A year ago, I made a prediction. It was my ‘Tip for 2006’:

Patricia Hewitt will be forced to resign as Health Secretary before year’s end… or, if there’s a reshuffle, her sucessor will be forced to resign. One way or another, we will see the resignation of a Health Secretary this year.

Ah. Well. Yes. Not the best prediction in the world. In fact, pants.

My prediction for 2005 is kind of coming of age, though. I predicted that MSN, and particularly MSN Search, would be the ‘one to watch’. Well, in a blaze of advertorial glory, it’s gaining ground. So I wasn’t far wrong, just two years ahead of my time. Okay, I’m trying to talk myself out of a hole, alright?

So what’s my prediction for 2007? Well, there’s the easy ones, like Blair’s resignation and the serious back-scaling of troop numbers in Iraq. But they’re easy, and I don’t do easy. So here we go: I reckon that the outcome of Yates of the Yard’s investigation of the Party Loans scandal will be a bigger political story in the long-run of the year than Brown’s leadership succession. I reckon the charges are going to be more stinging than anyone imagines, the Labour Party will be pretty damaged, and the transition will hence be a lot more orderly than is currently expected – but there will be a bumpier ride in the long run.

So there you go. Not quite as specific or objective as other years, but maybe this time next year I’ll be able to report at least a modicum of success… Or not.

Anyone who says that the French have no sense of humour is wrong. According to the BBC, a protest has been held in Nantes against, erm, the year 2007.

The group, parodying the French’s penchant for protest staged one against the New Year, called on the UN to “stop time’s mad race” and declare a moratorium on the future.

And the best bit? At midnight, when the protest failed, they started chanting “No to 2008”, and promised to be back next year, bigger and better on the Champs-Elysees.

And people say true irony is uniquely English.

John Prescott appeared on the Today programme today (well, yesterday actually, since we’ve passed midnight). It’s always a treat, and as Ed points out, this is perhaps the first time he’s managed to attack the programme before the first question is asked.

He even gets so annoyed that he bursts out with “For God’s sake” half way through… Isn’t it just a blessing to have such a diplomatic, rational person leading the country while the boss is away? And isn’t it right that he’s rewarded so handsomely for his efforts? After all, he’s such a professional.

As ever, click the play button to, err, play the audio.

Allow me to start by saying that I truly believe that Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest popular science writers around today (and, of course, one of the world’s leading thinkers and scientists). But he’s not so good as a writer on religion. And I’m saying this as someone sympathetic to his cause.

The points in his book are not bad per sé, it’s just that the book reads like 416 pages of obsessive rant rather than considered explanation. I don’t like being preached to, and (somewhat ironically) that’s how this book feels. He doesn’t really manage to say an awful lot more in 416 pages than he managed in a single article for Prospect.

That said, the book does provide some food for thought. But, when all is said and done, Dawkins claims his purpose for this book was to convince religious people that God didn’t exist. I don’t believe this book will achieve that aim. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s worth a read.