Bugger Boris

BORIS JOHNSON will become the 76th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom tomorrow after he easily beat Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt in the Conservative Party leadership election.

Mr Johnson took 92,153 votes (66.1%) from party members to finish well clear of Mr Hunt who had 46,656 ballots (33.5%) cast for him. There were 509 papers rejected.

But, while this was a clear victory for the former Mayor of London among the Conservatives' rank and file, it also means he was elected into position by just 0.14% of the entire population.

During his campaign, Mr Johnson was largely kept out of trouble by his staffers, and yet he still managed to court controversy by refusing to rule out proroguing Parliament until after the Brexit deadline of 31 October - even if it meant the UK the European Union without a deal.

It was little more than three years ago that Mr Johnson led a Leave campaign which promoted sovereignty and urged Britain to "take back control" - but, now, parliamentary democracy does not seem all that important to him really.

Nevertheless, that inconsistency should have come as no surprise to anyone who has followed Mr Johnson's career closely enough.

Once upon a time, American comedian Groucho Marx joked: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others!"

Frankly, it is a quote which is made for Mr Johnson.

After all, it is now little remembered that - during his time as Mayor of London between 2008 and 2016 - the new Prime Minister was never slow to praise the relationship between the UK capital city and the EU.

Now, of course, it is true that all people, even politicians(!), are entitled to a change in heart - and this is an admittedly cynical view of the situation.

But it seems far more likely in this instance that the wily Mr Johnson recognised the significant political capital which could be gained by opposing his former fellow Old Etonion and then-Prime Minister David Cameron in the EU referendum campaign.

Mr Johnson has never made much of a secret of his ambition to lead the country - and, in 2016, the gamble of his life appeared to have paid off handsomely when a humiliated Mr Cameron resigned in the immediate wake of the referendum.

However, in a month of political mayhem, Mr Johnson's leadership bid failed even to launch as his ally and expected running mate Michael Gove astonishingly announced his own candidacy.

Eventually, Theresa May became PM in unconvincing style - and, less than a year after taking office, she lost her overall majority in the snap General Election which she called in 2017.

For two more years, Mrs May led Britain in ever-decreasing circles, trying repeatedly to force through a compromise deal which ended up being opposed on all sides.

Perhaps things might have been different if Mr Johnson had won the leadership election three years ago. Perhaps Mr Johnson would have called a General Election, won an increased majority, and the first stage of Brexit would have already been completed.

That remains uncertain - especially as the 2017 election coincided with a popularity surge for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, never seen before or since.

If anything, this leadership campaign against Mr Hunt has emphasised some of the weaknesses of Mr Johnson - with his serial avoidance of the issues at hand and his tiresome jokes which appear to appeal only to the slack-jawed and simple-minded.

He was at it again in his victory speech this morning when he declared: "Dude! We are going to energise the country" - but gave no solutions to the main issue of the day or indeed any of the other problems currently facing Britain.

And then - deep sigh - there are the gaffes, of which threatening to prorogue Parliament is only just the latest.

In the past, Mr Johnson has referred to black people in Africa as "piccaninnies" with "watermelon smiles" and gay men as "bumboys".

Meanwhile, in November 2017 in the role of Foreign Secretary, he made a disastrous intervention in the case of a British mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who had been detained by the Iranian authorities.

Mr Johnson told a Select Committee that he believed she had been “simply teaching people journalism” - but these remarks put her at risk since a central part of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe's defence was that she was there on a holiday visiting family.

Four days after Mr Johnson's comments, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was returned to court in Iran where the then-Foreign Secretary's statement was cited as evidence against her

Rather than gaffes then, these incidents are - at best - misguided or bad errors of judgement. At worst, they are the remarks of a mendacious and discriminatory man who is simply not fit to be Prime Minister.

Regardless of that, Mr Johnson already faces an arithmetical headache with the Parliament which Mrs May has bequeathed him - especially if he attempts to lead Britain towards a No Deal scenario.

Anne Milton - MP for Guildford - resigned from her from her ministerial post just minutes before today's result was announced.

Chancellor Philip Hammond and Justice Secretary David Gauke will surely follow, based on what they have previously said - while former leadership candidate Rory Stewart has vowed to lead the charge against a No Deal Brexit from the backbenchers.

The arithmetic could even get worse for Mr Johnson if - as expected - the Conservatives lose their seat in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, held on 1 August.

It is difficult to know what sort of boost, if any, there will be to the Tory campaign following the selection of Mr Johnson.

But it is certainly the case that Britain is now again running out of time, something which was warned against by Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, on 11 April - the date on which the latest extension was granted.

Since then, there have been 104 days - while there are now just exactly 100 days until the Brexit deadline on Hallowe'en.

So far, with over half of the time since the original Brexit date having elapsed, Britain has achieved precisely nothing.

Worse still, Britain now has a loose cannon of a Prime Minister whose reference from his ex-Daily Telegraph boss Max Hastings declared him to be "unfit for national office".

And yet, tomorrow, Mr Johnson will be settling into Number 10 Downing Street where the difficult work will begin.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERSHIP CONTEST 2019

	1st (%) 13 June	2nd (%) 18 June	3rd (%) 19 June	4th (%) 20 June	5th (%) 20 June	Members
Boris JOHNSON	114 (36.4)	126 (40.3)	143 (45.7)	157 (50.2)	160 (51.1)	92,153 (66.1)
Jeremy HUNT	43 (13.7)	46 (14.7)	54 (17.3)	59 (18.8)	77 (24.6)	46,656 (33.5)
Michael GOVE	37 (11.8)	41 (13.1)	51 (16.3)	61 (19.5)	75 (24.0)
Sajid JAVID	23 (7.3)	33 (10.5)	38 (12.1)	34 (10.9)
Rory STEWART	19 (6.1)	37 (11.8)	27 (8.6)
Dominic RAAB	27 (8.6)	30 (9.6)
Matt HANCOCK	20 (6.4)	Withdrew
Andrea LEADSOM	11 (3.5)
Mark HARPER	10 (3.2)
Esther MCVEY	9 (2.9)
Spoilt ballots	0	0	0	2	1	509 (0.4)
Turnout	313	313	313	313	313	139,318 (87.4)

Rt Hon BORIS JOHNSON MP Profile
Full name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (born 19 June 1964)
Birth place New York City, United States
Education Eton College 
Alma mater Balliol College, Oxford
Constituency Uxbridge and South Ruislip (since 2015, maj. 5,034); previously Henley (2001-2008)
Public office
▪️2008-2016 Mayor of London
▪️2016-2018 Foreign Secretary

Grubby Allardyce got what he deserved

GREEDY Sam Allardyce made history this week by resigning as England manager after just 67 days and one match.

Unsurprisingly, that makes it the shortest ever reign of any Three Lions head coach.

Allardyce, of course, was left with little choice, and he jumped before he was set to be pushed out by the Football Association following damaging revelations released as part of a wider series of investigations into football corruption by the Daily Telegraph.

In an undercover interview, Allardyce was caught on camera giving advice to reporters posing as Far East businessmen on how to “get round rules” about third-party ownership of players.

He added that it was “not a problem” to bypass the rules introduced by the FA in 2008, and told the reporters he knew of certain agents “doing it all the time".

But, perhaps most critically of all, Allardyce was seen to be chasing money.

On the tape, filmed at some time between his appointment and his first match, the 61-year-old clearly offers to fly out to Asia four times a year to address investors in a firm that wanted to buy footballers.

For this, he appears to agree a fee of £400,000 a year - despite the fact that he had already signed a contract worth £3m-a-year with the FA. It was hardly as if he needed the extra cash.

The Telegraph released its story late on Monday night with the FA immediately requesting a full transcript of the secret recordings. By the end of Tuesday night, Allardyce had left his post by "mutual agreement".

Frankly, anything short of that outcome would have left the FA in an extremely hypocritical position.

After all, it was the FA - maybe more than any other body in world football - which had called on FIFA to ban the third-party ownership of players, something which the world governing body eventually did last year.

Unabashed, Allardyce has since defended himself, claiming "entrapment has won" - and, incredibly, it is a view which appears to have garnered some sympathy for him in some quarters.

True, Allardyce did not break any laws - and the undercover means used by the Telegraph to obtain their information will always cause some people discomfort.

But it is surely better to have an active investigative media exposing corruption - rather than one which placidly acquiesces.

Moreover, it is hardly as if investigating corruption in football is a new topic for this particular newspaper, as a spokesman for the Telegraph pointed out.

"We began looking into corruption in English football last year after receiving information about specific managers, officials and agents - before Allardyce was appointed England manager."

The spokesman added: "We have an obligation to investigate important stories that are clearly within the public interest and adhere to our industry codes of practice in doing so."

Remember also that, while there is no suggestion that Allardyce acted against any of the laws of the land, he did totally undermine his employer in greedy act of gross stupidity.

After all, undercover reporters posing as shadowy businessmen is hardly a new watershed for the world of journalism.

Indeed, on that basis, this whole episode - going right back to when England were dumped out of Euro 2016 and subsequently appointed Allardyce - has been pretty baffling.

Having expressed my fears for the future of English football just over two months ago on the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, Allardyce's ego may have - by chance - pointed the team in the right direction.

First, though, Gareth Southgate has been made caretaker for at least four games to the end of the calendar year, evidence seemingly of the existence of the Peter principle.

The Peter principle is a concept which concludes that an employee who stays long enough at an organisation will eventually be promoted to a station above their ideas or competence.

However, in fairness to the FA on this occasion, there were very few valid alternative options for the short-term. Instead, it is the next decision which is the vital one for the FA.

With Southgate seemingly willing to remain in place for as long as the process takes, England could do a lot worse than call on Arsene Wenger at the end of his Arsenal contract next summer.

Coincidentally, Wenger today celebrates exactly 20 years in charge of the Gunners - but, to the disgruntlement of some of their fans, he seems to have fallen into a comfort zone there.

Nevertheless, Wenger's principled approach is exactly what England need after this damaging period - and it surely should not matter that he is a foreigner given his vast knowledge of the English game.

A highly technical coach, he would possibly even eliminate the fear felt by players by giving them genuine confidence on the ball.

Consequently, England might therefore even stand a chance of genuinely challenging again at major tournament finals.

Of course, the problems in football are far more widespread than just the England job. As the Telegraph continues slowly to leak its stories, the view that greed is endemic at the top-level of the game is simply unavoidably reinforced.

And yet, in a world where Premier League television rights were sold for a record £5.14bn, it seems inevitable that good money and bad will continue to slosh around the game, regardless of how many more newspaper articles there are for now.

No doubt then this topic will be revisited by the media in the years to come, which is all the more reason for the FA to complete due diligence ahead of any of its future appointments.

Curiously, Allardyce will surely be the only permanent England manager ever to hold a 100% record at the end of his tenure.

But, having failed even once to lead the Three Lions out at Wembley and destroyed for himself what was supposedly his dream job, it will always be a shameful record.

It was a shameful appointment in the first place.

PERMANENT ENGLAND MANAGERS

	Year	P	W	D	L	Win %
Walter WINTERBOTTOM	(1946-1962)	139	78	33	28	56.1%
Alf RAMSEY	(1963-1974)	113	69	27	17	61.1%
Don REVIE	(1974-1977)	29	14	8	7	48.3%
Ron GREENWOOD	(1977-1982)	55	33	12	10	60.0%
Bobby ROBSON	(1982-1990)	95	47	30	18	49.5%
Graham TAYLOR	(1990-1993)	38	18	13	7	47.4%
Terry VENABLES	(1994-1996)	23	11	11	1	47.8%
Glenn HODDLE	(1996-1999)	28	17	6	5	60.7%
Kevin KEEGAN	(1999-2000)	18	7	7	4	38.9%
Sven-Göran ERIKSSON	(2001-2006)	67	40	17	10	59.7%
Steve McCLAREN	(2006-2007)	18	9	4	5	50.0%
Fabio CAPELLO	(2008-2012)	42	28	8	6	66.7%
Roy HODGSON	(2012-2016)	56	33	15	8	58.9%
Sam ALLARDYCE	(2016)	1	1	0	0	100.0%

Rio 2016 Paralympics: On a level... aren't they?

SUPERCHARGED British athletes are set to take to the stage from tonight as the 15th edition of the Summer Paralympic Games begins in Rio de Janeiro.

The spotlight for the next 11 days will fix itself firmly on the likes of Jonnie Peacock, David Weir, Ellie Simmonds and flagbearer Lee Pearson as Paralympics GB look to emulate the overseas success of their Team GB Olympic counterparts.

Officially, UK Sport - the nation's high performance funding agency - has set Paralympics GB a target of 121 medals, one more than in London four years ago.

And, while that might sound extremely ambitious, Great Britain - as the spiritual home of the competition - has a fine Paralympics tradition.

In fact, rather impressively, the British team has always finished in the top five of the Paralympics medal table, and furthermore has finished in the top three in 12 of the 14 editions held so far.

In all-but-one of the last nine Games, Britain has won more than 100 medals - and the one occasion on which the ton was missed, at Athens 2004, there were still 94 medals collected.

Yet, despite these fine achievements, there lingers a justified feeling among some Paralympians that they are second-class athletes - and this really should not be the case at all.

After all, it goes against the whole point of the Paralympics in which the para- part simply refers to the Ancient Greek suffix meaning beside or alongside.

Far from the misconception that the word derives from paralysis or even paraplegic, the Paralympics are therefore meant to be considered parallel to the Olympics.

Unfortunately, the problem with the build-up to Rio 2016 is that this has clearly not been the case.
 
In contast to London, the Paralympics in Rio do not appear to have captured the imagination of the public. 

Reported ticket sales have been desperately slow with only 12% of an original target of 3.3 million tickets sold by mid-August.

Tanni Grey-Thompson, an 11-time Paralympic champion, wrote in the Telegraph: "The prospect of competing in front of near empty stadiums is demoralising."

But Baroness Grey-Thompson also pointed out a much bigger issue has been the way that Paralympics funding has been cut following an over-spend on the Olympics by the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee.

"Never before in the 56-year history of the Paralympic Games have we faced circumstances like this," said International Paralympic Committee president Sir Philip Craven.

The cuts mainly relate to transport services for athletes and their teams, and the closure of a number of venue media centres. Some public parties and gatherings related to the Games have also been cancelled.

At least, thankfully, all 165 competing countries will be able to attend the Games - something which did not look entirely likely at the end of July when the deadline for the issuing of travel grants had been missed by the organisers.

But, of course, it is not just in the organisation of the Paralympic Games that disabled athletes have faced discrimination. Arguably, it is still institutionally prevalent in many sectors.

Just this week, British double Paralympic champion Hannah Cockroft accused sportswear giants Nike and Adidas of not sponsoring her simply because she does not wear shoes during her wheelchair races.

"I wear a shirt, I wear trousers, I wear shoes on the podium when I'm collecting a gold medal. But apparently because that's not when I'm competing, that’s not enough.

"I've been told this by Nike, Adidas, all the big brands. I told them it was discrimination. It is discrimination."

Meanwhile, back in Britain, brutal cuts to the motability allowance by the Conservative government have directly affected Paralympic athletes, as well as thousands of other people.

Determination is undoubtedly one of the greatest strengths of an Olympic or Paralympic athlete, however.

And, if anything, the setbacks and difficulties simply add further fuel to the competitive fires burning deep inside.

Certainly, it is going to make for another great 11 days of sporting drama on television with coverage in the United Kingdom provided, for the second Games in a row, by Channel 4.

Deservedly remaining the televisual home of disability sport, the broadcaster did an excellent job in London 2012 of explaining the rules of the different events and the classifications of the athletes.

The classifications system is sometimes not too easy for the casual viewer to understand and, indeed, it has even been claimed by certain athletes that it can be manipulated by others to boost their medal chances.

IPC head Mr Craven defended the system and said it was "permanently being reviewed".

Meanwhile, British Paralympic Association boss Tim Hollingsworth said: "We are here to win medals, but within both the letter and the spirit of the Paralympics."

Clearly then, the build-up to these Games has not been straightforward in the least - and there are also much wider arguments still to be had over the treatment of disabled people in society generally.

For now, though, it is time to enjoy a bit of sport - so sit back and prepare to be amazed once again by the events in Rio.

It is time for the curtain to be raised. It is time for the Paralympic Games.
 

TEAM GB 

Paralympics team

Archery	Michael Hall, John Stubbs, Nathan McQueen, Jodie Grinham, David Phillips, Tania Nadarajah, John Walker, John Cavanagh, Jo Frith, Vicky Jenkins, Jessica Stretton
Athletics	Men - track Graeme Ballard, Paul Blake, Dan Bramall, Mickey Bushell, Richard Chiassaro, Toby Gold, David Henson, Jordan Howe, Moatez Jomni, Rhys Jones, Simon Lawson, Stephen Morris, Stephen Osborne, Jonnie Peacock, Derek Rae, Ben Rowlings, Andrew Small, Isaac Towers, David Weir, Richard Whitehead Women - track Kare Adenegan, Olivia Breen, Libby Clegg [guide: Chris Clarke], Hannah Cockroft, Kadeena Cox, Sophie Hahn, Georgina Hermitage, Jade Jones, Sophie Kamlish, Samantha Kinghorn, Maria Lyle, Polly Maton, Mel Nicholls, Julie Rogers, Laura Sugar, Carly Tait Men - field Jonathan Broom-Edwards, Aled Davies, Kyron Duke, Dan Greaves, Stephen Miller, Sam Ruddock, Kieran Tscherniawsky Women - field Hollie Arnold, Olivia Breen, Joanna Butterfield, Vanessa Daobry, Sabrina Fortune, Kylie Grimes, Abbie Hunnisett, Beverley Jones, Polly Maton, Holly Neill, Gemma Prescott, Stefanie Reid
Boccia [Competition partner]	David Smith [Sarah Nolan], Nigel Murray, Joshua Rowe, Claire Taggart, Jamie McCowan [Linda McCowan], Scott McCowan [Gary McCowan], Patrick Wilson [Kim Smith], Evie Edwards, Stephen McGuire, Kieran Steer
Cycling - Road [Pilot]	Stephen Bate [Adam Duggleby], Neil Fachie [Peter Mitchell], James Ball [Craig MacLean], Sophie Thornhill [Helen Scott], Lora Turnham [Corrine Hall], Kadeena Cox, Crystal Lane, Karen Darke, Hannah Dines, David Stone, Megan Giglia, Sarah Storey
Cycling - Track [Pilot]	Stephen Bate [Adam Duggleby], Neil Fachie [Peter Mitchell], James Ball [Craig MacLean], Sophie Thornhill [Helen Scott], Lora Turnham [Corrine Hall], Jon-Allan Butterworth, Louis Rolfe, Jody Cundy, Kadeena Cox, Crystal Lane, Megan Giglia, Sarah Storey
Equestrian [Horse]	Natasha Baker [Cabral], Anne Dunham [Lucas Normark], Sophie Christiansen [Athene Lindebjerg], Lee Pearson [Zion], Sophie Wells [Valerius]
Football Seven-a-side	POOL B Brazil, Ukraine, Ireland Michael Barker, James Blackwell, Matt Crossen, Martin Hickman, Sean Highdale, Liam Irons, Ryan Kay, David Leavy, Giles Moore, Ollie Nugent, Jonathan Paterson, David Porcher, Emyle Rudder, Jack Rutter
Judo	Jonathan Drane, Sam Ingram, Chris Skelley, Jack Hodgson, Natalie Greenhough
Paracanoeing	Ian Marsden, Nick Beighton, Robert Oliver, Jeanette Chippington, Emma Wiggs, Anne Dickins
Paratriathlon [Guide]	Phil Hogg, Joe Townsend, Andy Lewis, Ryan Taylor, David Hill, George Peasgood, Claire Cunningham, Faye McClelland, Lauren Steadman, Alison Patrick [Hazel Smith], Melissa Reid [Nicole Walters]
Powerlifting	Zoe Newson, Natalie Blake, Ali Jawad, Micky Yule
Rowing	Tom Aggar, Rachel Morris, Laurence Whiteley-Lauren Rowles, Grace Clough-Daniel Brown-Pam Relph-James Fox-Oliver James (cox)
Sailing	Helena Lucas, Niki Birrell-Alex Rickham, John Robertson-Stephen Thomas-Hannah Stodel
Shooting	Stewart Nangle, Owen Burke, Issy Bailey, Matt Skelhon, James Bevis, Ryan Cockbill, Richard Davies, Tim Jeffery, Karen Butler, Ben Jesson, Lorraine Lambert
Swimming	Men Jonathan Booth, Stephen Clegg, Josef Craig, James Crisp, Ryan Crouch, Jonathan Fox, Thomas Hamer, Ollie Hynd, Michael Jones, Sascha Kindred, Aaron Moores, Andrew Mullen, Scott Quin, Lewis White, Matthew Wylie Women Jessica-Jane Applegate, Claire Cashmore, Bethany Firth, Charlotte Henshaw, Abby Kane, Harriet Lee, Amy Marren, Stephanie Millward, Rebecca Redfern, Ellie Robinson, Susie Rodgers, Hannah Russell, Ellie Simmonds, Stephanie Slater, Alice Tai
Table tennis	Paul Davies, Rob Davies, Jack Hunter-Spivey, Paul Karabardak, David Wetherill, Will Bayley, Aaron McKibbin, Ross Wilson, Ashley Facey-Thompson, Kim Daybell; Jane Campbell, Sara Head, Susan Gilroy
Wheelchair basketball	Men - GROUP Brazil, Iran, United States, Algeria, Germany Harry Brown, Simon Brown, Terry Bywater, Gaz Choudhry, Abdi Jama, Lee Manning, Kyle Marsh, Simon Munn, Ade Orogbemi, Phil Pratt, Ian Sagar, Greg Warburton Women - GROUP Brazil, Germany, Canada, Argentina Jordanna Bartlett, Sophie Carrigill, Amy Conroy, Leah Evans, Helen Freeman, Clare Griffiths, Joy Haizelden, Judith Hamer, Robyn Love, Charlotte Moore, Katie Morrow, Laurie Williams
Wheelchair fencing	Piers Gilliver, Dimitri Coutya, Gemma Collis
Wheelchair rugby	POOL B Canada, Australia, Brazil Alan Ash, Coral Batey, Ayaz Bhuta, Jonathan Coggan, Ryan Cowling, Bulbul Hussain, Mike Kerr, Jim Roberts, Chris Ryan, Mandip Sehmi, Jamie Stead, Gavin Walker
Wheelchair tennis	Alex Hewitt, Marc McCarroll, David Phillipson, Gordon Reid; Louise Hunt, Lucy Shuker, Jordanne Whiley; Jamie Burdekin, Antony Cotterill, Andy Lapthorne; Alfie Hewitt-Gordon Reid, Marc McCarroll-David Phillipson; Lucy Shuker-Jordanne Whiley; Jamie Burdekin-Andy Lapthorne

The Brexit month of political May-hem

THERESA MAY has officially taken over as the 75th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on another extraordinary day of British politics in Westminster.

Mrs May entered Downing Street shortly after her predecessor David Cameron made his last appearance at the despatch box at Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.

And the handover is quite appropriate, for this whole tumult was set in motion by Mr Cameron as long ago as January 2013.

It was back then that he vowed to hold a referendum on British membership of the European Union if the Conservatives got a majority in the General Election.

At the time, it was a political gamble aimed at keeping his backbenchers on side while stopping the drift of Tory voters towards UKIP.

But, when he made the announcement, a Conservative majority government actually did not look too likely.

Then, May 2015 happened.

Labour had collapsed to the Scottish Nationalists north of the border and the Liberal Democrats were utterly routed across the country generally, but particularly against the Conservatives in the south west.

Somehow, Mr Cameron had eked out a majority of 12 and so had to deliver on a promise which he did not think he would ever have to keep.

Unconvincing negotiations with fellow EU leaders followed - and, having played hardball and gained nothing but the most measly of compromises, Mr Cameron then awkwardly had to campaign to stay in.

Almost immediately, he unsurprisingly ran into trouble.

For, if it was not bad enough having the then-UKIP leader Nigel Farage leading the Leave campaign, the loss of support from his old friend Boris Johnson was perhaps an early blow from which the Remainers never recovered.

Mr Johnson, of course, had acted purely in self-interest, as proven by the overtures he had previously made towards the EU when he was London mayor.

But his overwhelming desire for job of Prime Minister outweighed everything else, and his ultimate personal failure - to which I will come - was stunning and oddly satisfying, given his hypocrisy.

Mr Johnson nevertheless played an important part for the Leave team, although both campaigns were surely among the most shoddily ever run by mainstream British politicians.

The Remain side - in a move labelled Project Fear by its opponents - seemed only to warn of the dire consequences of leaving the EU. None of its benefits was mentioned.

Meanwhile, the Leavers provided hardly any vision at all of what a post-Brexit Britain would look like - as would become apparent in the days ahead.

Indeed, much of the media coverage focused on what appeared to be a battle for the Conservative leadership between the incumbents Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne on one side and Mr Johnson and Michael Gove on the other.

Ultimately, as predicted, most people were left thorough confused or just totally disenchanted with the debate, and so understandably went with their gut feeling on 23 June.

That gut feeling was to leave the EU.

The margin of victory for the Leavers - by 52% to 48% or approximately 1.3m votes - was not exactly huge but the fact that it happened at all made it a truly momentous event in the history of Britain.

Mr Cameron, swayed by weakness to promise a vote in the first place, had suddenly never been weaker.

So, unsurprisingly on the morning of 24 June, he felt he had no other option but to resign as a failure, offering to stay on until October in a caretaker capacity.

And it was at this point that the real power games began.

Slowly but surely, the candidates for the Conservative leadership lined themselves up with the contest expected to be between Mrs May, a Remain supporter, and Mr Johnson.

Naturally, Mr Johnson had backed on receiving the support of his Leave colleague Mr Gove.

But on 30 June, just three hours before the nominations closed, Mr Gove announced his own candidacy having come to the conclusion that Mr Johnson could not "provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead”.

The Telegraph described the move by Mr Gove as "the most spectacular political assassination in a generation" - and it was indeed a deliciously premature end to the Johnson campaign before the contest had even properly begun.

Historically, a streak of ruthlessness seems to have been admired by the Conservatives.

Witness the ascent and the downfall of Margaret Thatcher or, more recently, the removal of Iain Duncan-Smith as leader even before he could fight a General Election.

However, Mr Gove had even been too brutal for a Tory - and, after Dr Liam Fox had been eliminated and outsider Stephen Crabb had withdrawn following the first ballot on 5 July, he was soundly beaten in the second vote on 7 July.

Mrs May unsurprisingly finished top, with the backing of 199 MPs - but second place went to a largely previously unheralded Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom.

Mrs Leadsom picked up 84 votes, against Mr Gove's 46 - and so ensured that, by September, Britain would have its second female Prime Minister.

Except it has all happened rather more quicker than that. Mrs Leadsom, like Icarus before her, has already burned her wings having flown too close to the sun in her rapid ascent.

Rather than The Sun, though, it was instead a problem with the Times - with whom she had given an interview (£) which was published on 9 July.

In the interview, Mrs Leadsom made the highly controversial statement that she would be better placed to lead the country because she has children, whereas Mrs May does not.

Under pressure, she hurriedly denied the claim and ordered the newspaper to publish the full transcript. But the transcript duly followed and did not contradict anything which had been printed.

Subsequently, Mrs Leadsom demanded the Times release the audio of the interview - if anything, though, this further weakened her case, given the emphasis which she placed on her point.

And so, after a weekend of scrutiny - or abuse, according to Mrs Leadsom - the MP for South Northamptonshire officially ended her campaign on Monday.

Mrs May was in the clear.

Of course, the new PM does not exactly take over from a position of strength.

It became evident within hours that some of the promises which the Leave campaigners had made in the run-up to the vote were - and there is no other way of putting this - a pack of lies.

Within hours of winning the referendum on 24 June, Mr Farage - who, in the meantime, has stepped down from his position as UKIP leader for the umpteenth time - denied £350m per week would now be spent on the National Health Service.

Then, the next day, Conservative MEP and Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan suggested that there would not be a "radical decline" in immigration - all far removed from Mr Farage's poster.

No wonder then that Mrs May has entrusted two of the other three Great Offices of State in her new government to fellow Remain supporters.

Key ally Philip Hammond is the new Chancellor, in place of the sacked Mr Osborne, while Amber Rudd fills Mrs May's former job of Home Secretary.

But Mr Johnson - yes, him again - does not get away with leaving his post-Brexit mess entirely to others.

Ludicrously, he is the new Foreign Secretary, a role in which his fine-tuned diplomatic skills should come to the fore.

Finally, it is not all bad news in the May cabinet for Leave supporters. The appointment of strong Leave campaigner David Davis as Secretary of State for Exiting the EU confirms there is no going back on this historic decision.

Having reached enough online signatories, the petition for a second EU referendum will be debated in Parliament after the recess on 5 September.

Under Mrs May, though, there will not be one - and nor should there be. The decision has been made, for better or worse - and only a true masochist would want a repeat of those two campaigns again.

Instead, the new PM will see her task as one of somehow steering Britain through some of the rockiest waters in its post-war existence.

At least, though, she will consider that she is able to do so without any significant effective opposition in the Commons.

For, as the Conservatives slowly untangle themselves, Labour continues to engage in a civil war so fierce that it almost feels inevitable the party will split.

But all that is for another day and a different blog altogether.
 
CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP ELECTION

	Westminster seat	EU stance	First  ballot	Second  ballot	Members'  ballot
Theresa MAY	(Maidenhead)	Remain	165	199	unopposed
Andrea LEADSOM	(South Northamptionshire)	Leave	66	84	withdrew
Michael GOVE	(Surrey Heath)	Leave	48	46	-
Stephen CRABB	(Preseli Pembrokeshire)	Remain	34	withdrew	-
Dr Liam FOX	(North Somerset)	Leave	16	-	-

THERESA MAY'S CABINET

	Westminster seat	EU stance	Position
Theresa MAY	(Maidenhead)	Remain	Prime Minister
Philip HAMMOND	(Runnymede & Weybridge)	Remain	Chancellor of Exchequer
Boris JOHNSON	(Uxbridge & South Ruislip)	Leave	Foreign Secretary
Amber RUDD	(Hastings & Rye)	Remain	Home Secretary
Michael FALLON	(Sevenoaks)	Remain	Defence Secretary
David DAVIS	(Haltemprice & Howden)	Leave	Brexit Secretary
Dr Liam FOX	(North Somerset)	Leave	International Trade

Election 2015: Tangled up in news

STILL not decided who you are going to vote for when the polls open? Don't bother listening to the national press - which seems altogether pretty confused.

In fairness to the newspapers, this is a General Election in which the result and the aftermath are going to be much more fascinating than a largely uneventful campaign.

There has been no Gillian Duffy moment, no John Prescott punches and certainly no incidents of party leaders falling into the sea.

Green leader Natalie Bennett has had an unfortunate frog in the throat in an "excruciating" interview - while UKIP has had inevitable problems with a candidate or two.

The three main Westminster parties, however, have run sickeningly dull, stage-managed campaigns in which journalists have been restricted in how many questions they could ask - and even in their access.

Of course, there were always going to be the broadcasters' set piece events: first, David Cameron and Ed Miliband were quizzed by Jeremy Paxman before being questioned by the audience on Sky and Channel 4 in the Battle for Number 10.

A couple of weeks later, there was a seven-way leaders' debate on ITV - and then, two weeks after that, an opposition leaders' debate followed on BBC.

Finally, last week, the usual Question Time panel format was replaced by questions from the audience to Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg separately.

Unfortunately, none of it has been particularly enterprising or even stopped me - a self-confessed political geek - from watching football during the Battle for Number 10, going to a football pub quiz during the leaders' debate and a gig during the opposition leaders' debate.

Of course, I did the best I could to catch-up on such events by watching the news headlines and then full re-runs where time allowed.

But at no stage did it feel, at the time, as if I had missed out on anything particularly major - and the complete stalemate in the polls would suggest this to be true.

As such, perhaps it is no surprise to have seen national newspapers over the last few weeks ramp up the rhetoric in an attempt to get something - anything - extraordinary to happen.

Instead, all they seem to have achieved is a bunch of, often contradictory, headlines which make them look rather silly indeed.

For instance, after the seven-way leaders' debate, the headline on the front page of the Guardian was "Labour buoyed as Miliband edges Cameron in snap poll".

By contrast, the Telegraph went with "Miliband flops as outsiders shine" and the Sun produced a dreadful double-entendre next to a photograph of Mr Miliband.

In fact, an average of the four polls held after the debate made it difficult to tell who had 'won' - with Mr Cameron on 22%, Mr Miliband on 21.5%, UKIP leader Nigel Farage on 21% and Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon on 20%.

Ever since, of course, Ms Sturgeon's reputation has grown and she has emerged as one of the principle figures of the campaign - even though she is not standing for Parliament herself.

The Scottish Sun has even backed her party in a complete contradiction to its own national edition which has backed the Conservatives to "stop the SNP from running the country" under a minority Labour administration.

The Daily Mail has also taken to a demonisation of Ms Sturgeon - even referring to her as the "most dangerous woman in Britain". Funnily enough, that again did not quite make it into its Scottish edition.

It also appeared rather confused again yesterday when top half of its front page ranted against a potential Labour government and the bottom half despaired at a basic public service, waiting times for GPs.

Elsewhere, the Telegraph seems to have become obsessed with offering the whole of its front page to letters from business people backing Mr Cameron's government.

Shortly after the Budget, it published a "key" list of supporters - and then, in a separate list, the solicited responses of 5,000 small business owners were plastered across the paper just over a week ago.

Except the impressive number of 5,000 was rather less than that - some of the names were duplicates, others no longer had current business, and at least one signatory even asked to be removed.

Daily Express readers will no doubt be disappointed when it slowly dawns on them that, under the First Past the Post electoral system, UKIP's relative popularity will not translate into dozens of seats.

Meanwhile, the Independent must also be bracing itself for disappointment having stuck by the Lib Dems.

The Guardian, which backed the Lib Dems in 2010, has switched its allegiance to Labour - but it, too, was caught out when it prematurely predicted a surge for Mr Miliband's party on the back of just three half decent polls in a row.

Instead, the polls, averaged week-on-week, have remained obstinately level.

However, this does, of course, leave the election wide open with claims to post-election legitimacy perhaps even extending to the total number of votes overall as much as total number of seats.

It is important then for everyone to use their vote, and for everyone to vote on the strength of their own views - not those of anyone or anything else, least of all the newspapers.

Polling stations are open from 7am-10pm.

Mirror faces questions after Newmark honeytrap sting

NEW press watchdog IPSO faces its first major test after a formal complaint by Conservative MP Mark Pritchard against the Sunday Mirror.

Mr Pritchard said the newspaper had used "questionable techniques" to obtain explicit pictures from fellow Conservative Brooks Newmark who resigned from his post in the Cabinet Office.

In the sting, a male freelance reporter adopted the false identity of "Sophie Wittams" and set up a Twitter account describing himself as a "twenty-something Tory PR girl".

Following flattering messages from the mysterious Ms Wittams, Mr Newmark agreed to swap "sexually explicit images".

But, of course, Mr Newmark did not receive an image in return of Ms Wittams, instead receiving a "sunbathing selfie" of Charlene Tyler, a 26-year-old from Boston in Lincolnshire.

Ms Tyler told the Daily Telegraph yesterday it was wrong for the paper to have used her photo without permission, and that Mr Newmark had done nothing wrong.

However, this was not the only image to have been used by the freelancer without permission.

The avatar of the fictional Twitter account with which Mr Newmark communicated was a picture of Swedish model Malin Sahlén.

And she has told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet: “I do not want to be exploited in this way and that someone has used my image like this feels really awful, both for me and the others involved in this.

“I am shocked and it is unpleasant for someone to use the picture without permission.”

Sunday Mirror editor-in-chief Lloyd Embley has now apologised to both women, explaining: “We thought that pictures used by the investigation were posed by models, but we now know that some real pictures were used.

"At no point has the Sunday Mirror published any of these images, but we would like to apologise to the women involved for their use in the investigation."

Nevertheless, the newspaper boss stood by the story, claiming it was in the public interest.

The public interest defence is much used by newspapers and, in this case, it mainly relates to Mr Newmark's role as co-founder of the Women2Win organisation.

Women2Win is aimed at attracting more Conservative women to Parliament - and the Sunday Mirror will argue Mr Newmark's conduct contradicts this position.

Based on previous rulings, though, the newspaper would appear to have a pretty weak case, if nothing else because of the use of entrapment.

"Fishing expeditions", as they are known, must surely carry a more substantial public interest argument than this. Even the Sun and the Mail have said they turned the story down.

Ultimately, the article has done no favours to any of the parties involved. Mr Newmark has lost his ministerial salary and must try to rebuild trust with his wife and five children.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have suffered an awful start to their party conference in Birmingham, a double-whammy coming in the form of Mark Reckless's decision to defect to UKIP.

MP for Rochester and Stroud, Mr Reckless became the second Tory to resign and seek re-election on the UKIP platform after Douglas Carswell's move in Clacton just over a month ago.

Finally, this story has done nothing to rebuild the already-pathetically low levels of trust between the national press and the public.

Coincidentally, it came at the end of a week in which it became apparent the same Trinity Mirror group of newspapers was also heavily involved in phone-hacking.

Phone-hacking, fishing expeditions, honey-traps - all of them are bound to produce a juicy story - but are any of them actually news?

Proper journalism sticks to the facts of what has actually happened or discloses serious levels of hypocrisy and/or incompetence.

It does not seek to manufacture the story for its own monetary gain.

Nothing to fear?

NEWSPAPERS have nothing to fear from the regulatory Royal charter drawn up by the three main parties at Westminster according to shadow culture secretary, Harriet Harman.

So why, then, is there still so much resistance from the Fourth Estate to the proposal almost a year on from the published report following the Leveson Inquiry?

Leading the charge against, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has claimed that the row last week between his paper and Labour leader Ed Miliband showed exactly why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

Mr Dacre wrote in his own newspaper and in the Guardian: "Some have argued that last week's brouhaha shows the need for statutory press regulation. I would argue the opposite.

"The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why politicians must not be allowed anywhere near press regulation."

Indeed, it could be added, perhaps slightly flippantly, that the consensus between the political parties is the perfect reason why the charter should be rejected.

Moreover, this is hardly a lone crusade by the Mail. Inevitably, the Murdoch-owned pair - the Sun and the Times - are against the plans... but then so is the left-wing daily, the Mirror.

The Telegraph and the Express are also opposed - and so, quite clearly, is the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop following his rant on the latest episode of Have I Got News For You.

The only notable outsiders are the Guardian, which is tentatively in support of the Royal charter, and the Independent, which wrote in an editorial: "To ignore the Royal charter would mock the very democracy the press claims to guard."

And the biggest problem for the press is that this is one of those seemingly rare occasions where the politicians are actually carrying out the will of the majority of the British public.

After all, it must be remembered exactly the context in which the whole debate on the future of the press began.

It began, of course, with the shocking revelations in July 2011 that the now-defunct News of the World had hacked the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Many other complainants had already come forward. The majority at first, like Hugh Grant and JK Rowling, were already in the public eye.

However, after the Dowler revelations, others then became aware that they had also been victims - and many of them, like the falsely-accused Christopher Jefferies, were categorically not.

Ever since, unsurprisingly, the tide of opinion has been against the newspaper industry. On this matter, it had effectively lost the moral high ground.

Yes, the newspapers can point out that the likes of Mr Grant and Mr Jefferies gained recourse in the courts within the existing legal framework - and, in suggesting statutory regulation, this was something which Sir Brian Leveson seemed to disregard far too easily.

But, whatever Mr Dacre and others claim, the above fact is exactly why the Prime Minister David Cameron insisted on a Royal charter, rather than a whole new set of laws.

In other words, the existing framework is generally accepted to work just fine - but there simply must be more done to make the press more accountable.

After all, none of what has actually been proposed would have prevented the Mail from publishing slurs about Mr Miliband's dead father or, more importantly, stories like the Telegraph uncovering the MPs' expenses scandal.

Happily, the draft proposals also include a vital opt-out for local and regional newspapers which even Sir Brian found to be rarely in the wrong.

And all of it is far superior to the rejected newspaper industry's alternative charter - which was frankly little more than a rehash of the failed and discredited Press Complaints Commission.

Quite predictably, there have already been howls of anguish that the proposed Royal charter is the end of the 'free press' as we know it.

This is a pretty bizarre assessment considering that much of the national media is so 'free' that it rests in the hands of just a few wealthy men...

And, sadly for journalism, the cliché that you should not believe everything you read in the papers is particularly true of the reporting of the Royal charter.

The proposals will be put to the Privy Council for final agreement on 30 October.

The Sun takes the paywall plunge

THE SUN newspaper took a momentous step yesterday by joining its Murdoch stablemates, the Times and the Sunday Times, and putting its online content behind a paywall.

Subscribers will have to pay £2 per week for access to Sun+, the website version of Britain's biggest selling paper.

But, while the stats have shown for years that the Sun has been a success off the news stands, it has begun its online revolution from a rather low base.

Recent figures put the pre-paywall Sun website readers on 1.8million unique browsers per day. This compares poorly to the market leader, the still-free Mail Online of the Daily Mail, which attracts an average of 8.1million visitors.

Meanwhile, the Guardian - with 4.8millions daily users - comes next, ahead of the Daily Telegraph, with 2.7million.

As direct tabloid rivals, though, it will be the increase in the Daily Mirror's online traffic which would have been of most concern to the Sun.

Even before the paywall was erected, the Mirror had made a march on the Sun - and, yesterday, it cleverly used the front page of its website to declare "the best things in life are free".

So what does the Sun have to offer to tempt subscribers?

Easily the biggest booty which has been publicised is the newspaper's £30m+ investment in Premier League highlights.

It is an apparently a good enough move that media commentator Steve Hewlett "can see [it] working" - but I remain a lot more sceptical.

For a start, the BBC's Match of the Day will show exactly the same goals a little later but on a free-to-air basis.

And, for anyone out on the town on a Saturday night or too hungover to watch the Sunday morning repeat, MotD will even be on iPlayer for the first time in this coming season.

As for the Sun's other potential unique selling points... Want breaking news? Then, look no further than the BBC or Sky websites.

Desiring a right-wing rant against immigrants or welfare 'scroungers'? Try the Mail Online, if you must. There, you will also find enough vacuous celeb gossip to preclude the need for the Sun.

Finally, charging for Page 3 tits - on the internet of all places - just sounds totally ludicrous.

Of course, the Sun - and its new editor David Dinsmore - could prove me wrong - and, indeed, the whole journalism industry remains optimistic that some sort of paywall scheme could work.

Already, though, some of the Sun's biggest-name retail advertisers, such as Tesco, Currys and Marks & Spencers, are holding fire on running activity on the Sun+ - at least until it can prove that it has sustained evidence that it is reaching its ambitious subscriber targets.

The Sun has responded by launching an ad campaign of its own, but the £10m spent there just adds to the spiralling costs which will need to be recouped by getting readers on board.

Estimates suggest the Sun will need to attract more than 250,000 subscribers to cover the loss of online advertising and make back its outlay on the digital Premier League football.

It will do well to get anywhere near that. The website of Rupert Murdoch's other daily News UK title, the Times, went behind a paywall in July 2010 and is ailing badly, reaching fewer readers now than the Independent and the London Evening Standard.

The crux of the matter seems to be that, unlike those of other major newspapers, the News UK websites do not give away any content for free.

By contrast, in March, the Telegraph began employing a metered paywall which allows a limit of 20 free articles before those wanting more are invited to take out a free trial subscription, and then a paid one, from a cost of £2 a week.

This allows casual consumers of the Telegraph, like myself, to pass by the website every now and then, with more ardent readers having to subscribe.

So far, the tactic has been pretty successful with no discernible downturn in traffic, and perhaps a metered paywall is the way forward for newspapers looking to make money from its online content.

All the while, the Sun - and the Times - are having to rely entirely on the loyalty and goodwill of their readers. Good luck to them with that.

If it bleeds, it leads

Drummer Lee Rigby of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 25. 
May he Rest In Peace.

THE OLD adage "if it bleeds, it leads" was in full evidence in the media coverage of the tragic killing of Royal Fusiliers Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday.

Almost all of the national newspapers carried the horrifying image on their front pages of one of the perpetrators Michael Adebolajo, clutching a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands.

The evening bulletin of the ITV news, broadcast at 6.30pm, showed an exclusive video which the attacker had forced a member of the public to film.

And, of course, the rolling news went into an inevitable overdrive. There were the ubiquitous live blogs on the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, BBC political editor Nick Robinson landed himself in hot water by describing the suspect as being "of Muslim descent", whatever that means.

At first, Robinson defended his description as having been taken directly from a quote by a Whitehall source - but, later on his blog, he gave a full apology "for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence".

ITV was also on the defensive after it had received hundreds of complaints for its broadcast of the aforementioned video - but it defended its decision as "editorially justified".

"We carefully considered showing this footage ahead of broadcast and made the decision to do so on a public interest basis as the material is integral to understanding the horrific incident that took place yesterday," said an ITV News spokesman.

"It was editorially justified to show such footage in the aftermath of such a shocking attack, and we prefaced it on ITV News at 6.30pm and News at Ten with appropriate warnings to make viewers aware in advance of the graphic images about to be shown."

Sky News executives opted not to show it on the grounds of taste and that it could be a potential platform for terrorists, but the BBC did join ITV in showing the clip on its later bulletins.

Now, the issue for the print media with breaking news events is that, by the time they publish the following day, the images are already very much in the public domain.

Even if the broadcasters had chosen to be more cautious and not shown the video, the chilling material could easily be found on Twitter and other social media outlets.

It is therefore not difficult to agree with Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade that the newspapers would have "looked completely daft to ignore what was already in the public domain".

After all, to do so would be tantamount to self-censorship, and again I agree with Greenslade when he states that editors "cannot edit in order to ensure they protect us from the feeble-minded".

As for those who suggest all that newspapers or broadcasters are interested in is their sales or ratings - well, there is always the option not to buy the paper and always an off-button on the television remote.

At the same time, though, it is important that newspaper chiefs show some respect for the victim and his family in their editorial decisions.

The Sun, The Daily Star, The Telegraph and The Times all took the curious (and, in my view, incorrect) decision to include Mr Rigby's stricken body on their front page.

In his column, Greenslade again defends the newspapers on the basis that they "needed to convey the brutality of a murder that appeared to have been carried out as an act of terrorism" - but it comes across as a breach of privacy to me.

Indeed, ITV has since sensibly edited the video on its website to obscure Mr Rigby's body.

Nevertheless, it was the Guardian with perhaps the most harrowing front cover. Its editors chose a full-page close-up photo of Adebolajo with his words "You people will never be safe" running alongside.

If that is not the dissemination of irrational fear - so often railed against within that very newspaper - then I do not quite know what is. 

Of course, it is not just the media which has stirred up the reaction to Mr Rigby's death.

While the action can accurately be described as terrorism, the repetition of the phrase over and over again by media commentators and politicians has served little purpose than to stir up more tension.

Similarly, the actions of Home Secretary Theresa May calling an emergency COBRA meeting and Prime Minister David Cameron cutting short his holiday both smack of politicians wanting to be seen as decisive, regardless of the consequences.

Instead, they have arguably made the situation worse and played right into the hands of bone-headed extremists like the English Defence League, which has already sadly caused some damage. 

Would the numbskulls have acted in the same manner if the media and politicians had have reacted differently? Very possibly so. 

But, have the media and politicians treated the matter as sensitively as they could have? Almost certainly not. 

After all, there were some very good news stories related to this horrific incident which almost immediately restored my faith in humankind. 

Witness the bravery of the mother and daughter who tended to Mr Rigby just yards from the knife and meat cleaver-wielding terrorists.

Or, how about giving more coverage to Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the cub scout leader who confronted the terrorists just seconds after their attack, asking them to hand over their weapons?

"It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose," said Mrs Loyau-Kennett to the terrorists at the scene - if only the Guardian had used those words on its front page instead.

Cameron brokers long-awaited press regulation deal

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron has finally thrashed out a "historic" deal with his deputy Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband over a new press watchdog this week.

The regulator will be established by royal charter, meaning there will be no need to pass statute in the Houses of Parliament.

Importantly, the charter can only be amended if there is a two-thirds majority in both the Commons and the Lords. This is unlike other charters which are altered by the Queen on the advice of Privy Council, which comprises of government ministers of the day.

So, almost two years since the News of the World phone-hacking story broke and over 100 days on since Lord Leveson published his £5m report, why has it taken so long just to get to this point?

Well, the main problem was that Mr Cameron was opposed to any statutory underpinning of regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson.

This contrasted with Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband who both thought that the judge's recommendations should be enforced in their entirety.

The schism caused a protracted period of political wrangling, which left the newspaper industry in limbo - and the gridlock reached its peak last Thursday when Mr Cameron called a halt to the cross-party talks.

Instead, the PM had planned to force a Commons vote on a royal charter on Monday evening - but, ultimately, the parties and victims campaign group Hacked Off were able to make a deal in the early hours of the same day.

Incredibly, though, the talks did not include a single member of the press.

Now, at this point, it must be accepted that the newspaper industry has caused a lot of damage over the years. Indeed, Lord Leveson himself stated it had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

But to exclude the whole industry from discussions over its future regulation seemed a pointless thing to do - especially when it ended up being some members of the press who actually could be said to have forced the breakthrough.

Alan Rusbridger, Chris Blackhurst and Lionel Barber - editors of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, respectively - broke ranks with other media titles by suggesting the way forward was to accept the idea of a charter.

In the end, the trio's proposal formed the basis for what politicians agreed on.

The politicians, bless'em, all seem rather pleased with themselves with Mr Cameron describing it as a "neat solution". However, there has already been dissent in the ranks of the Fourth Estate.

For, while some of the aforementioned newspapers have cautiously welcomed the plans, others remain virulently opposed to any external interference.

Associated Newspapers, owners of the Daily Mail, News International - representing the Sun and the Times - as well as the Telegraph Media Group are all exploring the possibility of setting up their own body.

The Mail branded the deal "a grim day for all who value freedom" and, like the Times, accused Mr Cameron of threatening press freedom for the first time since newspapers were licensed 300 years ago.

Tim Jotischky, deputy editor of the Telegraph, tweeted late on Monday: "We can never lecture a Mugabe or a Putin on freedom of expression again. Quite an achievement for Hacked Off et al."

Meanwhile, magazines Private Eye and the Spectator have already rejected signing up to the new regulator.

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson said: "Press regulation is too important an issue to be answered by some tawdry deal cooked up at two in the morning in Ed Miliband's office.

"The result is unacceptable, state licensing of the media, something we haven't had in this country for 300 years."

Eye editor and Have I Got News For You panellist Ian Hislop agreed, adding: "You can't really say this is a considered and thoughtful process when, in the middle of the night, two bits are added to other bills.

"This doesn't really look like thoughtful considered legislation which has been worked through."

Moreover, some of the other implications of the new regulator - such as the extent to which the new regulator monitors online content - are unclear. Will bloggers be affected at all, for example?

The local press, which was hitherto seldom in trouble, also fears a "crippling" rush of compensation claims under the new system of arbitration for small-scale complaints.

All in all, then, the situation still remains a rather messy one - but, despite the rushed nature of the deal, it is difficult from a media perspective not to disagree with Indy editor Mr Blackhurst.

He said: "I don't think it's too bad. It could've been a lot worse, it could've been better. I think we have to recognise the mess the industry got into. The industry did some bad things and our existing regulator just wasn't up to the task."

Only time will tell if the new one is.