministerial code? If he is should he be reported to himself or made to tender to himself his resignation.
You see when it comes to AV David Cameron appears to have lost all sense of reason. He appears to have lost the ability to hold a cognitive argument. He says that AV will be of a benefit to the Lib Dems, whilst ignoring the fact that FPTP has been disproportionately of benefit to the Conservatives and to a lesser extend Labour since there was a rise of a stronger third party and other smaller parties in the UK.
Also on that day David Cameron said the following I'm fisking in red:
I passionately believe that politics has to change.
It has to change because frankly, in too many ways the political system is broken. Yeah even Dave knows the system is broken. Isn't FPTP also a broken out of date system in our multi-party system though?
And that's why this coalition is committed to sweeping reform.
We are making votes fairer - by levelling up the size of the constituencies so that every vote weighs the same.
As I pointed out yesterday, not every vote under FPTP weighs the same. Some are cast with a heavy heart, because the candidate most wanted is not always able to overcome someone that is no longer wanted. So some of our candidates already have their vote gloated by the tactical votes of others, inflating their popularity.
We are making politics cheaper - by cutting the size of Parliament, cutting Ministers' pay and sorting out expenses. If this comes in alone without AV it will have a net effect of benefiting Cameron's party. There is no check then in the number of votes cast. As there was almost a total consultation of the public on how the new seats were to be formed it could lead to gerrymandering of the areas. As it is these will be changed every election to fit with population changes. I'm not opposed to the reduction, but they were part of a package that was being put forward by myself and others in the past.
We are making politics - and government - more accountable, by removing the Prime Minister's power to set the date of an election…Hear, hear. But we are still letting a PM be so when maybe 65% of the people haven't given a vote to his candidates. Indeed 70% of people who voted haven't given a vote to their MP across the country. Not surprisingly it has more often in the last 100 years that Labour have had to call the most early elections because they haven't always had overwhelming support. Apart from the Blair landslides it is most often the Conservatives that have had a working majority for the greatest percentage of the time.
…and introducing new rights for constituents to recall MPs who break the rules and new powers for Parliament to oversee the Executive. Here, here once more. But without AV we are not letting a majority have their say at the end of a fixed five year term, not for breaking the rules but for broken promises, failing to life up to expectations or not doing the job that the people expected them to do. Some of those who failed last parliament to live up to their constituents hopes and expectations did survive, but in some cases the vote against them was split enough that though bigger, meant that they got in with far less than 50% support.
But above all, and most importantly, we are putting power directly into the hands of people. Actually David AV gives a lot more power to the people than the parties. At present your party machine may see a nice seat with about 37-40% support as somewhere you can gift to a loyal wannabe MP. But because two other parties, are equally matched it makes it safe enough to be a career move for that bright young thing. The other parties may have local people who know the local issues are very good at that, but a party can parachute in someone to just such a position and because the party support is there they will get elected, despite all the hard work others have been doing (and probably will continue to do) locally.
So David sadly you're not giving a whole balanced package of reform, beyond any reason of fairness you've just gone with the ones which are of a benefit to you.
No!
I guess not and neither I feel had he. Let me remind us all.
"Nick Clegg and I have discovered we agree on key elements on programmes for national renewal.
"....And we have tried to deliver this agenda in a different way.
"Rational debate, not tribal dividing lines.
"Reasoned announcements, not headline grabbing statements.
"And where there are differences of opinion between us - not rancour but respect."
Then why oh why, has he taken the line of some of the unreasoned, untruthful announcements from the No2AV campaign?
Why has he said that the way that AV works is too complex? When actually it is less complex than the system by which he was elected leader. Why does he say it isn't fair when the system that he was elected leader by is far from fair? To be elected leader of the Conservative Party one group of voters get to choose between candidates. The one with the lowest number of votes is knocked out, then they get to vote again, maybe even changing that vote as they see who may not have a chance, even if they had more than someone else who might be knocked out later. This is repeated until there are only two left. Then a much larger number of people get to vote on who is left, even if maybe the person that the larger group wanted most was knocked out by the small clique.
Why does he propagate the lie that counting machines will be needed? As this is something that has been denied by the Treasury is he actually in breach of the ministerial code? If he is should he be reported to himself or made to tender to himself his resignation.
You see when it comes to AV David Cameron appears to have lost all sense of reason. He appears to have lost the ability to hold a cognitive argument. He says that AV will be of a benefit to the Lib Dems, whilst ignoring the fact that FPTP has been disproportionately of benefit to the Conservatives and to a lesser extend Labour since there was a rise of a stronger third party and other smaller parties in the UK.
Also on that day David Cameron said the following I'm fisking in red:
I passionately believe that politics has to change.
It has to change because frankly, in too many ways the political system is broken. Yeah even Dave knows the system is broken. Isn't FPTP also a broken out of date system in our multi-party system though?
And that's why this coalition is committed to sweeping reform.
We are making votes fairer - by levelling up the size of the constituencies so that every vote weighs the same.
As I pointed out yesterday, not every vote under FPTP weighs the same. Some are cast with a heavy heart, because the candidate most wanted is not always able to overcome someone that is no longer wanted. So some of our candidates already have their vote gloated by the tactical votes of others, inflating their popularity.
We are making politics cheaper - by cutting the size of Parliament, cutting Ministers' pay and sorting out expenses. If this comes in alone without AV it will have a net effect of benefiting Cameron's party. There is no check then in the number of votes cast. As there was almost a total consultation of the public on how the new seats were to be formed it could lead to gerrymandering of the areas. As it is these will be changed every election to fit with population changes. I'm not opposed to the reduction, but they were part of a package that was being put forward by myself and others in the past.
We are making politics - and government - more accountable, by removing the Prime Minister's power to set the date of an election…Hear, hear. But we are still letting a PM be so when maybe 65% of the people haven't given a vote to his candidates. Indeed 70% of people who voted haven't given a vote to their MP across the country. Not surprisingly it has more often in the last 100 years that Labour have had to call the most early elections because they haven't always had overwhelming support. Apart from the Blair landslides it is most often the Conservatives that have had a working majority for the greatest percentage of the time.
…and introducing new rights for constituents to recall MPs who break the rules and new powers for Parliament to oversee the Executive. Here, here once more. But without AV we are not letting a majority have their say at the end of a fixed five year term, not for breaking the rules but for broken promises, failing to life up to expectations or not doing the job that the people expected them to do. Some of those who failed last parliament to live up to their constituents hopes and expectations did survive, but in some cases the vote against them was split enough that though bigger, meant that they got in with far less than 50% support.
But above all, and most importantly, we are putting power directly into the hands of people. Actually David AV gives a lot more power to the people than the parties. At present your party machine may see a nice seat with about 37-40% support as somewhere you can gift to a loyal wannabe MP. But because two other parties, are equally matched it makes it safe enough to be a career move for that bright young thing. The other parties may have local people who know the local issues are very good at that, but a party can parachute in someone to just such a position and because the party support is there they will get elected, despite all the hard work others have been doing (and probably will continue to do) locally.
So David sadly you're not giving a whole balanced package of reform, beyond any reason of fairness you've just gone with the ones which are of a benefit to you.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Voting under FPTP isn't as easy as it looks #Yes2AV
Gerry always seems to face a problem when it comes to casting his vote under FPTP. He's been a life long supporter of the Sorbet Party, but everywhere he has lived they have been a distant third or fourth in the polls. This is the party that he really believes in but they never seem to be able to win a seat wherever he can afford to live near to where he works.
He's quite partial to the Ice Cream Party, but they have never stood in a seat where he has lived, partially because they suspect they will fare even worse than the Sorbet party.
The Cherry Tart Party are currently the party of government. They have been doing terrible things over the last 5 years coming up with half baked ideas, or policies without any substance or filling. Gerry may in the past have been inclined to vote for them ahead of some of the others but they seem to have gone away from the commonness of what they and Gerry believed in. The Blueberry Muffin Party are across the whole country most likely to beat the Cherry Tart Party, but where Gerry lives they came fourth last time behind his own cherished Sorbet Party. But Gerry isn't really a Blueberry Muffin sort of voter, he would only be doing for them if they could win and give the Cherry Tarts a right licking.
The party that is most likely to defeat the Cherry Tarts are the Roast Beef Party. But their key aim is to do way with desserts all together, and Gerry is very much pro-dessert. He therefore faces a dilemma.
Does he
This is based on a real conversation that I had ahead of the 2010 general election with someone who was considering whether they should vote for me or not. The names of the parties have been changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent.
He's quite partial to the Ice Cream Party, but they have never stood in a seat where he has lived, partially because they suspect they will fare even worse than the Sorbet party.
The Cherry Tart Party are currently the party of government. They have been doing terrible things over the last 5 years coming up with half baked ideas, or policies without any substance or filling. Gerry may in the past have been inclined to vote for them ahead of some of the others but they seem to have gone away from the commonness of what they and Gerry believed in. The Blueberry Muffin Party are across the whole country most likely to beat the Cherry Tart Party, but where Gerry lives they came fourth last time behind his own cherished Sorbet Party. But Gerry isn't really a Blueberry Muffin sort of voter, he would only be doing for them if they could win and give the Cherry Tarts a right licking.
The party that is most likely to defeat the Cherry Tarts are the Roast Beef Party. But their key aim is to do way with desserts all together, and Gerry is very much pro-dessert. He therefore faces a dilemma.
Does he
- a) vote for the Sorbet Party because that is who he believes in?
- b) vote for Roast Beef even if that may mean elsewhere in his region that they do away with dessert altogether if they do well enough and stop the dominance of Cherry Tarts locally?
- c) vote for Cherry Tarts a party he depises, but not as much as Roast Beef, because if Roast Beef do well enough he may find he is done out of desserts because other people wanted to vote for them to give Cherry Tarts a lesson?
- Sorbet
- Ice Cream (if available)
- Blueberry Muffin (but maybe only this time)
- Cherry Tarts
- Roast Beef
This is based on a real conversation that I had ahead of the 2010 general election with someone who was considering whether they should vote for me or not. The names of the parties have been changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)