Ulster will fight - but Ulster will (probably) lose

A guest post by itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit, who looks forward to Ulster Rugby's weekend clash with Clermont.

The Heineken Cup.  If you’re Irish and a rugby fan - don’t you just love it? 

Unlike the 6N where Ireland are generally less than the sum of their provincial parts with the Heineken Cup the provincial parts usually suggest a much better performing Irish team than we generally get to see. This year we have the full compliment of 4 provinces with Connacht qualifying for the first time.

Last week with Leinster and Munster both qualifying for the quarters finals it was Irish success as usual. But it was Ulster who were the real Irish heroes smashing Leicester 41-7 in what had been billed by most pundits as the tie of the round and for all the talk of Ulster’s foreign (South African) contingent Leicester had 10 overseas players in their squad and Ulster had only 5. Before the match those same pundits gave Ulster the edge – but ruled out a repeat drubbing for Leicester by anything like the margin of 33 points which was the margin of their defeat when they last visited Ravenhill in the Heineken cup. Well they were right it wasn’t  a margin of 33 it was 34. Quite incredible.

So now to the final weekend of the pool stages of the competition. Having just demolished the English powerhouses of European rugby in the proverbial pool of death Ulster are now required to overcome Clermont in Parc des Sports Marcel Michelin on Saturday at 15.40 to avoid elimination in what is again the outstanding Heineken Cup  match of the weekend.  In fact Ulster can go through as pool winners with a defeat, provided is it by less than 5 points and they score the same number of tries as Clermont. Ulster can also progress as one of the two best pool runners-up even if they lose, but that is dependent on an unlikely slip up by one of Toulouse, Harlequins, Edinburgh or Cardiff. 

In the handicap betting the bookies (Paddy Power) are giving Ulster a 12 point head start.  For Ulster to win, even for this outstanding Ulster team to win, it is probably asking too much.   Quite how Clermont have not won the Heineken Cup by now is a bit of a mystery - partially explained by the fact that as relative Johnny-come-latelies to the competition they initially suffered from poor seedings and then repeatedly found themselves in really difficult groups.

If Ulster fans want to lessen the pain of (probable) defeat they could do worse than have a punt on Clermont to win the competition  at 7/1 (William Hill) which looks like really generous odds for a team packed with world class talent, including Rougerie, Parra, Vermuelen, Malzieu, Bonnaire, Sivivatu.  Leinster  at 15/8(William Hill) are the current favourites. 

If Ulster can somehow win in Clermont then there will be no doubt that they win can the competition (for the 2^nd time) and their odds will collapse from their current 50/1(William Hill). 

But sadly I just can’t see it as Clermont have not lost at home in any competition since November 2009.

C’mon Ulster.

The State Duma elections and their aftermath

A belated word on the State Duma elections in Russia and their aftermath.  United Russia suffered a striking decline in support, managing 49.4% of the vote and scraping an outright majority, though the party lost the constitutional majority of 2/3rds which it previously enjoyed.

The results have attracted a great deal of attention and commentary in the western media for two reasons.  Firstly, the disappointing outcome for United Russia has been interpreted as a sign of growing disillusionment with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his successor as President, Dmitry Medvedev.

That’s not an unfair thesis.  Putin has acknowledged himself that some voters have taken the opportunity to give their country’s rulers a bloody nose at the polls.  He ascribes this phenomenon to difficult financial circumstances, but there’s also more than likely a growing sense of weariness and resentment at an elite which has dominated politics for 11 years.

It’s still almost inconceivable that Putin could lose the presidential election which will take place in May and, with two six year terms possible, he may remain Russia’s figurehead until 2024.  Almost any politician, however popular, will experience a degree of public fatigue if they stay at the top level of politics for so long.  In the UK the Conservatives suffered it under Thatcher.  The same thing happened to New Labour under Tony Blair.  People get bored.

Britain, though, is a parliamentary democracy, while Russia is a Presidential Republic.  However closely associated United Russia is with the Kremlin, they are not one and the same.  Power is concentrated in an ‘administrative regime’, rather than the party or parliament. 

The wild caricature that frequently appears in editorials in newspapers like The Times or The Daily Telegraph is not remotely accurate.  Russia is not a neo-Stalinist one party state.  United Russia has never been allowed to monopolise power completely and there has always remained, quite deliberately, a degree of distance between the ‘regime’ and the ‘ruling party’. 

There is little doubt that Putin isn’t as popular as he once was.  That doesn’t mean that his personal popularity doesn’t far outstrip the collective popularity of United Russia and it doesn’t mean that he can only be re-elected as President if the will of voters is misrepresented by a fabricated election result.

The other aspects of the Duma contest which commanded column inches are the allegations of wide-spread ballot rigging and the subsequent street protests which took place in Moscow and other Russian cities.  

There little doubt that irregularities did take place and the Kremlin’s own probe uncovered more than 2,000 violations.  That’s not to say, though, that the election’s outcome was substantively distorted.

At Sublime Oblivion Anatoly Karlin provides polling data from all the major companies in Russia.  The final result for United Russia was forecast remarkably accurately by these figures and the party’s percentage of the vote was actually at the lower end of what was predicted.  Exit poll data was a little more variable.  

Regional breakdowns certainly showed discrepancies in a number of regions (the Caucasus results rarely look credible), but there is nothing to suggest widespread or centralised fraud.         

United Russia certainly had a bruising election, Vladimir Putin will certainly have a challenge to maintain his popularity ahead of the presidential poll and many Russians are certainly very cross at the corrupt fashion in which the election was administered.  The swell of dissent, though, hasn’t led to suppression or a crack-down.  Indeed, quite the reverse. 

There’s every indication that the new Duma will prove an extremely rambunctious forum for political debate.  And the outgoing president has just proposed comprehensive reforms to revitalise pluralism in Russia. 

Of course many commentators will react cynically to these liberal overtures.  But neither Medvedev nor Putin has ever shown themselves to be impervious or unresponsive to public opinion.

And then there’s the continuing lack of a credible opposition.  The Communist Party remains the second biggest bloc in the Duma.  For all the opprobrium heaped on Vladimir Putin by certain newspapers and politicians in the UK, who seriously contends that President Zyuganov would be a positive development for Russians?

Or how about a stage nationalist demagogue like Zhirinovsky?  Eduard Limonov, restyled as an opposition leader, after his ‘red-brown’ fusion of Nazism, Bolshevism and Dada, the National Bolsheviks? 

The poster boy of the protests, Alexei Navalny, who coined the nickname ‘party of swindlers and thieves’ for United Russia, is another unabashed nationalist.  Perhaps Mikhail Prokhorov, the right leaning businessman who briefly led Right Cause, is the least alarming rival to Putin who has emerged so far. 

At the moment the best outcome for the protestors in Russia may not be an immediate change at the top, but rather an improved system, which allows a credible alternative to emerge through time and offers reforms which make future elections work better.

Positive case for Britishness as well as the Union

You could be forgiven for missing the poll on Britishness contained in this month’s Prospect Magazine.  It’s buried in a series of articles about the UK’s involvement in the European Union. 

Yougov found that people in England who identify primarily as British are less likely to want to leave the EU, while people who describe themselves first as English are much more likely to want immediate withdrawal. 

It’s hardly a startling revelation that nationalism often coincides with euroscepticism.  More eye-catching is the break-down in the number of people who identify first as British / English.  This survey suggests that over 60% of people in England view themselves primarily as English rather than British.  That compares to just over 40%, as recently as 2008.

Again, you might say it’s hardly surprising in a post-devolution UK, with nationalist politics influential in Cardiff and dominating governments in Edinburgh and Belfast, that Britishness is being eroded.  The extent of that decline, though, should be a major cause for worry. 

Arthur Aughey recently wrote that English nationalism is, as yet, still a mood rather than a movement, but the poll seems to confirm that the mood is being nurtured by an aggressive assertion of Scots’ nationalism north of the border.

It would be wrong to infer that there is not still a major disconnect between Scottish nationalists’ constitutional aspirations and those of the bulk of Scottish people.  The SNP has acquired a reputation for delivering competent government, which has brought electoral success.  That is its mandate, but it doesn’t stop Salmond et al from pursuing another agenda.

The forbearance of English public opinion is generally quite remarkable, but constant attrition from Holyrood can’t help but affect attitudes south of the border.  And the same process is taking place to a lesser extent between London and Belfast, with the Stormont executive dominated by Irish Nats and Ulster Nats.

None of this is fatal for the Union, of course.  The British identity can comfortably exist alongside its component identities.  Nor can it necessarily be assumed that the figures can be explained simply as an expression of English resentment at the lack of collegiate spirit from other corners of the Union.  The financial crisis has thrown at least one more element into the mix. 

The fact remains, though, that English support for the Union can’t be taken for granted.  There’s a need to make a positive case not only for the United Kingdom, but also for a sense of Britishness itself.  The identity which explains the interlocking history of these islands, the political institutions which define our citizenship and the cultural similarities which we share.  

Nationalism hindering opposition in Belarus

The World Affairs Journal has published a nicely written article by James Kirchick, called ‘The Land of No Applause’.  It’s a sprawling account of modern Belarus and well worth reading.

The author quotes some startling statistics which suggest that popular disillusion with President Lukashenko is spreading and they lead him to the obvious question – why hasn’t a credible opposition emerged in Belarus?

It’s a little disappointing, but at this point Kirchick opts for a traditional answer.  He argues that a viable challenge to the President has not developed because Lukashenko has so effectively suppressed Belarusian national identity.  While that is a tidy enough explanation, I suspect it reflects only one aspect of a more complex situation. 

The President took power in 1994, at a time when the politics of nationality were to the fore in Eastern Europe.  He judged that there was no similar appetite for a nationalist rewrite of identity in Belarus and, it must be said, he appears to have judged correctly.

Conversely the most prominent forms of Belarusian opposition were often linked to hostility toward the Russian language, an equivocal attitude toward Soviet achievements in World War 2 and efforts to cut all links with Moscow.

To western eyes Lukashenko has constructed a rather strange hybrid.  Belarus is an independent state which is also an inseparable part of a larger cultural space shared with Russia.  To Belarusian eyes, though, it’s rather neatly reflects the country’s post-Soviet identity.

Of course that isn’t to excuse the basket-case economy, the suppression of pluralism or the eccentric demagoguery.  But it does partly explain why opposition movements haven’t become credible and it suggests that nationalist fantasies are helping to keep Lukashenko in power.

The article mentions a number of enemies of the President’s regime who are almost as scathing about the so-called opposition.  That tells a tale and it would have been an interesting angle to investigate further.    

Guest post: Germany resists British calls for greater European integration.

The following is a guest post from itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit. I should point out that all views expressed in guest posts are solely the opinions of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Three Thousand Versts.

As economic crises rage across the Eurozone, it is still not clear whether we are witnessing the (relative) decline of Western Capitalism and the passing of the prosperity baton to the East (as the Olympic  baton goes in the opposite direction) or just the latest Western adjustment to the fallout from the financial crisis.

The Chinese, sitting pretty on trillions of dollars in foreign reserves responded to being tapped up by an indebted Eurozone by suggesting that "European labour laws induce sloth, indolence rather than hard work." and told the Europeans to get their act together before looking for their help. (The US of A, having recently had its credit rating downgraded was not invited to provide assistance, presumably to spare their blushes.)

Last week, the crisis in Europe centred on the small Mediterranean country of Greece, perhaps but the Aperitif to a main course of Italy and Spain (with Ireland and Portugal as side dishes) for the perfidious and greedy Markets seeking to devour any country showing economic weakness.

The Greek political class, facing warnings of expulsion from the Eurozone and even from the EU itself, withdrew the 'threat' of consultation with the Greek people via a referendum and promised to toe the austerity line.

In Britain, strangely, there was little support for the Greek referendum position from the British Prime Minister, who, although using the promise of a referendum on Europe to get himself elected leader of the Tory party, was telling the Greeks to hurry up and sign up to the Euro austerity deal.

David Cameron though, finds himself in the very awkward position of needing to throw a few anti-EU bones to his anti-EU backbenchers to chew on in order to stave off further parliamentary rebellions, whilst trying to avoid a (further) dressing down from European colleagues for daring to talk down Europe at such a sensitive time.

The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr George Osborne has been eagerly repeating the (new?) Tory party line that greater European integration is required in Eurozone countries in order for the Euro to work - you simply cannot, so the argument goes, have such divergent economies as Greece and Germany sharing the same currency and with the same interest rates-unless there is central control of economic policy. Britain, Osborne insists, cannot and will not, bail out the failed currency. The European central bank, must be the lender of last resort for the Euro and stump up the cash to solve the Euro debt crisis.

Except, the European Central Bank does not seem inclined to do such a thing and instead, much to British annoyance, the supplier of cash to Euro countries in these crises, may well be the IMF - part funded by Britain. Ed Balls, Labour’s  Shadow Chancellor,  opportunistically sniffing Mr Cameron's political blood has publically demanded that no British cash arrives in Europe even under the IMF flag of convenience.

So why does the European Central Bank seem reluctant to be the lender of last resort? Well if the BBC political correspondents are to believed it all boils down to one word 'Weimar' - that tragic period in German history when their severe economic difficulties were dealt with by quantitative easing (a practice now very worryingly popular in non-Euro and heavily indebted Britain).

Perhaps a couple of hours of heavy output from the Frankfurt printing presses and there would be enough cash to lend to Greece and Italy?

As the name suggests the European Central Bank- is a European institution - which might lead some to believe it should be run for the benefit of Europe as a whole but it rather looks to others, to perhaps being run by, and for the benefit of,  only one country.

Germany, believed by many to be a 'good' European and a central part of project Euro, a project allegedly set to undermine the Nation states of Europe, is now perhaps showing her true (National) colours.

... surely all that frightful fretting by Eurosceptics over the threat of a European super state hasn't been for nothing? 

Dowie for manager!

I was unsure of who I wanted to succeed Nigel Worthington as Northern Ireland manager, but my mind's now made up.  I give you Mr Iain Dowie esq. and his mission statement.

"we need to get some passion back. We can't have players not turning up, then playing for their clubs at the weekend, and we have got to stop the trend of losing so many players to the Republic. If we can do that, anything is possible, as Billy Bingham showed in the 80s. We haven’t been to a major tournament since, and that is something that needs putting right. It's a tough group we are in for the next World Cup, but we really should be able to compete with teams like Israel. We will, if we can get back to making Windsor Park a difficult place to come to on a wet and windy night. That has to be the aim, and it is a realistic one."

Well said Mr Dowie Sir!  There's been a lot of technocratic talk about the respective merits of various candidates' CVs.  Let's cut through the nonsense though, splitting hairs about achievements in the lower leagues in neither here nor there.  Lawrie McMenemy had the most impressive CV of recent Northern Ireland managers, and he was the worst manager.  Arguably his namesake Sanchez had the least striking club record.

Dowie understands the Northern Ireland set-up and he understands the fanbase.  He can put fire into the the players' bellies, get the stands roaring again and, most importantly, put out a team charged with harrying, pressing and disrupting superior opposition.  That's the only way we can compete and challenge for qualification.

The only thing the IFA need look at in its recruitment process is the above quote.  It is the most inspiring, no nonsense statement any candidate has made to date.  And the man has a record in management to compare with the rest.  Offer him a contract right now.

P.S. I'm fully aware that my photoshop skills are appalling.

Hard-line leaders driving trades union members toward strikes

Following Unison’s strike last month, Nipsa, which represents 45,000 workers across the public sector, is urging its membership to vote ‘yes’ in a ballot, aimed at bringing about industrial action.  

Not only will any further stoppages bring widespread misery, but the vast majority of union members don’t want to strike.  Unison’s walkout was carried on a ballot of just 18% of its membership. 

That’s hardly surprising.  Most employees join a union, simply expecting it to help them if they encounter a problem in the work place, while their leaders are sometimes driven by hard-line politics.  

Where the latest batch of strikes is concerned, unions readily admit that they don’t know the details of public sector job losses which they say are in the pipeline.  Some of those potential redundancies could yet be avoided with a little flexibility where it comes to pay and conditions.  However their stock response is nothing to do with protecting jobs.  They just repeat, “you can’t cut your way out of a recession”.

That’s nothing to do with pay, or conditions, or even possible lay-offs; it’s an abstract political theory.  And it’s extremely foolhardy to persuade people to risk their livelihoods on the basis of an economic doctrine, especially when it’s based on a flawed understanding of our current financial circumstances.   

What the unions don’t seem to grasp, as they call for more public spending, is that the mess which the current government inherited from Labour is primarily a debt crisis, just as the turmoil engulfing international markets stems from anxiety that countries will not be able to pay back what they owe. 

In difficult circumstances, the chancellor, George Osborne, managed to defy a world trend and stabilise the UK’s economy, but he could only do that by devising a credible plan to cut our deficit. 

In contrast the seventeen countries which use the euro are currently locked in crisis talks.  Setting aside the bizarre jargon of ‘Greek haircuts’ and ‘big bazookas’, the crux is that you can’t tackle a debt crisis by continually taking on more debt.

Thankfully, as a region of the UK, we’ve got room for optimism.  We’re part of a relatively stable economy and our government took prompt action to get the deficit under control.  We’ve also got a favourable settlement on our block grant, avoiding the worst spending cuts, felt across the rest of Britain.

We still need to do our bit, of course, and save money where we can.  And the parties at Stormont need to be more straightforward when they spell out which cuts are necessary, so that jobs and services can be saved where possible. 

As for the unions, they can only serve workers’ interests well if they are constructive and flexible.  Most of their members, after all, aren’t fiery leftists, spoiling for a fight with the government.  They just want help and advice which enables them to keep their jobs and work hard in decent conditions.  The unions should stick to looking out for their welfare, rather than campaigning for strikes on the basis of outdated political ideology.

From yesterday's News Letter.

All registered parties will contest State Duma election

Elections to Russia's State Duma will take place on December 4th.  Ria Novosti reports today that all of the registered parties will contest the poll and points out that this is the first time that has happened since 1993.  The Russian ministry of justice provides a list of the contenders.

It includes Pravoye Delo, or Right Cause, the free market friendly group, whose newly appointed leader, Mikhail Prokhorov, was recently ousted.  Other contenders Zyuganov's perennial challengers, the KPR (Russian communists), and another veteran's grouping, the LDPR, led by nationalist rabble-rouser Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Pollsters were suggesting that United Russia, whose list will be topped by the outgoing President, Dmitry Medvedev, might struggle to retain the 2/3rds majority which it needs to change constitutional law.  Levada's latest suggestion is that voter apathy might help the party to maintain its dominance.   

Oh minister, where art thou?

Sinn Fein reps are quite the culture vultures this week, with the notable exception of culture minister Caral Ni Chuilin.   Máirtín Ó Muilleoir is curating an exhibition of ‘political art’ hosted at the Golden Thread Gallery.

 It includes an offering by Conrad Atkinson (above), which apparently caused controversy back in the 70s, when Protestant museum workers refused to hang the painting at the Ulster Museum.  

As it happens, they may have acted on aesthetic rather than sectarian motivations, because, aside from its questionable 'political message', the artwork looks rather like it was painted by a disturbed four year old child.     

However all art exhibitions are certainly not equal in Shinner land.  According to the Irish News our so called culture minister has declined an invitation to attend the Royal Ulster Academy’s 130^th Annual Exhibition, which gets underway at the Ulster Museum today.  One of its exhibits is a rather striking portrait entitled “Remember Mary Travers”.   

Guest Post: Leave our Alain alone

By itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit

As we know well in Northern Ireland, predicting someone’s views on a range of issues doesn't require a crystal ball, just a clue as to their background - their name, the school they attended or their address. Once you have sniffed out those details, you can identify their tribe and you can then have a fair stab at working out what they think.


Of course, tribalism is not just confined to Ulster and tribal loyalties are not always that straightforward. Take Monsieur Alain Rolland for example, born and raised in Ireland but with a French father. For many Welsh rugby fans such continental lineage was proof positive of his preference for the land of his father, Wales's opponents in the rugby world cup semi-final and of course explains his 'outrageous' decision to send off the Welsh captain Sam Warburton.


When England were knocked out of the world cup, by perhaps the bitterest of their many 'old enemies' France, Wales found themselves up against the same opponents and the centre of British media interest in the run up to the semi-final. Unlike poor unloved England, who had exited in disarray in the glare of dreadful publicity, all the media stories about Wales were extremely positive. Rather than tossing dwarves in the local hostelries, we were told the Welsh formed themselves into a Choir and whiled away the hours singing harmonies - no going on the pop and chasing the local talent for them. David Cameron, perhaps reeling from the Fantastic stories circulating about his defence secretary Mr Fox(who by now was rivalling the English rugby team for bad press) declared his Prime Ministerial support for Wales and ran the Welsh flag up the mast in Downing Street.


Not a bad word was muttered against the Welsh, not even from the Irish - still smarting from the hiding we took from our fitter and younger Celtic cousins the previous week. Cymru am byth.


The stage was set.


Only France stood between Wales and a world cup final and with the Millennium stadium, rocking with 65,000 (more than at the game itself), there could only be one winner?


But after 17 minutes of the semi-final the Franco-Irish referee reached into his pocket and took from it a card - colour Red, not colour Yellow(which would have been in contravention of the IRB directive issued only weeks previously). Yet every rugby pundit and Welsh (or English) fan or ex-player who could overcome their indignance to be interviewed or to tweet, insisted that it was a 'dreadful' or 'shocking' or 'awful' or 'outrageous' (or all of the preceding) decision. Of course, part of this indignant outrage was based on ignorance of the rules and part based on sheer disappointment. Rugby pundits, who had previously demanded consistency from officals, were now calling for inconsistency, a Yellow card because it was only the 17th minute, a Yellow card because it was the semi-final of the world cup, a Yellow card because the perpetrator had no track record for foul play, a Yellow card because otherwise the game would be wrecked, a Yellow card because a red would stop Wales getting to the world cup final. Shame on you Alain – deep shame.


Jamie Roberts, the outstanding Welsh centre and Irish and British Lion(who is completing a medical degree in his spare time) was clearly struggling to keep his emotions under control when he was interviewed directly after the game - but pointedly refused to criticise the referee's decision. Such a dignified response was not however in evidence from the Welsh coaches with each of them lining up to condemn Rolland for enforcing a punishment designed to prevent serious spinal injuries in this extremely physical contact sport. (Warren Gatland, Wales's head coach, further added to his repuation for ill-judged remarks, by bizarrely trying to claim credit for not cheating during the match by faking a player injury).


In France of course, there was a somewhat different tribal reaction, with coaches and ex-players joining a chorus of approval and lauding Monsieur Rolland for a fine decision.


Back in Ireland, I suspect we too, have rallied behind ‘our Alain’, the bilingual, Garret Fitzgeraldesque official who oft represents Irish Rugby in major tournaments (long after our team have departed) and we will be ready to remind anyone daring to criticise him that the only person who should be in the dock for the incident in the 17th minute is Wales's outstanding young Captain Mr Warburton i.e. the person who actually made the reckless and dangerous tackle.

Difficult job for new Northern Ireland manager as Worthington era draws to an end.

This blog and Nigel Worthington’s spell as manager of Northern Ireland are about the same age.  My first post, way back in May 2007, dealt with the IFA’s search for a replacement for Lawrie Sanchez, who had just taken up an English Premier League job at Fulham.

It’s fair to say that after Worthington took charge, I was quickly a sceptic.  As early as 7 June2007, I voiced disillusionment with his tendency to ‘talk down’ players and two months later I asked, for the first (but not for the last) time, ‘is Nigel worthy?’.  

Now Worthington has announced his intention to leave the post after his current contract elapses on 31^st December.   We’ve come full circle and the IFA has to start the search for his successor.

Back in that opening blogpost I expressed the hope that Jim Magilton would end up in the Northern Ireland hot-seat.  More than four years later and this time the West Belfast man is the bookmakers’ favourite to take over from Worthington.

If Magilton does get the job he will have a formidable task ahead. 

Back in 2007 Sanchez left the Northern Ireland set-up comparatively healthy, but it doesn’t look nearly so robust in 2011.  The playing staff are low in confidence, each match sees a series of high profile cry-offs and the FAI’s poaching strategy is beginning to seriously affect the pool of players which a new manager will have at his disposal.

Worthington is gone and there’s no point labouring the point, but he has to take a share of the blame for the depressing state of Northern Ireland football. 

The belittling comments about his own players started as soon as he took the job and continued throughout his reign. 

He scarcely made any attempt to ensure that squad members turned up for international duty rather than crying off injured at the behest of their clubs; let’s face it, if he had, he wouldn’t have had a shred of credibility.

Nigel himself was the worst offender when he was manager of Norwich City.  He persistently withdrew Phil Mulryne and Paul McVeigh from Northern Ireland squads, until Lawrie Sanchez was forced to invoke the 5 day rule, which prevents players playing for their clubs until 5 days after an international match for which they’ve declared injured.

Far from showing contrition, Worthington vehemently defended his conduct, even after he’d become an international manager.  

How could his complaints be taken seriously when other club bosses did exactly the same thing?

On the poaching issue he was confused and hypocritical.  He didn’t seem to understand FIFA’s eligibility criteria and he often resorted to contradictory arguments about players playing for the country in which they were born.

That’s before we get to the slow, tedious style of play which he inculcated.  He couldn't seem to grasp that, because 'Northern Ireland aren't Barcelona', as he once witheringly observed, that we have to disrupt teams, play at a high tempo, get the ball forward directly, rather than attempting to play passing football.

In fairness his legacy isn’t all bad.  The new manager will inherit a healthy youth set-up and a scouting network which should help to identify future stars. 

And future stars are sorely needed because at the moment the squad looks rather threadbare.  

There's a nucleus of ageing players, some of whom are retiring, while others fail to get game-time at their clubs.  There's a small handful of players in their prime, some of whom withdraw from squads on a regular basis.  And there is a larger pool of unproven young players, many of whom are now actively being courted by the Republic of Ireland.

Good luck Jim, or whoever else the IFA decides to put faith in.  You're going to need it.  

Russia's presidential saga resolved as Duma election takes a familiar shape.

Last Saturday a lengthy political saga finally came to an end at United Russia’s conference in Moscow.  Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin announced that the latter will contest next year’s Russian Presidential election.  This resolves the “will he or won’t he” speculation about President Medvedev seeking a second term in office.

There will, of course, be many Russian liberals who see this decision as a fatal blow to Russia’s democracy.  There will also be a chorus of “we told you so”s from commentators hostile to the Kremlin who always maintained that Medvedev’s presidency was a sham.  

Their arguments have some force, but they’re very far from the full picture.  

The President has defended his decision to step aside and let Putin contest the election, observing that the Prime Minister is Russia’s “most authoritative” leader.  

The Russian public has consistently expressed its preference for Putin, ahead of Medvedev, where polls gave a choice between the two men.  Alexei Levinson, from the Levada Institute, runs through the figures on Open Democracy.

Another switch of positions between Medvedev and Putin hardly suggests flourishing political competition, but it is broadly reflective of the will of the Russian people.  Russia will end up with the President whom a majority wishes to fill the post. 

Earlier in the year I mentioned the thesis of Richard Sakwa’s book, The Crisis of Russian Democracy.  Sakwa argues that the competitive element in Russian politics is subsumed within the administrative system but he also maintains that the ‘constitutional’ aspect of Russian politics holds the worst excesses of the unelected ‘administrative regime’ in check.

He can’t be re-examining his theory with any undue concern this week.  The competitive element seems more than evident after the liberalising Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, was forced to step down, when he expressed unwillingness to serve under the new arrangements.  And the fact that Putin felt obliged to observe the letter of the Russian constitution, before launching his comeback, emphasises that proprieties hold some force.

Witness the Kremlin’s efforts, now in disarray, to establish the market-friendly party Right Cause as a contender in December’s State Duma elections.  Sakwa has a fascinating article in OD explaining how the leadership of billionaire, Mikhail Prokhorov, has fallen apart.

Only months ago Right Cause was being touted as a pro-Medvedev, liberal alternative to Putinite United Russia.  Now Prokhorov has been ousted, Right Cause is in a mess and Medvedev has stepped aside to give Putin a free run.

There is a justifiable degree of scepticism about the independence of the parties which can realistically challenge for seats in the State Duma; whether it’s Just Russia or even Zhirinovsky’s LDPR, but although United Russia is dominant, the party isn’t allowed to hold a monopoly of power and both Putin and Medvedev remain a step removed from it.   

That’s just another small reason why the “Putinism = the new Stalinism” editorials which graced many papers on Monday morning seem so hysterically shrill. 

So we move towards an election in December that will be viewed effectively as a plebiscite on the inverted Putin – Medvedev tandem which will surely follow the presidential contest in March.  It's all a little familiar, given the equivalent contest in 2007.