Earlier, we counted down the Top 10 Games in college basketball over the last decade. But if you’re half the college basketball fan that I am, you know that list was surely lacking. Here, in no particular order, are the games that, while overall weren’t good enough to make that list, still provoke that ineffable joy of the fantastic finish. They are good games with great finishes. Enjoy and bookmark.

2005 Michigan State v. Kentucky

This was the third best regional final that year. Yeah.

2007 Oklahoma State v. Texas

Much like the triple-overtime classic between Gonzaga and Michigan State the season before, this 55-minute classic saw a multitude of lead changes and a remarkable duel between Kevin Durant and Mario Boggan. Boggan won the battle; it’s probably safe to say Durant won the war.

2004 Stanford v. Arizona

Because Stanford didn’t even survive the opening weekend of the Tournament in 2004, it’s easy to forget how long this Cardinal team flirted with perfection, and how amazing this ending was. Plus, Brent Musburger’s call is the best on a buzzer-beater this decade.*

*Last decade’s best call was by Sean McDonough on Richard Hamilton’s winner over Washington in the 1998 Sweet Sixteen. You may notice that, when it comes to buzzer-beating calls, I have a type.

2006 Northwestern State v. Iowa

Jermaine Wallace’s desperation three-point heave from the corner was the biggest NCAA Tournament Hail Mary of the decade and perhaps the best symbol for what can happen during March Madness.

2006 Texas v. West Virginia

I think I’ve proven how much I love John Beilein and that Mountaineer team. Overcoming a 3:1 rebounding edge for Texas with two late threes (by Gansey and Pittsnogle, obvs), West Virginia was undone by A.J. Abrams’ poise and Kenton Paulino’s marksmanship at the buzzer.

2006 UCLA v. Gonzaga

The same night as Paulino’s winner, the legend of Gus Johnson is born.

2007 Ohio State v. Xavier

And the legend is confirmed. HA HA!

2006 Duke v. Virginia Tech

And Tim Brando’s call begs the question: When did Sean Dockery do it the first time?

2007 Duke v. Clemson

Hi, I’m Dave McClure; you may remember me from such game-winning shots as this one!

2007 VCU v. Duke

Because I was getting too confident with my Duke clips.

2007 VCU v. George Mason

And because Eric Maynor did it to someone else before us.

2005 Bucknell v. Kansas

The ugliest winner of the Aughts.

2005 Vermont v. Syracuse

Let’s first admit that T.J. Sorrentine made one of the worst decisions a point guard can make in hoisting a 30-footer (at least) with eight on the shot clock and his team up one. And then let’s acknowledge that in taking–and making–it, Sorrentine showed off some major cojones. It might be my favorite shot this whole decade, capped off by coach Tom Brennan’s elation on the sideline.

2006 UConn v. Washington

This shot wasn’t too bad, either.

2007 Tennessee v. Winthrop

Forget the facts that Tennessee was a bad 2, Winthrop a fantastic 15, and that the beloved Bruce Pearl drew up a pretty terrible play; just appreciate the shot Chris Lofton buries from the corner.

2004 UAB v. Kentucky

First, one of the decade’s greatest passes between identical twins, and then the decade’s greatest midrange jump shot. ‘Cuz, you know, nobody takes those anymore.

2006 Texas A&M v. Texas

Believe it or not, Acie Law IV would later hit an even better shot against Texas at the buzzer.

2008 Minnesota v. Indiana

Blake Hoffarber is this decade’s Christian Laettner–the only guy to hit TWO incredible buzzer beaters.

2008 Western Kentucky v. Drake

One thing that’s lost with officials going to the monitor to check the clock and to make sure that time hasn’t run out is that true buzzer beaters have become rarer and rarer. Which is what made Ty Rogers’ three—which enters the hoop right as the backboard light flashes and the horn sounds—so refreshing.

2009 Gonzaga v. Western Kentucky

Kevin Harlan can call our buzzer beater any day. Make sure to stay to the end just to hear him pronounce “Gon-ZAG-GA!”

2005 Gonzaga v. Oklahoma State

Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good…and to have Gus Johnson AND Bill Raftery on the mike.

2005 Ohio State v. Illinois

Because going undefeated is REALLY hard.

2004 Oklahoma State v. Saint Joseph’s

Because one night it goes your way…

2004 Georgia Tech v. Oklahoma State

…and the next it doesn’t. (Does anyone remember this game-winner?)

2006 Syracuse v. Cincinnati

The start of the greatest run in Big East Tourney history.

2003 Louisville v. Marquette

I saw this game live. It was great.

2009 Wake Forest v. Duke

I saw this game in person. It sucked.

2007 Barton v. Winona State

This is like Duke’s comeback against Maryland…if it were in the national championship.

2003 Maryland v. UNCW

UNCW was my sleeper that year; I’m still mad at Drew Nicholas.

2003 Miami v. Connecticut

I doubt you remember this one, but it’s about as insane a last 10 seconds as you’ll see…

2005 Chicago State v. Missouri-Kansas City

…until you see this. This is unbelievable. I do not believe this.

Democracy has used up all its sick days… and has called in ‘Dead’. Westminster is a breeding ground of voter apathy -  a corrupt Parliament, unprincipled government, and an economy under a mountain of debt.

It is very easy and tempting to blame politicians entirely for this state of affairs. I should know: my family has spent the past 30 years blaming Mrs Thatcher for everything, from the destruction of the mining industry to the fact that our radiators want bleeding and my Dad can’t find the key.

Who is at fault here? Everyone knows politicians are the chief architects of this situation but there is another group who even if they are not actually architects have at the least played a fairly active role on the planning committee: political journalists.

Rather than holding our elected representatives to account, the new crop of journalists try to catch MPs out for the sake of it in a tedious game of cat and mouse. My main concern though is the sneering tone in which most reporting is now conducted. The BBC’s Chief Political Correspondent Nick Robinson, for example, has caused me to throw so many shoes through the telly that the man in the local repair shop has given me a loyalty card. “Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. What a week it’s been for Gordon Brown” is how he began one report. *Brief interluding statement: I am not even going to mention his chairmanship of the Oxford Conservative Association* To which the only reasonable response is, “Why don’t you shut the Hell up and tell me the actual news?” It’s this unbearably condescending manner that has me unlacing my footwear.  From the BBC especially, it’s enough to make me staple each side of my scrotum to either thigh and then begin star-jumping.

News networks shouldn’t give us their opinion; we want just the people’s who are actually involved in the news events. I once saw the BBC refer to the War in Iraq as ‘evil’ – now call me silly but… the ONLY time the word ‘evil’ should be used during the news is either in a direct quote or if it prefixes the word ‘knievel’.

To any criticism of any kind, journalists tend to go all self-righteous and press the button marked “We’ve A Very Important Role In A Fully Functioning Democracy, Actually, So There!” And that’s undeniably true, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the reason we’re all so cynical. They’re more powerful than they would like us believe.

Yesterday, Nick Robinson divided the PLP into plotters, quitters and fighters. Today, Cicero Consulting, Jonathan Freedland and Rod Liddle have done great jobs of putting further meat on the kind of arguments that sustain the fighters;  We’ve had a Queen’s Speech that seeks to frame the General Election in “caring Labour versus cruel Tory” terms; and reports suggest that Compass are considering joining the ranks of the plotters. So, much is going on, it would seem. But, fundamentally, nothing has changed since July, which was the last time that I said: Labour has three options: 1.) Back Brown, 2.) Replace him, 3.) Allow him to continue without backing him. The quitters only exist because they have concluded that the second of these worlds can’t be achieved by the plotters. The quitters are right to draw this conclusion. However, the continued existence of the quitters and the plotters threatens to leave Labour stranded in the third world, so to speak, which is the worst of all worlds for Labour. There remains, therefore, no logical defence for a Labour person not being a fighter and embracing the first of the three worlds. Labour should be fighters, not quitters, or even plotters, as someone didn’t quite say. The arguments of Cicero, Freedland and Liddle provide much reason to believe that the world of the fighter is far from an awful or hopeless world.

I understand only too well why I’ve never been comfortable blogging. Firstly, I don’t like many blogs… I do enjoy reading a couple of journo’s scribbles -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/10/bnps_hang_gener.htm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/ make for informed and good reading, much like their work, but more conversational.

As for reading blogs about what people had for breakfast, the best thing about their weekend, what reminded them of an past lover and other, if not mundane, but all to often very personal pulp then thanks, but no thanks.

Maybe that’s me being shallow or cold but I can’t get my head round it, and I cringe when people ask me to read their blogs. Even blogs by writers. Good writers too. However, speaking of good writers I do miss http://iworkinashop.blogspot.com/

Secondly, I used to rattle out hundreds of thousands of words on www.jagsforum.net but those days are gone now, and in the past…

Anyway, that’s it. I’m in third year at Uni now and I have to blog, otherwise they chuck me out.

I will be mainly using this as some kind of rant-diary/experience hybrid relating to football, politics, media matters and local issues.

So, now My thoughts will be here. Feel free to chuck rotten fruit. I’ll try and update every week.

In his latest blog piece the BBC political editor Nick Robinson says:

“Another half-empty conference hall this morning. It’s been like that most days at all the major party conferences. Thousands of people there but few of them willing to sit through the pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style presentations that the parties have substituted for what we used to call debates.”

For starters was he at Bournemouth where the one party that does have debates on policy still, well, debated? For seconds I’m not sure about the other parties but at the Lib Dem conference it was a key time for training and other opportunities. This was the last full week before the general election ahead that all the party will be gathered for so long in one place. I’d be shocked if the other parties didn’t also have some training for candidates, agents, councillors, activists etc going on along side the main event.

So yeah there is a pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style element to party conferences, but when the inevitable is just around a corner, a General Election there are other things just as pressing for the typical conference attendee.

Of course Nick is quite right that the main stage at the Labour and Conservative conferences does lack the drama of actually debating something, anything of substance. The Liberal Democrats though can still be seat of your pants stuff as someone else lays into another element of the party, or the leadership. Or if somebody suddenly turns out to have changed their view on nuclear power, or Europe or heaven forbid the type of electoral reform we need. It gets all the more interesting if speaker after speaker from the Policy Committee speaks against parts of their own motion, then you know that something is afoot.

But then the BBC called that wrong. When they see real debate they call it division. You see the BBC really want to have the stage-managed, pre-packed, made-for-TV, corporate-away-day-style presentations that Nick complains about. They then know what is going on in the main hall and can wander off elsewhere and try and trip up PPCs (although the Tories will keep stoom), create their own news, try to find a leadership battle (lacking in Brighton to their dismay), or whatever. The problem with the Lib Dems is that we could through a spanner in the works with their careful planning. Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson et al, may be away looking for something to do when a vote goes unexpectedly (for the media) in the hall, the body politic has spoken.

Jennie wrote at the time of our conference that the media didn’t get Lib Dem conference. Now we have Nick Robinson complaining, yet compalining about just what they didn’t understand at the Lib Dem conference as being missing. Looks like facts can really never get in the way of a good BBC moan.

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

The technical problems on my blog have prevented a more in-depth following of the Conservative conference but here’s how I see it up to today. Firstly, I thought that Rachel Sylvester did a great piece in The Times yesterday on the mixed messages of the first couple of days of the conference. I can’t complain that there weren’t any policy ideas – in fact, there have been so many that the government has been forced to rush out some of its own - but the problem with policies is that they often contradict each other (“Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”, anyone?) Spread out, no-one notices but releasing them all so close together draws a more prominent relief of any inconsistency.

Having said that, what I’ve heard has been pretty sensible given the financial circumstances. In 1997, it was easy for New Labour to come up with big ideas and schemes; this time, with the country in economic dire straits it’s a lot more difficult. I support the idea of benefits being cut to fund education and training – it’s the difference between economic opportunity and economic slavery. I support a long-term view of working conditions that preserves pensions but needs us to work longer for them. I also support the measures that have been put in place to support small enterprises, which create wealth, jobs and investment in this country.

I’m delighted beyond all measure that the message that I have been telling everyone who will listen should be put out is finally being delivered – that after 12 years of Labour spin, spite, incompetence and centralisation spattered by the odd moment of common sense, the Conservative Party is the party who will be honest with voters, tell them about the pain ahead and take them through what is going to be an agonising Parliament. George Osborne isn’t my favourite member of the front bench – I’ve got far more time for Runnymede and Weybridge MP Phillip Hammond, who is a real asset and should be chancellor – but his speech yesterday was dead on the money.

And it was vitally, vitally important that he delivered a well-judged message in an appropriate way. There’s still a fair hint of arrogance about his speaking method but the content was absolutely right and I suspect the voters would rather vote for an arrogant man with good ideas than a humble man with no clue.

As Nick Robinson (who else?) points out, it’s a significant political gamble to announce cuts and tough times ahead but I think people are resigned to it and it will give the Tories acredibility lacking in the current government (and Vince Cable, who just wants to tax your mansion). This country, once again, needs to be rescued from Labour overspending by a Conservative austerity regime. Am I looking forward to it? No. It is fair that public sector workers will have to cope on frozen pay? No – but then I’ve not had a pay rise this year, either. Is it fair that they should lose their jobs? No – but this is Labour’s mess and they should remember that when they cast their vote.

Labour created tens of thousands of silly jobs in the public sector that were unsustainable to fund in the long-term. Now the party is over, those stuck in them are going to have to pay Labour’s debt. It’s a shocking betrayal – but I bet Labour (in opposition) won’t see it that way.

It is also interesting to note that despite the policies coming forward, we’ve had comparitively scant negative reaction in the mainstream media – let’s leave the Grauniad and Mirror aside. Instead, the BBC has contented itself with Chris Grayling’s mishearing of questions, the appointment of Gen Sir Richard Dannat and the When Boris Met Dave silliness on Channel 4 (although calling them mainstream is a little generous) tonight.

This reflects various things, I suspect. A quiet conference day in the build up to DC’s speech tomorrow – although this usually gives space for some criticism. There is also the realisation that the next government is almost certainly going to be a Conservative and journalists getting used to buttering up the other side. But also I think there’s an unspoken feeling at conference from the websites, papers and Twitter, that Britain has been buffeted, bungled and betrayed by Labour and that Conservative support might, as Rachel Sylvester suggests, be fragile – but they do actually have some half-decent ideas to try and restore our national self-esteem.

Purpose and clarity – there is still work to be done. But I think DC knows what needs doing tomorrow.

A conference manager testing the sound equipment

The fog of confusion surrounding the new Lib Dem ‘mansion tax’ announced in Bournemouth yesterday has been clarified by a party spokesperson: “The reason Nick Clegg was unable to answer any of the detailed questions surrounding our new flagship £1m house tax, is that the press were actually asking an innocent passer-by whom they mistook for Mr Clegg.”

The passer-by in question, a Mr Geoffrey Butterworth, recounted his ordeal: “I just popped in to the conference centre for quick a pee on my way to work when this angry mob carrying cameras and microphones surrounded me and started shouting questions at me all at once … they kept asking me about house price valuations and local income tax … I was absolutely terrified … I can assure you I won’t be prevailing myself of the facilities in this establishment ever again.”

BBC political correspondent, Nick Robinson, who was part of the mob of journalists, said: “We’re very sorry for frightening Mr Butterworth but how the hell were we supposed to know he wasn’t Nick Clegg … we saw a man in a suit who clearly wasn’t Vince Cable and so naturally assumed it must be him. All the other delegates are dressed in cardigans and corduroy …”

At the time of the ‘assault’ on Mr Butterworth, Mr Clegg was at the podium in the main auditorium delivering his keynote address to rows of empty seats after delegates mistook him for a conference manager testing the sound equipment and popped out for a cup of tea.

She stepped into the big man’s shoes and has actually had a great week in charge.

I don’t mean Harriet (word of advice – when you’re in a hole, stop digging!)

No,  I’m talking about BBC pol corr Laura Kuenssberg standing in for the Beeb’s Political Editor Nick Robinson who’s off on his hols (Corfu?)

Just like Harman, she occupied the boss’s office (on screen and on his blog) and has impressed many with her friendly charm, political nouse and nose for a story.

Italian-born Laura started the week with the fallout from Harriet’s Sunday Times interview and developed all week before finishing with the scoop on the Harman-Mandeslon handover ‘arrangement’ that seemed to catch out No 10, getting it out on Nick’s blog before the rest of the pack.

With Nick trying to do a ‘Marr’ and make the move from hack to presenter (and doing a pretty good job with his week hosting Newsnight) the smart money is on Laura becoming the BBC News’s first female Political Editor.

I predict Nick will do one last General Election and stand down for Laura.

No doubt a process a certain deputy leader would love to see repeated!

It’s a pleasure to be able to report some good journalism at the BBC because it doesn’t happen very often these day. Laura Kuenssberg may lack Nick Robinson’s trademark glasses and gleaming pate but it hasn’t stopped her vastly outplaying him while he’s sunning himself abroad.

For a blog that is usually highly timid about criticising the government in any meaningful way, her story about the total shambles that is the MoD procurement report - and government attempts to not publish it – have been clear, candid and questioning in a way that the insider Robinson is not.

The details of the story itself are shocking but we should not be shocked. This kind of flaccid, complacent and obscene disregard for value is rife across all government departments (go and read Private Eye), where government appears to be run for the benefit of private sector contractors rather than the British taxpayer.

Ironically, few of the private contractors would survive with fiscal control as disastrous as the government’s. In this way, money from the UK government either goes to foreign contractors (notably within the EU) and leaves the country or to British contractors, only to be taken back through taxation.

As a nation, we need to break this cycle and start considering how we can bring in more money into the country than we hand out. We are a long, long way from that situation at the moment because we have not much to give the world.

But using what we have more effectively will help – hopefully Laura’s exposure of this dreadful, sickening wastefulness will help bring about an adequately rigorous approach to spending our scant resources.

There was recently something raised by Guido Fawkes (Paul Staines) that I couldn’t help but agree with entirely (a very rare thing indeed); that being the inability of the journalist to really dig deep on certain politicians due to a strange debt that journo’s have towards those who may well soon get into power.

Guido highlighted this in a debate he had with the Guardian’s Michael White, and the BBC’s Nick Robinson, also not happy with the short amount of time was given to deliver his main points at the event, he addressed them on CiF.

The quote that I agreed with the most was his attack on White;

” … why do you think the influence of blogs has grown? It is because the likes of Michael White have failed to keep sufficient checks on politicians and to hold MPs to account.”

Now I wouldn’t have picked out White myself, but given the context I understand the plea. But more generally, there is a strong element of truth concerning what the press can feel unthreatened about releasing, and this sentiment couldn’t have worried me any more than it did when reading Andrew Rawnsley’s bit in the Observer today, when he noted;

“There has been a reluctance among some of the press to really go for the Tories over the phone-hacking scandal, partly because many other newspapers are implicated in the practice as well, and partly for fear of crossing Mr Coulson, who will be a powerful figure at Number 10, with a lot of control over access to stories.”

Now of course such reluctance should not be applied to bloggers, who are free of the constraints that newspaper journalists may have, and what with the very many inside tell-tales that Guido knows well, the control over access to stories should not be a concern at all.

However, those avid readers of Bob Piper’s blog might see the twist in this tale: that Guido fell foul of his own view that the blogosphere can conquer the newspaper hack taken party political hostage. He was one of the bloggers that pretended not to have anything to do with Andy Coulson and was quick here and here to spin weak claims that Coulson was not implicated in the NotW crimes, before the even weaker attempt to seem non-partisan.

Later on in Guido’s article on CiF he mentions;

“The years of Labour lies and spin, personified in the power that Damian McBride wielded over a compliant press lobby – now that was corrupting our democracy, the off-the-record smearing, and it was smearing, not briefing, that went on – was out of hand.”

In light of Coulsongate – and now separate from Guido and his hypocrisy – bloggers should once again assume some of the freedom from the shortfalls of lobby journalism in criticising the Tories, which may well slope as a consequence to their dominance in the opinion polls. Such unwritten – but yet wholly acknowledged – blackmail should not deter the power of the internet.

Ken Livingstone, on a separate matter, but with usual aplomb, today wrote;

“Time and again, we have seen the nationalisation of losses and the privatisation of profits. It’s also the latest demonstration that it is a fairy tale that privatisation means the private sector takes the risk as well as taking its profit. In truth, every time a privatisation of a vital public service fails, the public sector picks up the tab. This culture of parts of the private sector fleecing the taxpayer has to stop.”

And, of course, though the original piece referred to the National Express Group, this is rather an apt sentiment across the whole spectrum of privatisation, including the 30% stake of Royal Mail, which until yesterday, was being waved around waiting for private money.

Well these are not the market conditions to do such a thing, so says Lord Mandelson.

Since the Tories foam at the mouth over privatising Royal Mail, they never did condemn Mandelson’s original proposals, but – within the frame of parliamentary contrarianism – they have not vindicated him for his U-turn either. Instead voices have emerged – not least of all from BBC’s Nick Robinson – saying that the move has demonstrated a ‘loss of authority’ – which Jack Straw rightly rejected.

This, indeed, was not why the plans were ’shelved’. I do buy into the notion that certain market conditions forced a re-think, but also a concerted effort by unions, think-tanks, Labour MP’s and the worry of further disruptions spelt out the necessaries for calling off the issue.

What is continually embarrassing for the Labour Party – rather than the so-called ‘loss of authority’ – is the continual destruction – facilitated by New Labour – of the heart and soul of the party and its values. To suggest this turn is anything other than victorious for the true nature of the party, is to suggest that Peter Mandelson represents what is solid about the party and its history. And I for one will not accept such a statement.

Whether or not, as Mr. Straw has stated, the changes over the past few days mean that the party is ‘listening’, it certainly means that Labour has to listen, and this itself is no U-turn whatsoever (in the historical sense of the Labour party).

The problem is still focused upon the pension scheme, though. As Ian Pollock puts it – in a dazzlingly simple manner – “The deficit in the scheme – the difference between the value of the assets it needs to pay pensions, and the value of the assets it actually has – is shooting up.”

But, as it becomes clear, certain previous measures – not to mention nonchalance in the economic equilibrium years -  made deficit inevitable. As Pollock continues (to quote at large);

“For 13 years, from 1990 onwards, the Royal Mail – in common with other large organisations – made no contributions at all to the old pre-1987 section of its scheme, in a grand contribution “holiday”.

It should have been paying in money at a rate of 9% of salaries per year.

Ostensibly this was to avoid running up a very large surplus, which was a very common phenomenon in final salary pension schemes in the early 1990s.

But the saving of £1.5bn over that time – when staff were still paying in 6% a year – rather neatly covered the £1.3bn that the Royal Mail paid back to the Treasury during that time in an annual dividend.

If that money had been steadily invested over the past 19 years, there is little doubt that the scheme’s deficit would be far smaller now.

If the £1.5bn of annual payments had been invested in shares and bonds over those years, and had grown at an average annual rate of 6%, including dividends and interest, then the fund would now have an additional £3.1bn.”

Well what a surprise; Thatcher government, holding back on the suspicious pre-text that it was running on a surplus.

Whatever the outcome, and even if Mandy returns to this when the time is right, as he promised he will, it would do us well not to forget which system of governence tried to make private finances an inevitability in the public sector, and which style of governance should do all it can in order not to emulate the former in any way possible.

Last night’s panel debate on the internet and democracy was as expected a bit of a bunfight, Guido got to deliver about half his speech (intended full text here).   Sir Michael interrupted as soon as Guido gave him some stick (no one had interrupted him). Nick was more reasonable in BBCish way, he bemoaned his blog’s comments – something we have in common.  He was a bit sarky, characterising Guido as a self-absorbed, overgrown student political hack, which was odd given we first met and clashed when he was the dripping wet chairman of the Young Conservatives in the 80s.  He did try to shift the debate back to the big picture.

Grant Shapps was all starry eyed about the possibilities of the internet.  Peter Kellner didn’t like direct democracy.  Questions from the floor complained that we were all in broadcast mode not listening mode.  When the debate organisers (Delib) listened and read out some of the abusive #idebate Twitterings from the large screen feed, it kind of confirmed the panel’s prejudices against listening to crowd sources.  All in all Guido enjoyed himself, hopefully it was entertaining if not that informative for those there.

Guido had to dash, to pick up an alternative award, bumping into a very hurt Lembit at the ceremony.  Had a few pints with the entertaining Stephen Pound, stopping to chat at the bar briefly with the chief whip, Nick Brown, who claims he enjoys avidly reading this blog.  Hmmm…

Sadly Guido’s old adversary Derek Draper ducked out of giving us the benefit of his PR and blogging expertise at PR Week’s “new media” conference at the very last moment.  Guido had to improvise his speech since he was expecting to just have another ding-dong with Draper.  Most speakers seemed to be using Draper as a case study in how not to win friends and influence people online. At the conference Guido learnt that LabourHome’s Alex Hilton has gone all corporate and formed a “Digital PR Consultancy” with David Prescott.  So no more monkeying around from him.

Incidentally, the Henry Jackson Society have organised a talk for next Tuesday to which they sent out invitations on Monday.  All tickets went straight away, much to the surprise of the non-partisan society which usually holds dry talks about geo-political flash points like the Middle East.  Such is the demand for tickets the organisers have now moved the event to the biggest room available in Parliament, the Grand Committee room.

When you know that the speakers on the subject of  ‘the internet: saviour or corruptor of democracy?’ include Nick Robinson, Guido and Sir Michael White, you would be right to guess that this could make the Hamas – Likud peace negotiations look calm by comparison.  Unlike Nick, Guido won’t be pulling his punches…

I am sorry, but I am throughly depressed. This will be one of my serious blog essays, and not one of the ones where I try to appear witty.

The main reason for my unhappiness is a creeping perniciousness that has made headway in British society without actually becoming more popular. If you are wondering what I am blathering on about, I am surprised, but I will explain. Last night, when the results of the UK round of the 2009 Euro elections were being announced, it transpired that the BNP had gained 2 seats in the north of England. The BNP’s share of the vote did not go up – this transpired because the Labour Party is about as popular at the moment as Dr Crippen would have been if he had been a marriage guidance counsellor. Labour’s vote around the country plummeted faster than a paving slab with a death wish – third in terms of share of the national vote behind the Conservatives and UKIP, and even fifth behind the Cornish Nationalists in Cornwall. So why are they so unpopular?

I have become an avid reader of Nick Robinson’s blog on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson). Most of the time he cuts through the balderdash and tells things how they are. I hope he might read this and ask someone the following pertinent question:

Throughout the good times (remember them?), the Conservatives kept saying that the wealth and success our country enjoyed was as a result of the good times of the world, and the hard work of the Conservative Party. It is indeed true that the world was having a great time – there was much health, wealth and happiness in political circles. However the Labour Party poured cold water on this and explained that the wealth and happiness was purely as a result of policies and actions taken by the Labour Party.

When the wheels started falling off, however, the powers that be explained that this was a world recession, and that it had nothing to do with the actions of those who, theoretically, know best and do things in our name.

Forgive me for being dim, but how dare someone who said that happiness and wealth was all his work suddenly start blaming others for things going pear-shaped. Either he really believes this, or he thinks the electorate are fools.

Gordon Brown wants to continue leading us. He thinks he is the man to lead us out of the reception. That is a bit like the man who has suddenly leapt on you in the street and really laid into you with punches and kicks telling you it is okay because he knows the way to the hospital.

It has been suggested, by those who think that they can read our minds, that the reasons for such a bad election showing are the recession and the expenses row. Sorry, it has been officially expanded to an expenses scandal. I am sorry to try to bring a dose of reality to politicians, particularly those in charge. The election results were bad because of Gordon Brown – he is universally unpopular.

This unpopular man is also, sadly arrogant, an aspect that he maintained last week that he was not. Yes, the results were bad. Yes, he took responsibility. Yes, there was a big message. Surely, though, if he is going to take ultimate responsibility he should stand down. Otherwise what he said should be read as nothing more than arrogant rhetoric.

Oh, by the way, in theory I am a Labour supporter (note the ‘in theory’).

It’s being a terrible night for Nick Robinson on the BBC1 European elections programme.

The panel of talking heads started on Wales, before the results came in, and David Dimbleby said there was a rumour that the Conservatives had topped the poll in Wales.   Mark Francois agreed.  Quick as a flash Nick was in there, “We have no evidence that the Conservatives have topped the poll”.       A few minutes later, er, we did top the poll in Wales.

Then Mark Francois started talking about what these figures would mean if transferred across to a general election.   It’s all just too much for poor old Nick  -  with a ghastly grin he rushed in again, “but of course they won’t be.   These are European elections with a very low poll.”

The way things are going, if we’ve got another year of this, I’m really worried about the effects on Nick’s health!

So in search of the truth and information as to what is really going on the British public turns to the state broadcaster, the venerable BBC, the broadcaster the people are involuntarily forced to fund.  Who, we want to know, is behind the attempt to oust the Prime Minister by email?

John Humphrys : …who’s behind it? Our political editor Nick Robinson, do we know Nick?

Nick Robinson : We do know, I am not entirely sure I am going to tell you on the Today programme…

(Listen online here.)  You pay taxes so Nick Robinson can report on politics.  Sky News says Charles Clarke is behind it, no taxpayers were harmed in bringing you that information.  Incidentally, Clarke was seen chatting to Hazel Blears at Andrew Neil’s sixtieth birthday party on Sunday…

As usual, politics, PR, marketing, journalism, other stuff all neatly packaged in five great blogs from mighty media megaliths to more modest marketing types.  A great selection of material to take a look out whist your are filling in your expense claims.

This week’s follow Friday five blog takes the total of recommended reads to sixty and that is a lot of blogs.  Whislt there are still many great blogs I haven’t linked to I think it might be time for another weekly feature so this may be the last in the series.  Let’s wait and see but until then here’s a fiver for this week.

1. The White House  Yes, that White House and it has a blog.  How truly modern is that? Links to twitter, facebook and a vibrant comments section….er, actually no comments section.  Not that modern then.

2. The  World’s leading…. gossip site for those involved with technology PR.  Great layout and great content.  This week sees the debate over the world’s oldest twitterer. Fact or PR fiction?

3. Blogstorm  Officially the number 1 marketing and social media blog in the UK this month, discussing internet marketing and search engine optimisation news & strategies.

4. Crackunit  The work of Iain Tate at Poke and a stellar name for a blog.  It looks at the web, advertising and the space in between, plus this week a bit of fun at the expense of MP’s on the take. 

5. Nick Robinson’s Newslog The official and very BBC-ish blog from the BBC’s political editor. The opinion behind the headlines.  Guess what the subject was this week.

Oh dear, oh dear.

When a government minister is upbraided in public by an actress, in a photo opportunity which looks for al the world like Jennings being admonished by the school nurse, it is a sure sign that someone, somewhere, has lost control of the news agenda. Phil Woolas allowing himself to be cornered by the Gurkhas’ most recognisable advocate was bad enough; but Joanna Lumley succeeded in sounded both intelligent and plain-speaking, whilst the immigration minister was reduced to tongue-tied semi-concessions.

This would have been a major public relations disaster for any other government, but Brown’s is made of sterner stuff: they want to take it all on. To that end, the Daily Telegraph – which Guido Fawkes was accusing a few short weeks ago of being in Downing Street’s pocket – is drip-feeding the world the lurid details of Cabinet ministers’ expense claims. The expenses system is hopeless, and this story could have broke any time in the last 10 years – ministers apply to the system that exists, not the one we’d hope to exist. It has, though, broken on Brown’s watch, and this because Brown has lost the authority to control his own party – who voted against him and with Miss Lumley – let alone the media.

Nick Robinson says the whole mess has brought the reputation of Parliament to an historic low. Perhaps, perhaps not. What is clear is that it has brought the ability of a government to manage the narrative to an historic low – matched perhaps only by the dying days of John Major’s government, when Labour set to grinding an already defeated party into the dust.

The Tories look set to kill Brown with kindness, supporting him in the vote on part-privatisation of the Post Office, trapping him into either abandoning a flagship policy or passing it with opposition ayes. They also know they can’t push things too far – Cameron risked looking like a bullying toff this week at PMQs, and more of that will likely not be so forthcoming. The Tories are not loved like Blair’s New Labour; they can put the boot in only so far.

Still, Labour will likely do the job themselves. As Steve Richards (often good on internal party politics) points out, the party has many more problems than merely its hapless, decompassed leader. Certainly, though, he doesn’t help them pretend otherwise.

I feel sorry for Labour. Well, almost. Actually, no I don’t, not at all – they’ve been screwing over the country for the last 12 years, and it’s time for a change. There is pretty much nothing now that can reinvigorate their electoral prospects – even if the entire Cabinet are canonised, they are and will be about as likely to win the General Election next year as I am to win the X Factor. Even their cheery supporters at the BBC have turned on them: Daily Referendum has this clip of Nick Robinson trying to extract some sense from Alistair Darling. For anyone still vaguely in favour of New Labour, it’s not pretty viewing. The post-Budget polls give the Conservatives an 18 point lead, and even attempts to frame the 50pc tax rate as a temporary measure have failed to assuage anyone opposed to them.

More pertinently – and to prevent this from just turning into yet another anti-Labour rant, though to be fair I find those the best tonic against exam revision – Labour have abandoned the Blairite principles of fiscal conservatism and sound money, and instead replaced it with the false growth promise of deficit-driven fiscal expansion. There is no way, as Guido aptly notes, that Tony Blair would ever have approved a real top tax rate of 63.8pc (that’s the 50pc nonsense + 13.8pc National Insurance contributions), and the Conservatives should make Brown pay for breaking his manifesto promise. Matthew Parris goes further than Guido, arguing for tax- and spending-cuts, and demands that the Conservatives choose quite openly which side of the fiscal divide they stand on:

“Yes,” should be their response, “you’re right: we really are Tories, underneath. No indeed, just as you say, we haven’t changed our spots. We still believe the State should limit what it takes from the individual taxpayer. We still believe that taxing success is destructive; we may or may not accept your 50p tax rate temporarily, but we don’t like it, we don’t call it social justice, and we don’t think it will prove a solid source of substantial revenue.

“We’re relaxed about admitting this. You can’t believe your luck, you say? You want us to step outside and repeat it, to the crowds if necessary? Fine. Here’s the door. There’s the crowd. Come with us and let’s argue this out in public. We’re not ashamed of our philosophy and we think the voters are ready to hear it.”

Quite. Given that we stand at most a year away from the election that, if there is any justice in politics, should see the Labour presence in the House of Commons completely annihilated as a political force, it really is time for the Conservatives to decide which leg to stand on. No distractions about immigration or wars or climate change, it is domestic monetary and fiscal policy that should be the target of the Conservatives’ attack strategy.

In short, Labour has run its course, just like the Conservatives in 1997 (and, if I’m honest, in 1992). Time for control of government to return to the blue benches, and also, if I may say so (and it’s my blog, so I will), time for official opposition to be given to the orangey-yellowy benches of the Liberal Democrats. Canada doesn’t see the need for a Labour party – and we don’t need one either. The last decade has shown us why.

Hattip for the photo: Peter Brookes at the Times