John Howard to be next VP of ICC

lol...the lying little rodent has only residual credibility amongst the credulous like Skully and RD aside from the few people like Barneyline who consider him to be an oracle (the vast bulk of the Oz population consider him to be an orifice)

The One wrote:[whatever your personal impressions of howard in relation to the others named, if 7 out of 10 nations think they will have a real problem dealing with him, why do you suppose they should accept him? like i said they only have a problem with this particular individual, not all possible anzac candidates. why is australia so hell-bent on getting someone with absolutely zero cricketing background and someone who creates a lot of negativity amongst other member states to be its nominee? frankly, its puzzling

I've been avoiding this topic, but I can't keep biting my tongue forever, so forgive for laying it all out in one post.

TO. As JGK mentioned before, you are failing to see this as a clear case of bloc politics.

Zimbabwe is unequivocally opposed to Howard because he led the campaign to have them sanctioned and suspended from the Commonwealth. It is in Zimbabwe's interest to avoid an anti-Zimbabwean president at all costs.

Over the past decade India has turned a blind eye to the situation in Zimbabwe because it can rely on Zimbabwe's vote at the ICC. Zimbabwe has called in a favour in return. India has in turn whipped the Asian bloc to vote against Howard (Sri Lanka didn't need much whipping because it holds a grudge about Murali). India has also put the pressure on South Africa and the West Indies who are falling more and more into India's orbit.

It also suits India's interests to continue with a figurehead in the post, rather than someone who may use the position to draw attention to some unfortunate facts (the corruption in the ICC). Howard has no prior links to the ICC or other national boards. It means he doesn't have any skeletons in the closet (in cricket administration at least) or favours to return.

But these are all pretty nefarious reasons for opposing a candidacy which is supposed to be rotated on a regional basis and merely rubber stamped.

So what reason do we have being offered instead. We have all this nonsense about Howard being a closet racist and being unable to work with non-white nations.

This is taking a purely Australian meme and trying to milk it for all it's worth. Australian politics is tough. We keep our politicians to a high standard. If someone muses that Asian immigration might be a bit too high then we ask the tough questions ie. "Does this politician have a legitimate concern or is he playing race politics?"

If you step near this line in Australian politics there are millions of people waiting to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Or what about the Stolen Generation? In parliament Howard moved a motion that among other things, expressed "sincere and deep regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the pratices of past generations". He also expressed his personal sorrow. Personally I thought this was enough. Many others in Australia did not and criticised Howard for not offering a full government apology. In this matter he was being kept to a high standard.

These are domestic Australian political problems that come with all of Australia's individual hang-ups. Lots of mud has been thrown around here in arguing who's right and who's wrong? Who's genuine and who's playing politics. Now that mud is being lifted out of the Australian political culture and being applied to another context. What grates even more is the strong feeling that these are false reasons. They are being trawled out and used against Howard because the true reasons for the opposition to his candidacy are beyond the pale.

In short, the ICC's own conventions have been abused to protect Zimbabwe and its horrid regime, corruption within international cricket and India's power bloc. False reasons have been put up (and bought by much of the public unfortunately) to justify the trashing of these conventions.

It is a squalid situation. Most Australians, whether they be pro or anti-Howard, can tell a rotting fish when they smell one.

Good luck Hass, a well explained case, but TO is so blinkered when it comes to India that you're wasting your typing.

Hass wrote:

The One wrote:[whatever your personal impressions of howard in relation to the others named, if 7 out of 10 nations think they will have a real problem dealing with him, why do you suppose they should accept him? like i said they only have a problem with this particular individual, not all possible anzac candidates. why is australia so hell-bent on getting someone with absolutely zero cricketing background and someone who creates a lot of negativity amongst other member states to be its nominee? frankly, its puzzling

I've been avoiding this topic, but I can't keep biting my tongue forever, so forgive for laying it all out in one post.

TO. As JGK mentioned before, you are failing to see this as a clear case of bloc politics.

Zimbabwe is unequivocally opposed to Howard because he led the campaign to have them sanctioned and suspended from the Commonwealth. It is in Zimbabwe's interest to avoid an anti-Zimbabwean president at all costs.

Over the past decade India has turned a blind eye to the situation in Zimbabwe because it can rely on Zimbabwe's vote at the ICC. Zimbabwe has called in a favour in return. India has in turn whipped the Asian bloc to vote against Howard (Sri Lanka didn't need much whipping because it holds a grudge about Murali). India has also put the pressure on South Africa and the West Indies who are falling more and more into India's orbit.

It also suits India's interests to continue with a figurehead in the post, rather than someone who may use the position to draw attention to some unfortunate facts (the corruption in the ICC). Howard has no prior links to the ICC or other national boards. It means he doesn't have any skeletons in the closet (in cricket administration at least) or favours to return.

But these are all pretty nefarious reasons for opposing a candidacy which is supposed to be rotated on a regional basis and merely rubber stamped.

So what reason do we have being offered instead. We have all this nonsense about Howard being a closet racist and being unable to work with non-white nations.

This is taking a purely Australian meme and trying to milk it for all it's worth. Australian politics is tough. We keep our politicians to a high standard. If someone muses that Asian immigration might be a bit too high then we ask the tough questions ie. "Does this politician have a legitimate concern or is he playing race politics?"

If you step near this line in Australian politics there are millions of people waiting to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Or what about the Stolen Generation? In parliament Howard moved a motion that among other things, expressed "sincere and deep regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the pratices of past generations". He also expressed his personal sorrow. Personally I thought this was enough. Many others in Australia did not and criticised Howard for not offering a full government apology. In this matter he was being kept to a high standard.

These are domestic Australian political problems that come with all of Australia's individual hang-ups. Lots of mud has been thrown around here in arguing who's right and who's wrong? Who's genuine and who's playing politics. Now that mud is being lifted out of the Australian political culture and being applied to another context. What grates even more is the strong feeling that these are false reasons. They are being trawled out and used against Howard because the true reasons for the opposition to his candidacy are beyond the pale.

In short, the ICC's own conventions have been abused to protect Zimbabwe and its horrid regime, corruption within international cricket and India's power bloc. False reasons have been put up (and bought by much of the public unfortunately) to justify the trashing of these conventions.

It is a squalid situation. Most Australians, whether they be pro or anti-Howard, can tell a rotting fish when they smell one.

Quality

Well said Hass, ol' bean.

i think its incredible that almost all australians think howard is capable of heading a mult-national, multi-racial oganisation even though the last time the majority of them didnt think he was good enough to run a relatively mono-cultural and mono-racial country. hell he wasnt even considered good enough to lead his own constituency let alone the nation

it just strikes as blind nationalism. the voting bloc thats visible to most would be the anglo-saxon one that feels compelled to support each other. i have no doubt in my mind that if mugabe was put up as a candidate by africa then we would be seeing the aussies throwing the whole 'convention' argument out of the window

TO

If you think that John Howard is anything close to Robert Mugabe you need help.

no i dont think he is. but just think the whole argument about following convention is a bit weak when the board does have the right to exercise its vote

If, as is surely the case, the position of President of the ICC is a titular position (Titular ruler, a person in an official position of leadership who possesses few, if any, actual powers) ...then why all the fuss from the subcontinental contingent negating the appointment of Howard anyway -

Fact - Politics and a revenge driven crusade by the despot who has destroyed Zimbabwe - whose whims the ICC (indeed the BCCI) pander to willingly in exchange for which they are guaranteed Zim's vote.

FFS TO - This has got sweet f**k all to do with anglo saxon voting blocs (there are only 4 of us whitey nations anyways) or the ICC Board's right to "exercize their vote" (providing they take their lead from their puppet masters at the BCCI).

It has however, everything to do with sucking up to Mugabe and Zimbabwe in an effort to keep them on-side.

And it clearly reflects the inability of BanIndia and its puppets in the ICC to recognize when they're being played for the money grubbing, control freak chumps that they are.

Mugabe 1 - 0 ICC.
Pathetic.

The One wrote:no i dont think he is. but just think the whole argument about following convention is a bit weak when the board does have the right to exercise its vote

FMD. Can you imagine the stink if the next rotation was to India and the whitey bloc voted against the Indian nominee? Jebus H Crikey, the fingers would be on the red button in New Delhi.

The whiteys would lose though - only 4 of us (despite having a host of darkies playing for us !) ...

But then, that is the essence of existance for the BCCI - to control as many cricket boards as they can through gratuities rather than common sense.

Hass,
Good essay, but unconvincing to any thinking non-Australian because it is based on one conjecture after another. That is fine as a personal opinion, but here you are presenting it as a fact. Howard is the worst possible nominee (his past political history within Australian politics points to it) and we all know it - Aussie or non-Aussie.

Maybe you'd care to tell us, IYO, on what grounds a nominee may be rejected by majority members of the ICC.

Merlin wrote:FFS TO - This has got sweet f**k all to do with anglo saxon voting blocs (there are only 4 of us whitey nations anyways)

4? do england and wales count as 2?

Whoops .... FIVE !!
England, Aus, Seth Afrika, NZudders AND, let's not forget the prinicpality of sheep-shaggin' Wales !!...

All teams still whitey dominated (thus creating the BCCI's phobia) ... and with one whitey creeping into the WIndian team (Nash) ... doubly ensuring the BCCI/ICC suck on Mugabe even harder to keep him on side.

Shame.

Merls

The Saffies team might be 7/11ths non coloured but their cricket board votes with the other darkies

embee wrote:Merls

The Saffies team might be 7/11ths non coloured but their cricket board votes with the other darkies

Aye, I was aware of that MB ... just a shame that the SACB followed the Cronje route to greed and bungs to ensure their vote went along with the subi's.

Bombay bookies, BCCI, ICC ... it all adds up.

Merlin wrote:

embee wrote:Merls

The Saffies team might be 7/11ths non coloured but their cricket board votes with the other darkies

Aye, I was aware of that MB ... just a shame that the SACB followed the Cronje route to greed and bungs to ensure their vote went along with the subi's.

Bombay bookies, BCCI, ICC ... it all adds up.

FFS Merlo, try and keep up. It's been CSA for years.

Having said that it's been on the cards for years. CSA is a political body that picks teams on racist on racist lines and has done for years.
Cue the bleeding heart liberals whining about the "previously disavantaged

Latest from Dickinfo

"Cricket Australia's board will select its replacement for John Howard as the candidate for the ICC's vice-presidency on Friday afternoon - but don't expect a quick resolution. The already protracted negotiations are complicated by the fact the ultimate decision must be made with New Zealand Cricket, whose board will not meet for another two weeks.

While the passionate attachment to Howard has decreased and the likelihood of a repeat recommendation is slim, Cricket Australia's senior figures remain angry that their preferred nomination was denied without a vote by the ICC board in Singapore last week. Australia and New Zealand were given until August 31 to find another candidate and Cricket Australia's special meeting is the first formal step.

Cricket Australia's chairman Jack Clarke was "gutted" by Howard's veto in Singapore following opposition from a group of six Asian, African and West Indian officials. Clarke, who is in London, will lead the teleconference and is the most likely Australian nomination for the post, which includes an automatic promotion to ICC president in 2012. "

----------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps we should nominate Andrew Symonds to really put the cat amongst the pidgeons.

Yeah ... or what about the pikey Gillespie ... the subis NEED a darker shade of pale skinned candidate so as to ease the heavy chip that weighs down unbearably on their shoulder.

I heard that Mark Taylor was being asked if he was interested in the post. Doubt he'd give up his cushy job at Nine, though.

Merlin wrote:Yeah ... or what about the pikey Gillespie ... the subis NEED a darker shade of pale skinned candidate so as to ease the heavy chip that weighs down unbearably on their shoulder.

Going by the majority of your posts on this or any other subject concerning Asians, you must carry a whole forest on yours, Merls.
The Vindaloo must be getting to you else you'd be f@rting differently.

Henry wrote:I heard that Mark Taylor was being asked if he was interested in the post. Doubt he'd give up his cushy job at Nine, though.

Tubby has a great life. Why would he fark it up by going off to lock horns with a bunch of rabid irrational subi ICC Board members that make it impossible to achieve anything positive in the sport and requires the regularly shining the c0cks of the BCCI?

jim rich wrote:

Merlin wrote:Yeah ... or what about the pikey Gillespie ... the subis NEED a darker shade of pale skinned candidate so as to ease the heavy chip that weighs down unbearably on their shoulder.

Going by the majority of your posts on this or any other subject concerning Asians, you must carry a whole forest on yours, Merls.
The Vindaloo must be getting to you else you'd be f@rting differently.

Oh dear .........

But .... I do love it when a plan comes together!

jim rich is a subi, right?

skully wrote:jim rich is a subi, right?

Don't believe so ...
he's a Pom (I think) who's spent time across there and lives and loves them unhesitatingly, despite all their faults and phobias.