Poll: Should Brown call snap election?

I must say I'm genuinely torn on this one. The Tories argue that Gordon Brown, or whoever else takes over as Labour leader, should call an immediate general election to give themselves a separate mandate from Tony Blair. Since we appear to live in an increasingly presidential system, there is some force to their argument.

Against that, part of me thinks Labour won in 2005 in spite of, not because of Mr Bliar, and that therefore it's the party as a whole which has the mandate to govern for a full parliamentary term.

Anyway, this seems like one to leave to you, the readers, partly to help me settle an argument in my own head and partly to demonstrate that, thanks to www.pollhost.com I can now introduce polling functionality onto this blog.

I hope visitors will make use of it, as it's a feature I intend to do much more with in the New Year.

Should there be a General Election if and when Tony Blair steps down as Prime Minister
	Yes
	No
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Some Ashes reflections

"It will all be over by Christmas," they said when World War One broke out in August 1914. It wasn't, of course, but the 2006 Ashes series is, after Australia today won back the urn in the quickest possible time.

So what went wrong? Well, in a sense, it's more a case of what went right for Australia. They were the better team, and this time they performed to the best of their abilities. I always thought that as long as they did that, they would win, given that in 2005 they collectively had an off-series and still only managed to lose to us extremely narrowly.

They have also strengthened their team since 2005. Stuart Clark has come in for Jason Gillespie and on occasions looked Australia's best bowler. Mike Hussey has brought some real steel to the middle-order and become the most difficult player in their side to get out. And Michael Clarke - nicknamed "pup" by the Aussie tabloids - has finally blossomed into a great batting talent.

Nevertheless, England could have made much more of a fight of it had we (a) not suffered injuries to three key players, and (b) not shot ourselves in the foot by daft selectorial decisions. Here's my list of six things that might, just might, have made a difference.

1. The Captaincy. I don't think we missed Michael Vaughan greatly as a batsman, but we did miss his shrewd captaincy. In his absense, the selectors decided to go with the gung-ho approach of Andrew Flintoff, but they should have gone with the more cerebral Andrew Strauss. For one thing, I think the captaincy would have enhanced his form as opposed to inhibiting it in Freddie's case, and for another, I think he would have out-thought Ponting in the way Vaughan did in 2005.

2. Simon Jones. On the first day of the last Ashes tour, in 2002, the Welshman suffered a tour-ending injury while fielding. This time, he didn't even make it on the plane. England have badly missed him on both occasions. At times during 2005, he was our most dangerous bowler, and would surely have thrived in Australian conditions.

3. Marcus Trescothick. Whatever it was that happened to "Banger," it was very sad not only from his personal point of view but from England's. Some cricket-watchers who should have known better actually suggested that his absense would strengthen the team. Balderdash. His 431 runs in the 2005 series made him England's second highest run scorer after KP, and he was sorely missed.

4. Selection. There is much that could be said here, but fundamentally, we failed to recognise that two of the stalwarts of our 2005 triumph, Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles, were woefully out of form. Clearly Panesar should have been in the team from the start, and in retrospect so should Read, even given his batting shortcomings. Duncan Fletcher has much to answer for here.

5. Troy Cooley. Was England's bowling coach during the 2005 series before moving to the same role with Australia this time round. His departure could probably not have been prevented - he is an Aussie after all - but it is clear that without his guidance, our main strike bowler Steve Harmison became a shadow of his former self.

6. The Batting Order. Until Trescothick's breakdown, Paul Collingwood wasn't even in the Test XI. Then, suddenly, he was batting at four, the place normally occupied by the best batsman in the team. Colly did us proud with a double-ton at Adelaide, but Kevin Pietersen is our best player and should have been in the No 4 slot. Instead, he just kept running out of partners.

And that's about it. More offbeat analysis from the excellent Middle and Off's Ashes Blog.

Blair is just making things worse for Labour

Writing in this morning's Guardian, Jackie Ashley makes the point that the longer Tony Blair tries to drag out his increasingly discredited premiership, the worse it gets both for him and for the Labour Party.

Following the shameful events of last Thursday, I came to a similar conclusion in my weekend columns and podcast which has gone live today.

"The man who promised to clean up politics continues to sully it beyond anything achieved by John Major’s administration. Until the day he finally goes, his capacity to damage both the Labour Party and the reputation of British politics in general will remain unhindered."

The full text is available HERE.

The Bloggers' Christmas Bash

Ten years ago this week I held my leaving do from the South Wales Echo in the upstairs room at the Marquis of Granby in Smith Square, so it was great to be back there again on Friday for the Christmas Bash organised by Iain and Guido as a thank-you to those of us who contributed to The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze.

And an excellent gathering it was. Being out here in the sticks my forays into the London blogging scene are fairly rare, so it was great to meet, among others, Dizzy, Ellee Seymour, Croydonian, Tom Paine, James Cleverly, William Norton and Hoby.

Iain announced there would be a second volume of the book next year and said 2006 had been "a great year to be an opposition blogger." "A great day," someone shouted out. Guido then stood up and told the most politically incorrect joke of 2006, or possibly of all-time. It cannot possibly be repeated here but it concerned the Ipswich murders and Cherie Blair.

A big thank-you to Messrs Fawkes and Dale for organising. Other reviews of the event from Ellee, Croydonian, Tom and James.

No coincidence

I must be getting less cynical in my old age, but in retrospect I was far too kind to New Labour in yesterday's post on whether the Government might have been guilty of burying bad news under the cover of the Ipswich murders and Lord Stevens' inquiry in the death of Diana. It's now absolutely bleeding obvious that this is exactly what they were doing.

According to the Daily Tel's George Jones and others, Scotland Yard has made it clear that the timing of yesterday's interview of the Prime Minister over the cash-for-honours affair was determined by Downing Street, not by the police.

Another Lobby doyen, Trevor Kavanagh, writes in his Sun column: "We all guessed weeks ago that this would be the perfect day for Mr Blair to invite the police in – the day the world would be transfixed by the [Diana] report."

Somehow, though, I don't think even a gnarled old cynic like Trevor really thought they would actually do it. And neither, I confess, did I.

Burying bad news?

Of course it could just be coincidence. But isn't it just a teensy bit suspicious that the long-awaited interview of Tony Blair by police investigating the cash for peerages affair should take place on the very morning that Sir John Stevens publishes his equally long-awaited report on the death of Diana?

Further, isn't it also a teensy bit suspicious that someone should see fit to leak a damaging story about Gordon Brown's possible involvement in the affair on the very day that Blair is questioned?

I only ask the question....

Update: Iain unearths some more bad news while Guido speculates on the contents of today's "grid."