Politicians live in a parallel universe that is inexorably drifting away from the reality that the rest of us know. In their universe it is, apparently, acceptable to make promises that they do not intend to keep, for that is the implication of the quote above. I accept that circumstances may change and plans may have to be altered in response to them, but this politician was not prepared to say so. Perhaps this was from a simple fear that an unhelpful soundbite may result. So why did he have to say anything?

I’ve deliberately not named the politician responsible for this quote, or even the party concerned, because it seems to me that most (if not all) politicians, from all parties, exhibit this behaviour. Their media appearances are tightly focussed on saying what they want to say, regardless of the question posed, with the use of potential soundbites to the fore. Interviewers, meanwhile, are mainly concerned with tripping up the interviewee. So it becomes a battle of semantics, of word play.

The end result, for me at least, is that no real information is imparted and little or no respect earned. Is it any wonder that there is a universal lack of trust in the political classes?

New Zealand, on the other hand, would not only have been expecting to win, but would have been hoping to get back to the sort of slick performance that has eluded them this year.

In terms of real world expectations, then, one could argue that it was a narrow victory for the men in white.

The Kiwis were frequently knocked back, Carter had a poor day by his standards and the win, while comfortable, was far from a try-fest.

England were way better than in their previous two games. Part of this was due to better selection – especially Cueto at fullback -  but there also seemed to be more energy and desire in the performance. Certainly, England were a lot sharper than they have been recently.

Unfortunately, this is as positive a spin as any England PR could put on events. An holistic analysis clearly shows that there was only ever going to be one winner.

Only one team looked capable of crossing the try line. Only one defence was constantly being tested. The stats said it all: England had to make nearly twice as many tackles as the All Blacks.

Despite the massive improvements in just about every part of their game, England still lack a cutting edge in the backs. There were some positive signs: running the ball from their own territory; the odd switch move; faster delivery from rucks and mauls. A breakthrough never looked likely but I guess credit should be given for some kind of positive intent.

Facing the New Zealand backline – who themselves are nowhere near their best form – highlighted the plodding naivety of the English attack. Where the Kiwis were flat, quick to form up and adept at switching plays to outflank the opposition, England were deep and predictable.

I’d be happy to put the English pack up against any other in the world – they’re not the best, but they are pretty good and provide a platform from which England should be able to win games. The backs, however, are just not up to scratch, ranking well below the Tri Nations, France, Ireland and Wales.

South African referee Jonathan Kaplan had a good game. I particularly appreciated the way he pounced at the first signs of nastiness, nipping it in the bud. I do think that Tim Payne, the English prop, deserved a yellow card for his punches, but that aside Kaplan is to be congratulated.

England squeeked home against Argentina yesterday for their first win of the season but there was little for them to be proud of.

Argentina are a force to be reckoned with these days. Their recent record against England is very good but away from home and with a number of first choice players injured it was reasonable to expect an England win.

On the day the teams were very evenly matched and were only separated on the scoreboard by one event – England’s first try of the season. It was a game dominated by the forwards, as one would expect from these two nations, neither having much proficiency in the backlines. Of the two, it was Argentina who looked as though they could provide excitement behind the pack; their efforts were a little naive, but at least they tried.

In comparison to last week England, however, have taken a big step backwards. Discipline was shocking in the first half and basic errors were legion. The gameplan, such as it was, appeared to be a cross between 10-man rugby and tennis. Of strategic back play there was, once again, no sign.

Fans should be concerned that England may be operating in a reality distortion field. After the game Matt Banahan, England’s try scorer, appeared to be pleased with his team’s performance and felt that they were getting better with each game. Steve Borthwick, the captain, seemed equally upbeat. This is deeply troubling; England are deluding themselves. Thankfully, England manager Martin Johnson admitted afterwards that the performance was unacceptable so at least someone was watching the what was happening on the pitch.

England were severely depleted due to injury, even more so than last week, so miracles were not expected. What we hoped to see, but did not, was any attempt to play fast, adventurous, attacking rugby. Johnson’s unwillingness to keep the ball in hand in England’s half of the pitch is clear, and a mistake. It made the backs look stupid and, as a result of the ensuing aerial ping-pong, exposed a major weakness at fullback.

This strategy was further exposed by Wilkinson’s lack of form when kicking from hand – Argentina comfortably ‘won’ the punting battle – though, as last week, Jonny had a good game overall.

I’d love to know what kind of plan Johnson has asked Brian Smith, the backs coach, to implement. We’ve seen the kicking and we’ve seen plenty of miss passes, but where are the effective dummy runners? Wings coming in from the blind side? Fullback crash balls? Switches? Passes out of the tackle to a runner on the shoulder? Again, as last week, we just had backs crashing into their opposite numbers with little support. No creativity, no imagination.

Actually, we did see some attempts at creativity in open play. Aside from individual runs from Cueto, Monye and Wilkinson, it was England’s forwards who showed glimmers of imaginative passing. Indeed, it was flanker Lewis Moody who created the space for Banahan to score his try, after some great work from No. 8 Haskell.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Johnson is upset and frustrated with the lack of progress. So he should be. But let’s not forget that the buck now stops with him. He proved that, on the pitch, he can lift a team and lead them to greatness, but does he have the ability to do it from the sidelines? English rugby needs a period of managerial stability so there is no question that Johnson must continue for at least the next few years, but I’d like to think that some of the older and more experienced heads in the RFU will be offering guidance and support – privately, not through the media – to help him become a great manager. Otherwise we may be doomed to a long period of mediocrity.

Australia had a poor Tri-Nations series this year, losing five out of six games, leading many to speculate that the game was England’s before it even started. The mistake here is a failure to factor in the abilities of the English side.

The team in gold today may have been a shadow of the Australian teams of previous years but, even with a lot of new faces, they were still far more proficient than the men in white.

As an England supporter I have suffered through six years, since the 2003 World Cup, of largely aimless performances. All sides suffer their poor periods so losses can be forgiven but it is necessary to see a trend of improvements in performance, technique, tactics and philosophy. England have failed, repeatedly, to achieve any of this.

After the game, co-commentator Stuart Barnes immediately started talking about the changes he would make in the pack. Obviously, Stuart was a back. England’s forwards won plenty of good possession, particularly in the first half, but the team could manage only nine points, from a dropped goal and two penalty goals. No, the problem was not in the forwards, Stuart, it was the backs who failed.

The English have never been known for exciting, incisive back play. That’s what the Welsh, French, Southern Hemisphere and, latterly, the Irish teams are good at. England do big, strong, fearsome forwards. There is plenty of desire – evidenced by the unexpected run in the 2007 World Cup – but that’s not enough any more. Long gone are the days when passionate 10-man rugby could dominate.

England can play a good 15-man game. Sir Clive Woodward struggled for years to change the culture of forward dominated thinking, eventually succeeding (to some extent at least) and winning the World Cup. He and his team were far from perfect but were light years ahead of what we’ve seen since.

Today echoed so many England performances of recent years. Possession was slow and the backs were able to do little more than charge at their opposite numbers. Mental agility was completely lacking, a try never seemed likely and a slightly sharper Australian team would have easily run in two or three more tries.

It wasn’t all bad. Wilkinson played well on his return to the fold – it’s ironic that he was fit when so many in the squad were not – and Moody stood out. Discipline was excellent, and for a short spell in the second half England managed to pick up the pace to an acceptable level for test rugby.

I have to wonder, however, if there is something wrong with the DNA of English rugby? Why is it so resistant to clever, creative back play? I don’t know the answer, and on the evidence of today (and the last year), neither does Martin Johnson.

As I understand it, President Obama wants to make it possible for everyone to receive medical care regardless of their means. A noble ideal, but someone still has to pay for it. In other words, taxes. This has caused a bit of a ruckus in the US, with the loud voices at either end of the political spectrum grabbing the headlines: down with taxes/don’t kill my baby; you know the sort of thing. Naturally there are also the (somewhat more subtle) corporates, lobbyists, pressure groups and so on, feeding money and (mis)information to those doing the shouting.

Daring Fireball has a couple of amusing (kind of) anecdotes:

From an Investor’s Business Daily editorial ¹ arguing against the current U.S. health care reform proposals:

“The U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the “quality adjusted life year.” One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on. The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.”

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Stephen Hawking was born and has lived his entire life in the U.K.

and

Anti-health-care-reform activist, reportedly injured in a fight at a town hall meeting last week, is collecting donations to pay his medical bills because he was recently laid off and lost his health insurance. [more]

I read both of these with a sense of wonder and despair. The inaccuracy and hypocrisy shown is astonishing and made me wonder if many US citizens are taken in by this stuff. I suppose there must be quite a few, or it wouldn’t be worth publishing. And yes, I have seen Fox News.

Society, community, nation: surely these terms imply some kind of structure of care, of support for those who (hopefully temporarily) cannot support themselves? It would be easy to believe that those who have the resources are simply unwilling to share and that the flip side of ‘land of opportunity’ is ‘tough luck if you don’t succeed’. Systems such as those in Britain and Ireland may be far from perfect but they at least attempt to be humane.

I started to think about The American Ideal (or my understanding of it); how it has been corrupted and where, ultimately, it will take the USA. Immediately my mind conjured up images of anarchy; a sort of ‘Mad Max’ post-apocalyptic scenario where it’s every person for themselves and the only law comes from the barrel of a gun.

I can only hope I am very wrong, and as I said I am only seeing this through the eyes of the media.

1. since edited, removing refernces to Stephen Hawking ↑

Over in England, meanwhile, rumours abound. Will Martin Johnson be brought in to the setup as Team Manager? The BBC seem convinced he will. But is this enough? I have great respect for Brian Ashton but I wonder if he is the right man to be leading the coaching team. When one considers what Sir Clive Woodward achieved, or rather how he achieved it, I wonder if a more significant shake-up and approach might be more productive. After all, with the pool of players in England far exceeding that of any other rugby nation, it should be reasonable to expect a lot more in terms of results.

Before the it began, the pundits were predicting the most open tournament for many years, and they were right. All the teams were much closer in the standard of rugby they played than for a long time, but Wales were certainly the best team and deserved their win.

You could argue that this “closeness” made the competition very exciting and, in terms of the results and winning margins, perhaps it was. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves though. The quality of rugby was far, far from a high standard. Why was it close? In simple terms it was because most teams (Italy excepted) have gone backwards, which made most of the games dull and tedious.

The French were the most disappointing. They used so many players over the five games, a large number of whom were debutants, that they couldn’t possibly play as a team. New coach Mark Lievremont seemed to have banned kicking, insisting that his side try to run the ball from everywhere. Historically the French have been very good at this, but in the past they did it with skill, flair and unpredictability. This year they seemed to do it with their legs tied together.

England continued their rollercoaster performance – they’ve been like this since they won RWC2003 – but, while the lows were very low, the highs barely made it above ground level. A cross between donkeys and headless chickens would be the best way to describe them for most of the time. I don’t blame Ashton, I think the players must bear the responsibility and I’d like to see a few heads roll.

Ireland are going backwards with each game. I’ll admit that I don’t like Eddie O’Sullivan at all, as a coach or as a person, and I believe that his early ’success’ was entirely due to the foundation that Warren Gatland (the man he stabbed in the back) created. O’Sullivan has failed to build on that foundation and has squandered a fabulous back line. He should go.

What can I say about Scotland? Just poor, except (as ever) when slugging it out in the worst of weather.

But Italy…they get better every year. The Masi experiment at fly-half has not worked, but their backs are starting to show glimpses of real talent to complement a great set of forwards. Three or four more years and they could be genuine contenders.

So finally Wales. The best of the six, clearly, but that’s not really saying much. Occasional flashes of brilliance from the backs, though not nearly as good as they were in 2005, and a couple of great back row forwards. But the front five are just not up to international standard, and haven’t been for a very long time. Well done Gatland and Edwards for turning things around in a matter of weeks, but there is a very long way to go.

Honestly, I think any one of the tri-nations or Argentina would have comfortably won the competition this year.