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.

Breaking news in the last few minutes that a 71 year-old grandfather has been filmed being barbarically killed using an ancient method of state killing after a highly criticised show trial in an unstable country. This is, apparently, ‘justice’.

And this from the side of the angels? Oh, how they’ve fallen.

Hazel Blears is the chairman of the Labour Party. The Labour Party have decided, in their wisdom, that cutting the number of hospitals will improve the NHS, since the NHS clearly has too many doctors and nurses. Hazel Blears is, apparently, in agreement. Yet she is protesting against the closure of her local hospital.

How is this anything other than shameless nimbyism? She’s perfectly happy for hospitals to close across the UK, but when it comes to the hospitals in her constituency, they’re all vital. I wonder if, perchance, this has anything to do with the potential to lose her oh-so-precious seat? She should take a leaf from Ruth Kelly’s book, and swap her beloved seat for an altogether safer one, and basically come out and admit that her career is more important that the local people she is supposed to be representing.

Is this the first time we’ve seen a cabinet minister protesting against a decision with which they apparently agree? It’s certainly an odd spectacle. But then, she’s an odd minister. Like many of Blair’s babes (mentioning absolutely no names), more of a huge-flower-on-the-lapel permasmile Blairite automaton than a person.

As soon as the title was announced, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows went on pre-order sale at Amazon.co.uk (Harry Potter and the Dealthy Hallows). And it’s already at Number One in their book chart.

A book, length unknown, content unknown, price unknown, and release date unknown reaches Number One in the chart. Surely this must be a first? Also interesting to see that Amazon are charging £13.99 – oh, how we’ll laugh if JK Rowling outdoes herself and comes out with some oh-so-weighty tome that will cost a good £15.99 at retail… Amazon could lose an awful lot of money!

Currently, there appears to be much debate ongoing (not least in The Guardian and on the BBC) about the rights and wrongs of referring to the victims of the Suffolk murders as ‘prostitutes’. Some argue that headlines should read ‘Five women killed’ rather than ‘Five prostitutes killed’, reasoning that the victims are first and foremost women.

I completely and utterly disagree.

Let us consider for a moment that the victims are not prostitutes, but bank managers. Five bank managers killed in the same area apparently in the same manner by what appears to be the same person. Almost certainly a targeted campaign against bank managers. What headline would you expect?

Why, then, should it be any different for prostitutes? Of course, it shouldn’t. The only argument against using the term is that, to some, it appears judgemental and pejorative. Bollocks. It is merely an accurate description of their job, which (to me at least) confers no judgement.

The alternative being bandied about is ‘sex worker’. This is so non-specific and outrageously euphemistic as to be insulting, suggesting that society is ashamed of these people and what they did for a living. Note, also, that the majority of prostitutes appear to prefer the term ‘prostitute’, and it appears in the name of ‘The English Collective of Prostitutes’, their organisation.

And why on Earth would we refer to them as ‘women’ in headlines? This merely picks out one characteristic, not particularly specific, that unites all of the victims, suggesting that the fact that ‘young women’ were murdered is far worse than murders of ‘young men’. That is insulting.

Now, just to be clear, in the everyday context, these women are not defined by their jobs any more than anyone else. That is not my point. But when the most specific link of all the victims is their occupation, and it seems likely that it is intimately linked with their death, why bumble about avoiding the issue? They may have been beautiful young women with promising young lives, but they are undoubtedly united by the fact that they were prostitutes.

People need to get over their prejudices, and accept that ‘prostitute’ is a non-judgemental statement of specific fact. If they feel that it confers judgement, then perhaps, just perhaps, it is them doing the judging.

It’s me! I am the Time Magazine Person of the Year, joining a list of several US Presidents, Bill and Melida Gates, the Queen, and Gandhi, to name but a few. You might be more surprised, though, to find that I’m sharing this year’s honour… with you. Yes, you.

For seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you.

Awww…

You won’t see the this on the Ten O’Clock news. But perhaps – just perhaps – it hints at the real story of what’s going on in Iraq, and the kinds of things that will always happen when ordinary young men are placed in extraordinary positions, with the power of life or death, in foreign countries. Or perhaps it’s fake.

A unique form of ‘American justice’:

[flashvideo filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/iraq.flv” /]

Is it any wonder the Iraqi people want us to leave?

Two British Airways jets have been grounded, as the investigation into Alexander Litvinenko’s death spreads yet further. 33,000 passengers over 221 flights are being contacted ‘as a precaution’.

But pilots and cabin crew wear badges that measure their dose of radiation, since they are naturally exposed to more due to being high up in the atmosphere for long periods of time. Why didn’t their badges show a greater than usual exposure, and hence detect this problem before now?

The only explanation I can think of is that the radiation is very short-range, and the cabin crew were never close enough to be affected. The radiation on Polonium-210 is very short range. Have we discovered how the murder weapon entered the country?

And guess the top destination where those planes have been been flying? Yep, Moscow. It’s looking like Mr Putin can’t ignore this investigation any longer – if the Polonium is shown to have likely come from Moscow, he’s going to have to co-operate, rather than just issue denials. But hours before this story hit the media, Mr Putin announced he’s now decided to cancel his meeting with Mr Blair.

Co-incidence?