NUEVA DELHI, 9 (EUROPA PRESS)

Las selecciones de Alemania y Holanda completaron la terna de semifinalistas del Mundial de Hockey sobre Hierba, que se está disputando en Nueva Delhi, y se enfrentarán a Inglaterra y Australia, respectivamente.

Los actuales campeones olímpicos no fallaron en la última jornada de su grupo, y se impusieron por un claro 5-2 a Nueva Zelanda, en un encuentro que siempre dominó. Los germanos se enfrentarán a los ingleses, actuales campeones de Europa, buscando el pase a su tercera final mundialista consecutiva y la revancha de la final continental.

Por su parte, Holanda sufrió mucho más su pase, que logró por el global de goles a favor y en contra, que deshizo a su favor el empate a puntos ante Corea del Sur, que necesitaba ganar por dos o más goles y lo hizo por un insuficiente 2-1.

De esta forma, el combinado asiático quedó tercero por lo que luchará con España el viernes por la quinta plaza, que otorgará la plaza para disputar en agosto el 'Champions Trophy' en Alemania, mientras que los holandeses jugarán ante los australianos por un puesto en la gran final.

--RESULTADOS.

Alemania - Nueva Zelanda 5-2.

Holanda - Corea del Sur 1-2.

Canadá - Argentina 2-3.

--CLASIFICACIÓN.

1. Alemania 11 puntos (+10).

2. Holanda 10 puntos (+10).

3. Corea 10 puntos (+8).

4. Argentina 6 puntos (-2).

5. Nueva Zelanda 6 puntos (-4).

6. Canadá 0 puntos (-22).

One of the common causes for those grappling for a radical post-party politics is reform of the electoral system

As the drums of the election campaign start to rattle, for politicians and their dwindling band of activists, loyalties to the old battalions will be stirred afresh. For just about everyone else, the sudden sound of partisan percussion provides a cue to switch off. The differences between the parties are still important, but at a time when Westminster as a whole seems compromised, and with painful choices coming whoever is in power, it is becoming tougher to identify deeply with squabbling tribes who blame everything on one another. And this is particularly so among progressives, for whom poetic hopes have been smothered by the prosaic realities of 13 years in government.

This is the context in which John Kampfner – a former New Statesman editor and a biographer of Robin Cook – yesterday pledged himself to the Liberal Democrats, and thus the cries of "betrayal" from his old friends in the Labour party may be muted. In a pamphlet and an article on these pages, Kampfner offered an analysis of New Labour failings – the love of money, the penal populism and the failure to fix politics – which is shared by many with radical hearts. Kampfner's gambit coincided with the publication of a collection of essays by the leftist journal Soundings which made a different case for transcending old divides, calling for a joint front between "social democrats, liberals, greens and civic nationalists" – less a Blairite big political tent than a collection of several small tents pitching up together.

One of the great common causes for those grappling for a radical post-party politics is reform of an electoral system which traditionally locked the old duopoly in place. The great difficulty, however, is that – for now at least – the winner-takes-all rules remain in place, presenting a formidable challenge to the efforts of disparate forces. It is also true that Kampfner and social democrats minded to follow his lead might find themselves rather less comfortable than they are expecting within a Liberal Democrat party which has taken a more traditionally liberal turn under Mr Clegg's lead. Today's Lib Dems are a distinctive force, not one which promises to redo what Labour has done, only better. The party is giving priority to reducing taxes for people on middle incomes, rather than any great new surge in social spending.

The old party politics is not fit for the hour, and perhaps it should not count any longer. Yet those who seek to transcend it – by reaching across old divides or swapping sides – discover that its clutches are hard to escape. Fair votes would allow for clearer choices, but the old parties continue to thwart hopes of that, and so our politics remain stuck in the old partisan rut.

• We published a flipped photograph of the Uffizi gallery's colonnaded courtyard in Florence (with a story headlined Italy bids at auction to keep Michelangelo letters at home, 8 March, page 17). This was the version supplied by the picture agency involved.

• It is Ray, not Rob, Beckett who is one of the two Britons to have won an Academy award this week for his sound editing on The Hurt Locker (Move over Meryl, 9 March, page 5).

• A piece about US presidential security and the guarding of Barack Obama said that one reason John Kennedy was exposed to assassination was that he had asked for the bullet-proof glass bubble to be taken off the limousine that would carry him though Dallas in 1963. In fact, the removable plastic roof panels were not bullet-proof (In the line of fire, 8 March, page 6, G2).

• Headline homophone corner: "Injury crisis has Wenger preying for Porto upset" (9 March, page 1, Sport, early editions). "Or perhaps," writes one kindly reader, "I am missing a cunning pun."

• A piece on British heavy metal bands (Riffing yarns, 27 February, page 11, the Guide) referred to Black Sabbath's bassist Bill Ward. Bill Ward plays drums; Terry "Geezer" Butler plays bass.

Our large South American neighbour should not be allowed to force its colonial ambitions on us

Simon Jenkins fails to acknowledge that the Falklands have moved on (The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance, 26 February). Argentina's endeavours to force its colonial ambitions on a small country, against the freely expressed wishes of its people, ignore our basic right to self-determination.

"Anyone who studies the tortuous history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong," Jenkins says. But their claim to a territory 300 miles away is neither logical nor valid. Falklands inhabitants did not replace an indigenous population because there was none. The islands were claimed by Britain in 1765, long before Argentina existed as a country, and have been permanently settled since 1833. Some families, like mine, can now boast eight or nine generations on the islands. The Falklands are an overseas territory of the UK, with internal matters governed by a democratically elected legislative assembly, of which I am a member.

Jenkins talks of Argentina regularly protesting about their rights to the islands to "the UN's decolonisation committee, supported by other post-imperial states in South and North America". But the annual vote in this committee is a sham – the Islands are not a colony and the debate there is therefore an irrelevance. More relevant are the European convention on human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, both of which endorse the principles of self-determination.

We have repeatedly attempted to work with Argentina, and agreed a joint declaration on co-operation on oil exploration in 1995. This was renounced by Argentina in 2007. Co-operation on sustainable fisheries through a joint commission was a way for the Falklands and Argentina to conserve South Atlantic stocks through the exchange of scientific data and the setting of sustainable catch levels. Argentina not only withdrew from the commission but set unsustainably high quotas in some fish stocks.

Jenkins states that "Argentina has not threatened military action over the Ocean Guardian" (the oil rig currently drilling in our waters). But it is clear that our large neighbour is attempting to achieve by economic warfare what it failed to achieve by military means.

It has threatened sanctions against companies holding licences to fish in Falklands waters and tried to exclude our representatives from participating at international conferences. It prevents charter flights from other South American countries flying to the islands, and is now attempting to disrupt our oil exploration by threats to hinder shipping. These are hardly the acts of a friendly and peaceful neighbour.

We remain eternally grateful to those who liberated us from the Argentine aggression in 1982. By referring to that time as "the silliest of wars", Jenkins insults their memory and diminishes their incredible achievement.

Jenkins believes us to be an "expensive legacy of Empire". He should be aware that the Islands are self-financing – except for defence, which is purely because of the continued Argentine claim to my country. And our government has expressed the wish to contribute more to these costs, should oil be discovered in commercial quantities.

My friend John Kampfner (I want to vote for a progressive Labour platform. So I'm backing the Lib Dems, 9 March) is amnesic and myopic. His memory of Labour "changes for the better" omits the highest level of employment in UK history, the massive increases in NHS, education, science and overseas development investment, child and pension tax credits, and several other large contributions to social justice.

He evades the current reality of a government fighting against recession instead of fatalistically surrendering to it as the Tories did in the 80s and 90s, and will – if they get the chance – in a future of nominal market regulation. He ignores the future choice between Labour's measured halving of public debt over four years and the Conservative fiscal slicing "from day one", despite the expert warnings that such a course would inflict economic recession and social regression.

And then, having recognised the reality that Margaret Thatcher's best result was won with 44% of the vote because the rest of the electorate was divided (mainly) between Labour and SDP/Liberals, John campaigns for Liberal votes in 2010 – not tactically, but everywhere! No anti-tribalism can justify that inconsistency – especially when "a more pluralist politics" is only realistically likely to come through implementation of Labour's proposals for the alternative vote.

John Kampfner calls the memory and values of Robin Cook in aid. Robin was an inveterate, lifelong opponent of dilettante self-indulgence and always a principled, gutsy democratic socialist, never a sunshine soldier. He would see John Kampfner's "platform" as a scaffold, not a launch pad, for progressives.

Neil Kinnock

Labour, House of Lords

• Jackie Ashley is right that our politics traditionally polarises at a national level (Do right for politics, Nick. Refuse to enter a coalition, 8 March). But I think it's wrong to suggest this is somehow "the English way". It's well known that the voting system favours the bigger parties. And indeed I've heard Labour and Tory candidates together clearly sharing their desire to keep the Lib Dems out.

But the fact that the pragmatic English voter recognises this and votes accordingly doesn't mean it's in our genes: look at the dozens of councils across the country, like Camden, where parties work well together locally – flexibly, both respecting and challenging each other's views. Nick Clegg's position should be similarly challenging and flexible, to represent the new politics essential to our times – which even the English will eventually enjoy.

Cllr Chris Naylor

Liberal Democrat cabinet member for homes and housing strategy, Camden

• The Lib Dems may be many things, but anyone living in Camden or Brent will be surprised to hear them called progressive. In both boroughs they have run the council since 2006 with support from the Tories, cutting and privatising services and hiking up charges on essentials like rubbish collection and meals on wheels.

Lib Dem Camden's latest brainwave is to auction off council homes to speculators, who then make huge profits by "flipping" them weeks later. Hardly a progressive solution to solving the chronic overcrowding many families face. They are also cutting funding to UK Online centres by more than four-fifths, hurting those who can't afford a computer.

These may be tawdry details compared with the lofty goals of foreign policy or human rights, but they make a real difference to the quality of life or the poorest and most vulnerable in our community.

Mike Katz

Chair, Hampstead & Kilburn Labour party

• How should the liberally minded left vote at the general election? Labour loyalists tell me to vote Labour as any alternative will in most cases let a Tory in. While this may be true, it is hardly a positive reason to vote for a party. John Kampfner's answer is to vote Liberal Democrat. At least his reasons are positive. However, I'm not quite sure that we are ready for that yet. An alternative is suggested by Polly Toynbee's article (This once-in-a-generation bill could define the election, 9 March). If this government ensures the constitutional reform and governance bill – with its provision for an AV referendum – gets through, we'll vote Labour. If the bill fails from lack of Labour support, we'll vote for the Liberal Democrats.

Arthur Gould

Loughborough, Leicestershire

A delightful invention from Morten Skogly:

"How about bathroom scale that takes a picture of you, from the worst and least flattering angle, and uploads it straight to the web through Twitter and twitpic? Yes, I know, it's a horrible idea! Which means it simply HAS to be made. So I did, or at least a working prototype!"