Argies invade the Bloglands

A couple of months back, a propos of the ongoing debate over Margaret Thatcher's funeral arrangements, I put a semi light-hearted comment on this blog to the effect that the affair should be private. As in privatised, that is.

As is often the case with blogging, this post has now belatedly come to the notice of a bunch of Argentines who, under the leadership of one Carlos A. Carpanzano, last night invaded this blog to proffer their own, less than savoury suggestions on what should happen to the Iron Lady's mortal remains.

To add insult to injury, some of the comments were in Spanish and, even worse, most of them were anonymous (I am currently having a long internal argument with myself about whether to ban anonymous posters from the blog.)

How do other visitors feel about it? Should we strike back, send a task force, remove these Argie occupiers from our territory? Or is it, in the spirit of universal brotherhood that is the blogosphere, just time to let bygones be bygones?

Sid the Sexist, eat your heart out

According to reports, Apprentice winner Michelle Dewberry has now been sent home on "gardening leave" by her boss Sir Alan Sugar after becoming pregnant by fellow contestant Syed.

I suspect that most people's reaction to this sorry tale will be one of schadenfreude. This is Britain after all, and we love nothing better than to see ambitious young kids like Michelle put in their place.

But does anyone apart from me think that, in an age when women regularly juggle motherhood and careers, Sir Alan is being a tad neanderthal about it all?

Sports Non-Event of the Year

When I were a lad, one of the highlights of my year around Christmas time was the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year programme, which, back in those far-off days, gave us the chance to relive all the great sporting moments of the year gone by.

Sadly, it is now but a shadow of its former self, the absense of real sport on the BBC leaving the programme reliant on gimmickry, chat, and occasional off-colour remarks by the presenters.

The BBC won't even show clips of the sport it still has - notably Wimbledon, football and snooker - presumably for fear of highlighting what it doesn't have.

In short, the programme, and the oddly-named award itself, has become one of those great annual television non-events that we somehow still feel compelled to watch, second in this respect only to the even more meaningless Eurovision Song Contest.

And yet the national press seemingly remains obsessed with the show. Over recent weeks, national sports coverage appears to have turned into a running commentary, (c) all newspapers, into whose name is on the award this year.

Here's a sample from the national media following England's cricketing triumphs over Pakistan, which has propelled spinner Monty Panesar (pictured) into the status of bookies' favourite.

"As the wickets fell at Headingley yesterday so too did the odds on Monty Panesar winning the 2006 BBC Sports Personality Of The Year." - The Guardian.

"Confirmation of Panesar’s place in the national consciousness came with the news that William Hill, the bookmakers, had last night made Panesar their 7-2 favourite to become BBC Sports Personality of the Year." - The Times.

"With so many other big names floundering across the English sports spectrum, the popular Panesar could even be bowling himself into contention to succeed Andrew Flintoff as BBC Sports Personality of the Year." Daily Mail.

"With Andrew Flintoff on the sidelines, Panesar has taken over as the focus of affection for England fans. Now Panesar is one of the top five contenders to follow Flintoff as BBC Sports Personality of the Year." - The BBC.

I don't want to take anything away from Panesar. He looks like the best spin bowling prospect in English cricket since Phil Tufnell and possibly even Derek Underwood. But his achievements and talent should speak for themselves without the addition of this pointless bauble.

It's doubtless too much to expect the BBC to knock their wretched award on the head. But it's surely high time the rest of the media ceased their obsession with it.

Balancing the ticket

The Guardian's Patrick Wintour reckons Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain is leading the race for Labour's deputy leadership. Mike Smithson on PoliticalBetting.com is a tad sceptical, repeatedly highlighting Hain's young liberal background.

For my part, I reckon all speculation about the deputy leadership depends entirely on whether the two elections come off at the same time, because what happens in the deputy leadership election will inevitably be determined by what happens in the leadership election.

If Gordon is the only serious candidate - McDonnell is not serious and may not even get the required number of nominations - then we may indeed see the kind of wide-ranging contest for deputy that most are anticipating.

But if Gordon is challenged, either from the Blairite right or the sensible/soft left, then it's a whole new ball game. We will then be into pacts, deals, running mates and the rest, with the candidates seeking to demonstrate that they can unite the party by running on a balanced ticket

So far as I can judge - and in politics as in backgammon there is always the possibility of a late run - Labour's next leader and deputy leader are going to come from some or other combination of a dozen people.

Not all will stand, of course, but the potential runners are: Gordon Brown, John Reid, Peter Hain, Jack Straw, Alan Milburn, Alan Johnson, David Miliband, Hilary Benn, John Hutton, Hazel Blears, Harriet Harman, and John Denham.

Of these, Brown, Reid and Milburn will only the contest the leadership, while, in my judgement, Hain, Miliband, Blears and Harman will only consider contesting the deputy leadership,

The other five - Straw, Johnson, Benn, Hutton and Denham - could plausibly contest either post, but for reasons I shall explain, are more likely to end up as contenders for the deputy's job.

So the first question to answer, then, is will there be an "uber-Blairite" challenge to Gordon, and if so, who will it come from?

My hunch, for what it's worth, is that there will be. Brown has had to walk an incredibly difficult tightrope between outward loyalty to Blair and the desire to carve out his own agenda, and my guess is that eventually he'll fall off it.

In any case, such is the nature of politics that if Gordon is thought in any way to be beatable - and there are plenty of political pundits who think he is - then there is bound to be someone out there prepared to try their luck.

In my view Reid remains overwhelmingly the likeliest challenger, although Johnson might just run as the "English Candidate." I am certain that Milburn will dip his toe in the water, but may find his support somewhat lacking among MPs.

Let's for the sake of argument, then, assume it is Brown v Reid. Johnson will then be the big prize, the man with both the modernising credentials and the trade union links capable of delivering victory to either side.

If Brown can land him, he will have what looks like an unbeatable combination - a running mate who, like him, can authentically claim to be both New Labour and Real Labour.

If on the other hand Reid gets Johnson's backing, and all the other Blairites fall into line behind the Home Secretary, it will begin to look like a conspiracy to deny Brown the top job, and the Chancellor could end up looking isolated

Then again, this could work in Brown's favour, if Labour members as a whole decide that an obviously Blairite ticket would be incapable of uniting the party.

To me, the most intriguing possiblity is that the party ignores all talk of running mates and puts together a balanced ticket itself, as it did in 1994 when neither Prescott nor Beckett were officially aligned with Blair.

If so, then perhaps the most plausible potential deputy leadership contender in the frame is the one once described by the Brownites as the "when hell freezes over" candidate.

Almost alone of all the potential combinations, Gordon Brown as leader and Hazel Blears as deputy would give us a balance of Brown and Blairite, Male and Female, Scottish and English, Older and Younger.

Will it happen? I have no idea. But if it does - remember, you read it here first.

Tom Mangold makes my day!

Yesterday morning Iain Dale posted a piece on his blog criticising Panorama's latest tabloid-style documentary on the water industry. Agreeing with the general thrust of this, I posted a light-hearted comment saying "Bring back Tom Mangold!"

Imagine my surprise when I logged onto my computer this morning to find an email from Mangold himself thanking me for my comments!

The man is actually a journalistic hero of mine, having produced a brilliant Panorama documentary on the miscarriage of justice surrounding the Cardiff Three murder case which inspired me, as a reporter on the South Wales Echo in the early 90s, to try and do my bit to get the case reopened.

I'm not sure if my efforts had any effect at the time, but the Cardiff Three were eventually completely vindicated in 2003, when Jeffrey Ghafour - the notorious "Mr X" of numerous newspaper investigations into the crime - admitted the killing having been nailed by advances in DNA technology.

More cross-dressing

I suppose that as political transvetitism goes, it would take a fair bit to top this piece of sheer audacity from Home Secretary John Reid at the weekend.

I agree with him as it happens. It's not racist to want to have a debate about whether immigration policies are serving the country's wider interests. But it's only 15 months since the Tories were being described as exactly that for seeking to have that debate during the general election campaign.

If this is now official Labour policy, I think that the least the party can now do is apologise to Michael Howard for the unjustified slurs of April and May last year.

If however it's just another piece of freelancing by Dr Reid, then I think he just kissed goodbye to any prospect of mounting an effective challenge to Gordon Brown for the leadership. However well this kind of thing might go down with the general public, the Labour electorate is a different audience.

Meanwhile, more from me on the question of whether stealing other parties' political clothes really is here to stay in my newspaper columns and associated Podcast at the weekend, developing a theme explored on this blog last week.

My overall verdict is that, whilst politicians may be happy to play these sorts of games, there is no great evidence of the growth of political transvestitism amongst the public at large.

"If anything, the dominant trend at recent elections has not being people switching from one party to another, but switching from one party to no party.

"Furthermore, it is hard to argue that New Labour’s “politics without conscience,” as William Hague once memorably termed it, has not been one of the biggest reasons why.

"Turning politics into an ideology-free-zone may please the Rupert Murdochs of this world, but for millions of ordinary voters, it merely leaves them disillusioned and disenfranchised.

"It seems that rather than resort to political transvestitism, we would rather be seen wearing no clothes at all."

Read the full version HERE.