I've started so I'll finish

Well, I'm back again. Back to complete my work from the other night. So much to talk about, yet so little time to talk about it. Everything is just one big rush.

So anyway, I'd started talking the other night about some topics in the news and I got as far as discussing politically incorrect royals and politicians getting ideas above their station. Now time to move on and discuss failing brands, ego possessed cricketers and the most powerful man in the world-elect. Let's get cracking then.

3. KP was nuts
As an avid follower of test cricket, I've been intrigued by the recent rumblings that saw Kevin Pietersen resigning the England cricket captaincy after just three test matches. When I say resigning, I think those who follow the game know that essentially Pietersen tendered his resignation before he was metaphorically given the raised finger by umpire Hugh Morris, the chairman of the English Cricket Board.

Opinion on the matter has been somewhat divided. There are those who say that Pietersen had only publicly voiced what everyone else thought, namely that the England coach Peter Moores was not up to the job. There are others who hold the opinion that Pietersen's Everest sized ego had got the better of him and he had no right to serve up ultimatums to his employers.

For my money, I thought Pietersen shot himself in the foot. I am all for cricket captains having a massive say in what goes on. Cricket captains after all have far more of a tactical responsibility when the game is in progress than they do in other sports, such as football or rugby where the captain is essentially the manager's mouthpiece on the pitch. In cricket, the captain sets the field, makes the bowling changes and if he is in a fortunate enough position, decides when his team declares when they bat. Therefore, it stands to reason that the captain wants a big say in who is coaching the team and who takes to the field.

Where Pietersen went wrong was in his gung-ho approach. By stamping his feet and allowing his differences with Moores to become public and then doing little to deny them, he allowed a situation to escalate. Had Pietersen publicly denied a rift but quietly made it known to the ECB's managers that he had reservations about Moores's coaching methods and his ability to take the team forward, then his bosses would have been duty bound to listen. However, Pietersen overstepped the mark. By making threats and serving up ultimatums while on safari, it was tantamount to signing his own resignation note. Yet, had Pietersen show a touch of emotional intelligence, he would have got what he wanted anyway as I am sure the ECB were considering dispensing with Moores in any event. After all, they sacked him the day before Pietersen resigned.

It was always a risk to appoint Pietersen captain, and I had my doubts about whether it was a smart move at the time of his appointment. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a fantastic batsman and he is the one truly world class player in the England test team. But being the best player doesn't necessarily make you the right person to lead the team. Take Sir Ian Botham for example. The flamboyant, moustachioed all-rounder captained England in 12 test matches and England won none of them. Admittedly 10 of those tests were against the outstanding West Indies team of the early 80s and the other 2 were against Australia, but Botham's own form took a battering when he took charge of the team and it wasn't until he was released from the burden of captaincy that the "Botham's Ashes" performances of 1981 which have entered cricketing folklore came about. More recently, Andrew Flintoff captained England to a 5-0 whitewashing by Australia in the 2006/07 Ashes series, a couple of months before acquainting himself with a Pedalo.

Botham and Flintoff at the time would both have been considered England's best player, but neither were a success as a captain. Like Pietersen, they were both superb (in Flintoff's case, he still is) individual talents but they are also flamboyant, cocky, flash individuals who like being centre of attention. Pietersen, however, craves the limelight and just loves being noticed. He was always likely to ruffle feathers in the dressing room, and that in itself is not a bad thing. Pietersen has an incredible will to win and it has been questionable in recent times whether some of England's other Ashes 2005 heroes have the same desire. But Michael Vaughan showed that you don't need to be flash and fiery to be a captain, what you do need to be is a good man manager and a good tactician. Pietersen had been good in parts in the early stages of his captaincy in both departments, but he did also show signs of weakness.

Andrew Strauss has since been appointed as captain and the general consensus is that he is a "safe pair of hands". I think that description is a bit disrespectful, to be honest as it makes it sound like Strauss is steady yet uninspiring and predictable. I'm not so sure about that. It's worth remembering that Strauss captained England to a test series victory in 2006 against Pakistan when Michael Vaughan was injured before being overlooked for captaining the ill fated tour of Australia the following winter. He is a stalwart of the England team and has also captained Middlesex. He was not considered when Pietersen was appointed only because at the time his place in the team was not guaranteed. Two centuries on the tour of India have ensured that is no longer an issue and Strauss has a quiet determination about him that strikes me that the responsibility of captaincy will bring the best out of him.

People have said that the fallout from Pietersen and Moores's bust-up will have adverse effects on England's chances of retaining The Ashes this summer. I don't think it will be a factor as the series is still six months away yet. England first of all have two series against West Indies to play, one in the Caribbean followed by a series to start the English summer. The maroon caps are light years from being the force they were in the 1980s and they represent the perfect opportunity for England to play themselves back into form ahead of The Ashes and for Strauss to make a creditable start to his reign as England captain.

Besides which, Australia have problems of their own at the moment. Several of their star players of the past 15 years have retired in a short space of time and the new generation of Australian players are taking time to bed in. Recent series defeats to India and at home to South Africa have shown they are not invincible any more and that taking 20 wickets per match is a struggle for them. A return series in South Africa next month will reveal much about what Australia still have to offer, but England certainly should not approach the Australians with trepidation.

As for Pietersen, for the time being I don't see him losing the captaincy affecting his commitment to England. England after all, provides the vehicle for his publicity and he will want to be at the heart of England's efforts to wrestle back The Ashes. Not only will he want to, but his performances definitely will be key to England's chances of winning back the little urn. In the longer term, a lucrative offer to play in the Indian Premier League might be too much for him to turn down, as he would certainly be a major draw card. In times ahead though, in quieter reflective moments at least, I'm sure Pietersen will regret taking such a heavy handed approach in ensuring he got his own way.

4. M&S is simply food
I read with some interest that Marks & Spencer are one of the latest retailers to find themselves struggling in the current economic crisis. The High Street giant posted one of their worst pre-Christmas sale records in history and their profits are down on last year. The offshot of these trends is that M&S are going to lay off 1000 staff and are going to close around 30 stores, of which 25 are M&S's Simply Food convenience stores which are generally found on the forecourts of train stations and petrol stations.

This is a predictable strategy for dealing with financial difficulty as, after all, staff salary costs account for the most significant portion of a company's expenditure. Nonetheless, I was particularly interested in M&S's decision to close 25 Simply Food outlets having read an article that gave an itemisation of where M&S's sales were especially hit. According to a report I read, M&S's December sales for food were down by 1 per cent, while its clothing sales had dipped by 7 per cent.

This kind of confirmed to me something which I had thought for some time, which is that public perception regards M&S as being a store that sells quality food which the consumer is prepared to buy, whereas the public is less convinced by M&S's ability to provide quality clothing. Consumers have for some time found that their tastes in clothing are somewhat different to M&S's rather play-it-safe designs. If people want practical clothing, they are more likely to go to Primark where clothing is available at a discounted price. Primark did, by contrast, have a good December for this very reason. Those that will pay more for own branded fashions are more likely to trust the likes of River Island and Next.

Now, if you take the argument that M&S is first and foremost a food seller, just how much do they splash on square footage in their shops which is taken up by non-food products? Not just clothing, but M&S has also diversified into selling home furnishings and decorations. The thing is, who, hand on heart, genuinely thinks that when they are buying candles, tea cloths or table lamps that they will buy any of those items from M&S? Somewhere like Habitat or maybe Debenham's would be ahead in the queue for starters. Instead of stocking these products that don't sell, M&S could save on their square footage costs or they could stock more food.

Obviously, I'm not saying M&S should ditch all of its other products bar food. I do think it has a long, established history in selling clothes and there is a niche market who has an affinity for the M&S brand. Also, the food market is a saturated one and one disadvantage M&S has in this respect is that unlike Sainsbury's, ASDA or Tesco, it has very few superstores with immediate access to a car park. But I think M&S has a slightly different target market to these giants of the supermarket industry. M&S trades on quality, where people buy food at sometimes premium prices because they suspect they are paying for additional quality. M&S therefore is competing more with Waitrose, who are also not widely known for their superstores.

M&S and its CEO, Sir Stuart Rose have no room for complacency. Having a long established brand that is popular is no guarantee of your longevity. The recent demise of Woolworth's is testament to this, with many of its customers only returning after hearing of its imminent passing, no doubt looking for a good bargain amongst the pick and mix and a free chair for the kitchen from the cafe. M&S's Simply Food stores are relatively small brew in comparison to their bigger stores, but they do sell the core product and their stores surely do not run at such vast overheads. On this basis, it seems odd that M&S have focused its cost cutting on these stores. They must not lose sight that there are other parts of their business that are failing and a radical rethink of what the company's product and positioning strategy may need to be made sooner rather than later.

In other recession news, JCB are also feeling the pinch. This surely comes as no surprise. In the current economic situation, there must be hundreds of building projects that have been started only to be discontinued. There is one such construction next to where I work in Croydon which has been fallow for a good couple of months now after the sound of JCBs could be heard non-stop in late summer. With less construction work taking place and therefore less demand for a JCB, their income is obviously going to decrease.

5. Obama should be wary of Lincoln parallels
So, this Tuesday, Barack Obama officially becomes the forty-fourth leader of the free world and with it the most powerful man in the world. His election was a great achievement and many look forward to the fresh approach that they hope that Obama will deliver. In one sense, Obama can't lose because whatever happens, he surely will be a vast improvement on his predecessor. Safe to say Obama will not be looking for new ways to do harm to his citizens, nor will he be attempting to put food on his family, or indeed will he confirm that most of his country's imports come from abroad. He is also more likely to commit to the environment, as surely he will know that impurities in the air and the water is the same thing as pollution itself.

But while satirists and rednecks may be saddened by George Dubya's departure, surely those of a sane mind will welcome a regime change where a new leader with fresh, considered ideas comes in to try and restore the US's reputation. Unfortunately for Obama, he has a lot of hype to live up to but he takes over at a difficult time. Many questions will be asked of how he handles his early days in charge. Will he close Guantanamo Bay? Will he consider pulling troops out of Iraq? And what of the wider war on terror? And what does he do about the ailing US economy, which is suffering much like its British counterpart? Questions, questions, questions. In some senses, Obama taking over when he does, he could be forgiven for thinking he is inheriting a poisoned chalice.

I think Obama will surprise people, both his supporters and his initial detractors. His supporters might be surprised that he doesn't take such a leftfield approach as they might anticipate. His theories may spring from leftfield but the practicalities of governing may force him to change tack a little. His detractors seem to be people who cast doubt over his experience. I find this line of thought ridiculous. Obama is 47 years old, exactly the same age that Bill Clinton was when he took office, and 4 years older than John F Kennedy was when he became President. OK, Obama does not have a long political career behind him, but I find that a trifle irrelevant. Obama is no intellectual lightweight, he knows politics and social affairs inside out. He is a man of the world. And what he doesn't know about, well, he has a team of well chosen advisors to point him in the right direction on.

It has been noticeable that Obama in the prelude to taking over has been paying homage to Abraham Lincoln by, like Lincoln, taking a slow train from Philadelphia to Washington for the inauguration. Clearly Obama has great respect for one of the US's most renowned Presidents. Nonetheless, there is one parallel that Obama must be careful to avoid. Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theatre, Washington in 1865 by John Wilkes Booth and before Obama was even elected, a plot to assassinate him was uncovered.

It was an achievement of sorts that Barack Obama was elected in a country where prejudicial attitudes still fester among some of the poorer and less educated parts of the country. But a great challenge still lies ahead, as the political map on US election night proved, with a strip of Republican red still dominating the southern states. Obama needs to convince many people in that part of the world. He needs to hold his friends close and enemies even nearer to survive for the whole eight years unscathed. I wish Obama all the best in his journey, he is certainly going to need it.

6. Who shot JR?
A simple answer to this question, the Daily Mail. The JR in question is not the Texan oil baron played by Larry Hagman, but the BBC's highest paid employee. The Mail has long had a dislike of the BBC which I discussed on these pages a few weeks ago. But the Mail seem to still have a few bullets hidden in the desks of their office judging their incessant campaign to remove Jonathan Ross from the schedules for good.

Why can't the Mail just get over themselves? They keep convincing themselves that the majority of people on the BBC want Ross sacked, when the actual truth is that Ross has a huge legion of fans who are actually quite unhappy that they have been deprived the opportunity to watch or listen to their favourite irreverent performer these past three months because a bunch of morons who don't have the first interest in Ross took exception to a misguided broadcast which they only heard about second hand.

Next Friday sees the return of Ross's Friday night chat show and a star studded guest list with Tom Cruise, Stephen Fry and Lee Evans all sharing the green room with Scottish rockers Franz Ferdinand. Hardly points to the Mail's boast that Ross's guest bookers had found it difficult to find star names to come and be grilled by the quiffed one. As I believe they say in wrestling circles, controversy creates cash, or where television is concerned, ratings. The controversy of the Ross affair and the publicity his return will generate will surely result in the best audience figures his chat show has ever had. A night out for a few jars might be replaced by a night in with Wossy and a six pack on Friday 23 January.

This week, the Mail expressed shock and outrage that Jonathan Ross had been given the gig of presenting the BAFTA Awards just two weeks after his return to television. How can they do this, they asked? How have they misjudged the public outrage, they added? How dare they!!! Well, Daily Mail, let me explain very carefully and succinctly why the BBC made this appointment.

Jonathan Ross returns to work this Friday. Therefore that makes him eligible for any offers of work from the BBC thereafter. As much as I'm sure the Daily Mail would rather the BBC had him cleaning the toilets or serving baked beans in the BBC canteen, he is paid to be a television presenter. He is an accomplished and established presenter of awards ceremonies too, having presented the British Comedy Awards since 1991 until Angus Deayton stepped into the breach last year. The BAFTA Awards celebrate film and television and Jonathan Ross is the BBC's flagship film reviewer and presenter and he has interviewed many of the big names in the industry. Therefore, why shouldn't Ross present it? Who would the Mail line up? Dale Winton? Jimmy Tarbuck? Richard Littlejohn? Do me a favour.

Ross has tough times ahead. The BBC have effectively put him on a final warning and have censored his chat show. Why this measure was needed on a pre-recorded show when near the knuckle content could always be edited out anyway, I'm not too sure. Ross really should be returning to work and thinking of remaining true to himself, but thanks to our friends from the Mail and other moral crusaders, he is likely to be a broadcasting Icarus, his metaphoric wings burnt through travelling too near the Sun (the big yellow thing in the sky, not the newspaper).

As if that wasn't enough, he also finds himself returning to Radio 2 where he will receive a seasonal welcome. Frosty to say the least. Radio 2 colleagues will resent the fact that Ross remains when Lesley Douglas the former Radio 2 controller does not. That Ross was in the wrong is not in doubt. But his way of redemption is to pull audiences in. The only way he does that is to unashamedly be himself. He is a master at his craft and like all masters, he is sometimes capable of self-destructing. But the world would be a duller place without such people and TV and radio certainly needs controversial and captivating characters like Ross to remain part of the furniture. He seems like one of the good guys.

So, I hope that Ross comes back and shuts all the doubters up and the audiences tune in to send a message to the Daily Mail. Namely, to go and ram their publication firmly somewhere short of sunlight. Oh, and the irony in all of this. Who has been the biggest winner in the Sachsgate affair? Andrew Sachs of course. Having been in semi-retirement just in a few theatrical productions, Sachs is now a regular in Countdown's Dictionary Corner and later this year he will join the cast of Coronation Street. While I'm sure he could have done without the invasion of privacy that Ross and Brand's broadcast served up, it has nonetheless, been the biggest shot in the arm his career has had in many a year. Sachs's agent's phone, well, "it go crazeeee" (sic) as some Spanish waiter once said. It's a funny old world.