Labour takes a jump to the left with Corbyn landslide

LABOUR LEADERSHIP RESULT

Jeremy CORBYN	251,417	59.5%
Andy BURNHAM	80,462	19%
Yvette COOPER	71,928	17%
Liz KENDALL	18,857	4.5%
Turnout	422,664	76.3%

LABOUR made its most radical shift in decades as the landslide election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader marked the end of the New Labour era.

Mr Corbyn enjoyed an overwhelming victory in the first round of the ballot, taking 251,417 votes (59.5%) to finish well ahead of early favourite Andy Burnham (19%) and another former government minister, Yvette Cooper (17%).

The Blairite candidate Liz Kendall limped home in last place with just 18,857 votes (4.5%).

Already, though, Mr Corbyn has faced some internal opposition.

Within minutes of the result, shadow Health Secretary Jamie Reed had resigned, while - only a little later - Ms Cooper, former leader Ed Miliband and another shadow minister Rachel Reeves all confirmed they would not serve in a Corbyn Cabinet.

Of course, none of this is an unexpected turn of events or even a complete disaster for the new leader - bemused former Deputy PM Lord Prescott even pondered "who?" when asked about Mr Reed live on the BBC.

Nevertheless, even these minor enough ructions demonstrate amply the extent of the work which Mr Corbyn faces to keep his party united.

In fairness to the 66-year-old Islington North MP, he did offer a few olive branches in his opening speech to those on other wings of the party to himself and his many grassroots supporters.

He joked amicably about his differences of opinion with fellow candidate Ms Kendall and their sharing of late-night trains heading home from hustings meetings.

There was also a conspicuous absence of any mention of his views on the UK membership of NATO or the renewal of the nuclear deterrent Trident.

He did, however, attack the media directly, describing parts of it as "abusive" and "intrusive".

Notably, his newly-elected deputy, Tom Watson, is perhaps best remembered for taking on the News of the World over phone-hacking allegations in the last Parliament.

It is fair to say then that neither Mr Corbyn nor Mr Watson will be doing any Blair-style cosying-up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper or Paul Dacre's Daily Mail.

This will undoubtedly work against Mr Corbyn - he will be seen as fair game by the right-wing media which will dig for dirt and shriek hysterically at every perceived misstep.

But, at the same time, this is something which Mr Corbyn appears willing to accept as he moves Labour in an entirely different direction.

Indeed, he is aware that far greater damage will come opposition on his own side as he shifts Labour away from so-called austerity-lite policies and towards the renationalisation of the railways and major utilities.

Additionally, the road to national electoral success is mathematically difficult anyway, to say the least.

For, even if an anti-austerity Corbyn-led party won back the votes of every supporter of the Scottish Nationalists, the rump Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, there would still be a Conservative majority.

Boundary changes, due in this Parliament, will also favour the Tories - and so, while it is an uncomfortable proposition, Labour simply must do better against the Conservatives in Middle England to win.

Yes, there are the many - mainly younger - non-voters who could be swept up by Mr Corbyn before the next general election.

All the available evidence suggests, though, that the Conservative-dominated over-65s demographic will continue to out-vote their younger counterparts.

The worry then is that Labour has thrown a Corbyn-shaped comfort blanket around itself, and will do no better in 2020 than it did in May this year.

Perhaps a more pertinent worry for democracy generally, though, is that Mr Corbyn may not even be afforded the opportunity to make his case if the internal party disputes force him out.

This would be despite his huge mandate in having won almost 60% of the total vote, and having won in each of the three sections - comprising of party members, registered supporters and affiliated supporters.

Rightly, right now, there is scepticism over whether Mr Corbyn has a widespread enough appeal to win an election against the Conservatives.

But at least the election of Mr Corbyn will decisively end a previously accepted view that the two main parties were just the same.

Mr Corbyn is ready to give British politics a shake - indeed, it might never be quite the same again.

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.

Irresponsible reporting on suicide

THE NEWS of the suicide of much-loved actor and comedian Robin Williams has unsurprisingly generated a huge response from the media over the past couple of days.

A lot of it has been a genuinely heart-warming remembrance of a hugely talented man who played a big part in my childhood for his roles in Mrs Doubtfire, Jumanji, Aladdin and Flubber.

And there were, of course, many, many others.

Williams' greatest success came in his portrayal of a psychiatrist in Good Will Hunting, for which he won an Oscar in 1997 as Best Supporting Actor.

But, while there is much to eulogise about the fine catalogue of work which he has left behind, it is massively disappointing to see the front pages of several of the tabloids this morning have instead focused heavily on the nature of his death.

Worse still, the biggest culprits have shown scant regard for the well-thought-out general advice provided by the Samaritans on the reporting of this sensitive topic.

"Tortured" is the prominent, one-word headline on the front of the Mirror - while the sub-heads carry speculation that money troubles were the trigger for the suicide.

The Daily Mail has reserved the whole of its front page for Williams - but again concerns itself solely with unconfirmed speculation surrounding his passing.

Meanwhile, the Sun and the Daily Star - as well as, surprisingly, the normally more reserved Metro free-sheet - all use dramatic language and describe in some detail exactly how he took his own life.

Even though it really should not matter how he did it - or why he did it.

Indeed, it simply does not matter. For, while journalists are admittedly usually there to explain how or why events have occurred, in this case and other similar ones, reporting the fact that he did it and that it is newsworthy because of his talent really should be enough.

Moreover, beyond the fact that Williams had depression, trying to guess at a trigger at this stage - even if it is a so-called 'educated' guess - is truly nonsensical, and actually not at all classy.

After all, ultimately only he knows exactly what thought processes he was going through.
 
Thankfully, some of the broadsheet newspapers produced some more thoughtful coverage.

The Guardian still dedicates a significant proportion of its front page to Williams - but simply reflects, in classy pictorial form, on his comedic versatility. A tribute from Russell Brand sits neatly below.

A further tribute is posted in the Times pull-out, the T2, a small mention of which is made in the strap-line at the top of the front page just below the masthead.

Credit where it is due, then, to those sensible editors who have perhaps taken a bit of thought before laying out the front of their newspaper.

Now, if only the tabloids would follow suit and end their rather grisly attempts at one-upmanship, determined by sensationalism and nothing more.

From today's evidence, though, there is fat chance of it happening any time soon - and so I'm off to watch Williams as the unforgettable Euphegenia Doubtfire.

You never know, it might just cheer me up.

RIP Robin McLaurin Williams (1951-2014), aged 63. May you never lose your little spark of madness.

Samaritans

08457909090 

Available 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year to provide confidential emotional support for people who are experiencing feelings of distress, despair or suicidal thoughts.

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.

Miliband v the Daily Mail

Yes, that is Adolf Hitler - with then-Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere I

THE DAILY MAIL hit a new low this week when it made an unbridled series of slurs on the dead father of the Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Ralph Miliband, a Marxist academic, was labelled "an evil man who hated Britain" by the self-righteous right-wing rag on the strength of a diary entry which he had made aged 17.

Naturally, the article upset the Leader of the Opposition who understandably leapt to his late father's defence.

"Fierce debate about politics does not justify character assassination of my father, questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life for our country in the Second World War," said Mr Miliband.

Undaunted, the Mail justified the story on basis that Ralph Miliband's hardline left-wing stance would have heavily influenced his son.

And, of course, it came in the context of 'Red Ed' having delivered an impassioned, slightly more left-wing, party conference speech in favour of freezing energy bills.

Indeed, in an extraordinary twist, the Mail - having refused to apologise - has now demanded an apology itself from the Labour party for the accusation that its Ralph Miliband article had been motivated by anti-Semitism.

Most of the flak, however, has deservedly headed in the newspaper's direction - and it has not just come from  left-wing political circles.

The affair prompted prominent right-wing broadsheet the Telegraph to republish their Ralph Miliband obituary, a fair-minded review which referred to him as "an inspiring teacher of politics and an internationally renowned figure of the British Left".

Meanwhile, a minister from the Thatcher cabinet, Lord Moore, accused the Mail of "telling lies" about his former tutor.

The current Conservatives - aware that the ill-timed furore was overshadowing their conference in Manchester - were generally a bit more reserved.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague both supported Mr Miliband's right to defend his father, without further commenting on the Mail article.

However, Deputy PM Nick Clegg did not hold back, referring to the paper as "overflowing with bile".

Of course, he and the Liberal Democrats had come under attack by the paper during the 2010 General Election campaign, partly for him having the audacity of being married to a sweet señorita from Spain.

The general consensus in the Westminster village - and perhaps the country at large - was that the story had backfired, and that Mr Miliband had received sympathy and support for his stance, despite his ongoing dreadful approval ratings.

Indeed, the view against the Mail newspaper group became even more entrenched when it emerged two journalists from sister paper, the Mail on Sunday, had intruded into a private memorial service for Mr Miliband's recently deceased uncle.

Action has at least been taken at the weekly publication - the reporters have been suspended and editor Geordie Greig has issued an apology.

Yet, still, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre remains unmoved.

It is an incredible state of affairs, considering that, while the story is shameful in itself, it is actually unbelievably hypocritical as well.

For, while Ralph Miliband fled the Nazis in 1940, the then-Mail owner Lord Rothermere, Harold Harmsworth, famously sent gushing telegrams to Adolf Hitler and even met with him.

But, then, supporting far-right parties is not just something which the Mail did in the dark pre-WWII era.

As recently as last year, a columnist at the Mail, Richard Waghorne, ridiculously supported the leader of the French Front National, Marine Le Pen, in the presidential election.
 
At least, the media furore has meant that, on this occasion, the Mail has not got away with some pretty ignominious journalism, with social media gallantly leading the response.

The Twitter hashtag '#mydadhatedbritain' produced several comic gems, all of which - without exception - were laced with sarcasm.

Meanwhile satirical site Us Vs Th3m has created a quiz which allows you to determine just exactly how hated you are by the Mail...

Why not try it for yourself?... although, after this week, Mr Miliband hardly needs a quiz to find out where he stands.

The boy in the bubble

THE ALMOST continual media coverage of the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child has finally started to settle down in the wake of some actual news happening.

By contrast, on Monday, it was relentless and largely unwatchable.

From the breakfast announcement that Kate had gone into labour and been taken to the private Lindo wing of St Mary's hospital in London - to the moment, 10 hours later, that she had popped out an 8lb 6oz sprog - the likes of the BBC and Sky provided all-day coverage of... nothing much.

That much was confirmed by the brilliantly frank BBC royal correspondent Simon McCoy, who was forced to wait outside the hospital to report on any news.

He admitted on air: "Plenty more to come from here, of course - none of it news because that will come from Buckingham Palace but that won't stop us."

Meanwhile, this was - we were told by Prime Minister David Cameron - "a very exciting occasion and the whole country is excited". 

And it was certainly afforded the sort of breathless coverage - both at home and, in fairness, elsewhere around the world - which befits a landmark event.

Surely, though, there was far too much fuss over what was - on a basic level - a woman in childbirth, something which has been happening for thousands of years.

Private Eye perhaps best summed up the arrival of the third-in-line to the throne on the front page of its latest edition, which states simply in large letters - "WOMAN HAS BABY" - adding in tiny print at the bottom, "INSIDE: Some other stuff".

Of course, for the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail, baby George Alexander Louis was gold dust in the generally quiet summer season.

Top cringe marks must go to the Sun for taking the unprecedented step of changing its masthead for the day to 'The Son'.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail website benefited from its biggest ever audience - 10.5m unique users, and its print edition was unsurprisingly a "Royal Baby Souvenir Special".

Amusingly, though, in the midst of the copious amounts of print, the Mail had the nerve to criticise the BBC for its over-the-top coverage. Incredible.

At least those looking for an alternative view would have found some job with the Mirror and the mini version of the Independent.

The Mirror, though joining in the gushing of the new royal in its editorial, gave room to republican commentator Brian Reade - while, rather pointedly, 'The I' led with the headline: "Born to Rule".

Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade has claimed that the media was simply "giving people what they want" - and it is true that the baby has arrived at a time when the royal family is riding a wave of popularity.

An Ipsos Mori poll last week showed 77% of Britons were in favour of remaining a monarchy over a republic, close to its best-ever level of support.

However, another poll, by Yougov, found that only 14% of UK adults were "very interested" and 32% were "somewhat interested" in the royal baby.

As you may have guessed from the tone of this post, I fell into neither of those groups - though I should point out that this does not necessarily make me a strident republican either. It really was just too much coverage for something which is relatively insignificant to me.

Indeed, I have watched and read less news this week than in a long time but I will always remember it as a few days that Britain went baby bonkers.

And there has not even been the Sunday features or the ITV documentaries yet...

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.

Out of bounds

THE COALITION government suffered its biggest split so far as the Liberal Democrats helped defeat Conservative plans to redraw constituency boundaries before the 2015 general election.

A Lords amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which postpones the boundary revision until 2018, was favoured by 334 MPs to 292, a significant majority of 42.

All 57 Lib Dems entered the opposite lobby to their Tory colleagues, along with the 251 Labour MPs, six Scottish Nationalists, six Democratic Unionists, three Plaid Cymru, three Irish Nationalists.

Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, George Galloway of Respect and two independents also voted with Labour and the Lib Dems.

Notably, even four Conservative MPs - David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron - rebelled against party policy.

For the most part, though, the disdain from the Tory backbenches was unequivocal.

Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, even went as far as to call on the Lib Dem ministers to resign if they could not accept collective responsibility. "They're a disgrace and they should be over there," he said, pointing across the floor.

Mr Bone was joined by Penny Mordaunt, MP for Portsmouth North, who said the Lib Dems were motivated by "spite, pettiness and self-interest". Miss Mordaunt also accused them of making "flirtatious glances" to Labour as potential future coalition partners.

"The Liberals have exchanged their legendary sandals for flip-flops in the hope that it will enable them to keep their options open," she added.

However, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg defended their position and described it as "perfectly reasonable". After all, the other part of this Bill was meant to bring about reform of the House of Lords, but that collapsed last summer due to opposition from Conservative backbenchers.

Indeed, some will consider this as the day Mr Clegg's party finally stood up to David Cameron's Tory bullies - and a more lusty blow they would have struggled to deliver.

For, now that the boundaries will remain untouched before 2015, the chances of a Conservative majority at the next general election are looking slim.

On his New Statesman blog, George Eaton has noted that the Tories require a lead of seven points to win an overall majority, compared to a lead of four points under the new boundaries.

Labour, by contrast, needs a lead of just one point to win a majority under the current system, compared to a lead of three points under the proposed boundaries.

And so, the voting by the Labour, Lib Dem and other MPs was actually fundamentally undemocratic.

This was a point made by Leader of the House of Commons Andrew Lansley who described the Lords' amendment as a "democratic travesty" and an "abuse of parliamentary process".

However, there was little sympathy for Mr Cameron, and certainly none from the Lib Dem benches, following the failure in 2011 of Alternative Vote referendum.

The Conservatives claimed that simply just by holding the referendum, they had upheld their side of the deal.

But, while Mr Cameron was not directly involved, the Lib Dems were aghast that the No2AV campaign received strong support from the Tories and their well-oiled media machine.

After all, on constitutional matters, it is defeat in the AV vote which has caused the Lib Dems the most heartache, not their failure to reform the Lords.

Of course, it must be said that nothing has actually been decided in electoral terms by this decision in Parliament, and both main parties will feel that there is everything to play for.

Bullish Labour has already published a list of 106 target seats which, if successful, would give the party a working majority.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Home website has a running blog simply called "Majority", which is attempting to come up with a strategy of just how the party could win an overall majority for the first time since 1992.

On the political Right, though, the boundaries decision is killing off hope. Following the result, Daily Mail deputy political editor Tim Shipman declared on Twitter: "Labour cheers as they win the next election".

And, while it is difficult still at this stage to envisage the prospect of Ed Miliband as Prime Minister, his party certainly now justifies the shortening in their odds to triumph in 2015.

France ready to put its trust in Hollande

FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FULL RESULT

	Party	Votes	Percentage
Francois Hollande	PS	10,273,582	28.63% - progress to 2nd round on 6 May
Nicolas Sarkozy	UMP	9,753,844	27.18% - progress to 2nd round on 6 May
Marine Le Pen	FN	6,421,773	17.90%
Jean-Luc Melenchon	FDG	3,985,298	11.11%
Francois Bayrou	MoDem	3,275,349	9.13%
Eva Joly	EELV	828,451	2.31%
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan	DLR	644,086	1.79%
Philippe Poutou	NPA	411,178	1.15%
Nathalie Arthaud	LO	202,562	0.56%
Jacques Cheminade	SP	89,572	0.25%

Turnout 36,585,858 (79.47%)


FRANCOIS HOLLANDE moved a step closer to the French presidency after Nicolas Sarkozy became the first incumbent in the Fifth Republic to lose in the first round of voting.

Mr Sarkozy scored 27.18% to fall narrowly short of his socialist rival Mr Hollande, who polled more than 10 million votes in a high turnout of almost 80%.

Meanwhile, rather worryingly for France, Marine Le Pen of the Front Nationale enjoyed her party's best ever result in terms of votes with over 6.4 million people favouring the far-right candidate.

Thankfully, the levels of support for Messieurs Sarkozy and Hollande meant that a repeat of the disastrous first round in 2002 was avoided.

That was when the political Left in France was so hopelessly divided that Marine's father, Jean-Marie, stunned Europe by making it into the run-off against Jacques Chirac.

A decade on and the left wing is much more united.

In fact, Jean-Luc Melenchon - the defeated hard-left candidate - has urged his supporters to switch to Mr Hollande in the second round on 6 May.

Happily for Mr Hollande, polls suggest that he can indeed be confident of receiving strong backing from the vast majority of Mr Melenchon's first round voters.

And that is certainly good news for him as, added altogether, the amount of people choosing left-wing candidates came to 44%.

Consequently, this would leave Mr Hollande needing to gain just another six percent, most of which will come from the people who opted for centrist Francois Bayrou.

By contrast, Mr Sarkozy is in need of a miracle if he is to avoid becoming the first French president since Valery Giscard d'Estaing in 1981 to fail to be re-elected.

Of course, it could have been much worse for this deeply unpopular president and his first round position vis-a-vis Mr Hollande actually makes it look like a close contest.

There is no way, though, that Mr Sarkozy can unite the political Right in the same way as the Left is currently unified. In fact, his name was roundly booed when Ms Le Pen mentioned it in her speech in a jubilant rally at her headquarters in Nanterre, just outside Paris.

Mr Sarkozy is generally seen as a traitor by FN supporters despite him directly engaging with far-right voters during the campaign by highlighting France's increased expulsion of immigrants. 

Frankly, this has been the measure of Mr Sarkozy - it has been desperate stuff, at times.

He even reached a point where he tried to score some cheap points and win some cheap votes with a jibe against the British economy.

But, whereas Mr Sarkozy's austerity programme is not a million miles away from the ideas of David Cameron, Mr Hollande seems to offer a genuine alternative to the UK's coalition government.

For, Mr Hollande has ambitious plans to invest in teachers and other aspects of state infrastructure while imposing a 75% tax on earnings above 1m euros.

The BBC's Robert Peston has his doubts over whether the level of overseas borrowing by France will allow him to do this, and he much expects the status quo to remain.

Certainly, it seems the FN are also hoping that nothing much changes. For, if France continues to struggle in a whirlpool of sovereign debt, then Mr Hollande will probably end up as discredited as Mr Sarkozy currently is.

Already, the FN is looking at making inroads against Mr Sarkozy's UMP party in the general election in June, thus building further on the momentum which it has gained in recent weeks. 

Still, it seems odd to me that a country which was occupied by Nazi forces between 1940 and 1944 is in any way attracted by this political extreme.

Perhaps, though, it is simply just the result of a more even-handed political system than in Britain.

Here, extremist parties on both flanks remain on the margins of political discourse whereas, in France, they are given almost as much exposure as the main contenders.

Incidentally, in the British press, Daily Mail columnist Richard Waghorne unequivocally gave Ms Le Pen his backing, proclaiming: "Despite her flaws, the only responsible vote in France... is one for Marine Le Pen."

But, while Waghorne's idiotic ramblings will sound pretty shocking to most British ears, it is not the first time that the Mail has been a cheerleader for the far-right.

"Hurrah for the Blackshirts" was the headline when the paper came out in support of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in 1934.

Thankfully, the French press reported this election in a slightly more level-headed manner.

Even the populist tabloid Le Figaro - certainly no fan of Mr Hollande - admitted rather begrudgingly that he now certainly holds the advantage.

However, top marks for inventiveness must go to the left-leaning newspaper Liberation which came up with a punchy six-word headline: "Hollande en tête - Le Pen trouble-fête".

The rhyme translates as "Hollande leads but Le Pen proves a spoilsport" - which just about sums up this election so far.

Back over to you, Messeurs Sarkozy et Hollande. 


FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DEPARTMENT-BY-DEPARTMENT

Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP Union pour un Mouvement Populaire)
01 Ain

04 Alpes-de-Haute-Provence

05 Hautes-Alpes

10 Aube

13 Bouches-du-Rhone

2A Corse-de-Sud

2B Haute-Corse

21 Cote-d'Or

25 Doubs

26 Drome

27 Eure

28 Eure-et-Loir

37 Indre-et-Loire

39 Jura

41 Loir-et-Cher

45 Loiret

48 Lozere

49 Maine-et-Loire

50 Manche

51 Marne

52 Haute-Marne

53 Mayenne
55 Meuse
57 Moselle

60 Oise

61 Orne

67 Bas-Rhin

68 Haut-Rhin

69 Rhone

73 Savoie

74 Haute-Savoie

78 Yvelines

83 Var

84 Vaucluse

85 Vendee

88 Vosges

89 Yonne

92 Hauts-de-Seine

976 Mayotte

977 Saint-Barthelemy

987 Polynesie francaise

988 Nouvelle Caledonie

FE Fraincais de l'etranger

Francois Hollande (PS Parti socialiste) Note: GAIN means the area was won by Sarkozy in the first round in 2007.
02 Aisne - GAIN

03 Allier - GAIN

06 Alpes-Maritimes
07 Ardeches - GAIN

08 Ardennes - GAIN

09 Ariege

11 Aude

12 Aveyron - GAIN

14 Calvados - GAIN

15 Cantal - GAIN

16 Charente

17 Charente-Maritime - GAIN

18 Cher - GAIN

19 Correze

22 Cotes-d'Armor

23 Creuse

24 Dordogne

29 Finistere

31 Haute-Garonne

32 Gers

33 Gironde

34 Herault - GAIN

35 Ille-et-Vilaine

36 Indre - GAIN

38 Isere - GAIN

40 Landes

42 Loire - GAIN

43 Haute-Loire - GAIN

44 Loire-Atlantique

46 Lot

47 Lot-et-Garonne - GAIN

54 Meurthe-et-Moselle - GAIN

56 Morbihan - GAIN

58 Nievre

59 Nord - GAIN

62 Pas-de-Calais - GAIN

63 Puy-de-Dom

64 Pyrenees-Atlantiques - GAIN

65 Hautes-Pyrenees

66 Pyrenees-Orientales - GAIN

70 Haute-Saone - GAIN

71 Saone-et-Loire - GAIN

72 Sarthe - GAIN

75 Paris - GAIN

76 Seine-Maritime - GAIN

77 Seine-et-Marne - GAIN

79 Deux-Sevres

80 Somme - GAIN

81 Tarn

82 Tarn-et-Garonne - GAIN

86 Vienne

87 Haute-Vienne

90 Territoire de Belfort - GAIN

91 Essonne - GAIN

93 Seine-Saint-Denis

94 Val-de-Marne - GAIN

95 Val-d'Oise - GAIN

971 Guadeloupe - GAIN

972 Martinique

973 Guyane - GAIN

974 La Reunion

975 Saint-Pierre et Miquelon

978 Saint-Martin - GAIN

986 Wallis et Futuna - GAIN

Marine Le Pen (FN Front national)
30 Gard - NF GAIN

Galloway pulls off amazing Bradford West by-election win

Bradford West by-election result Respect GAIN from Labour

George Galloway Respect	18,341	55.9% (+52.8%)
Imran Hussein Labour	8,201	25.0% (-20.3%)
Jackie Whiteley Conservatives	2,746	8.4% (-22.7%)
Jeanette Sunderland Lib Dems	1,505	4.6% (-7.1%)
Sonja McNally UKIP	1,085	3.3% (+1.3%)
Dawud Islam Green	481	1.5% (-0.8%)
Neil Craig Democratic Nationalists	344	1.0% (-0.1%)
Howling Laud Hope Monster Raving Loony	111	0.3%

Total votes: 32,814 Turnout: 50.8% Majority: 10,140


GEORGE GALLOWAY scored a sensational triumph for Respect in the Bradford West by-election last night after thrashing Labour following a swing of almost 37%.

Mr Galloway won the seat with a thumping 56% of the vote, finishing well ahead of the Labour candidate Imran Hussein, who polled just 25%.

The Conservatives' Jackie Whiteley trailed in third after their vote collapsed to 8.4% - while their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, lost another by-election deposit in fourth.

The main news, though, surrounded Mr Galloway's extraordinary victory in what was previously a safe Labour seat.

Mr Galloway, who was himself a Labour MP in Glasgow between 1987 and 2003, called it the "most sensational result in British by-election history".

Certainly, it must be said that the drama overnight in West Yorkshire ranked alongside other huge political shocks in Orpington, Crosby, and Glasgow East.

Labour had held Bradford West since 1974, except for a short period between 1981 and 1983 when then-MP Edward Lyons defected to the newly-formed Social Democratic Party.

Even in Labour's disastrous 1983 general election result under Michael Foot, the party still managed to regain the seat from the SDP.

And that fact puts into some context exactly how embarrassing this result actually is for Opposition leader Ed Miliband.

It was not meant to be this way, of course - and certainly not expected to be this way.

Labour was odds-on to win this by-election after pulling ahead into double-digit leads in the national polls following perhaps the roughest week yet for the coalition.

The government's troubles began last Wednesday when George Osborne announced in his third Budget that he was freezing age-related allowances while cutting the highest rate of tax from 50p to 45p.

Almost immediately, Mr Osborne's move became dubbed the "granny tax" and he could not even rely on support from traditionally Tory newspapers.

The Sun claimed that the Chancellor had "clobbered the masses of hard-grafting Brits in a budget that boosted super-earners" while the Daily Telegraph printed "granny tax" in its massive front-page headline.

Perhaps the worst news, though, came from the Daily Mail - "Osborne picks the pockets of pensioners" was its verdict - and it was no surprise to see Conservative support among the over-60s drop in polls after that barrage of headlines.

The perception that the Conservative party is only there to benefit the rich was given further credence when Prime Minister David Cameron then got caught up in a cash-for-access scandal.

Co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigned from his post in the party after secret filming by the Sunday Times showed him offering access to the PM for a donation of £250,000 a year.

And, subsequently, Mr Cameron was forced into publishing the names of all the donors who had dined with him privately in Downing Street.

The PM soon got himself in more bother when another element of taxation in the Budget, the seemingly innocuous imposition of VAT on hot pasties, reared its ugly head.

Asked when he had last eaten a pasty himself, Mr Cameron recalled: "I think the last one I bought was from the West Cornwall Pasty Company.

"I seem to remember I was in Leeds station at the time and the choice was whether to have one of their small ones or large ones, and I have a feeling I opted for the large one and very good it was too."

The only problem with this anecdote was that the West Cornwall Pasty Company had shut its store in Leeds station... five years ago.

Finally, just to prove that bad thing do not necessarily come in just three doses, a Minister went distinctly off-message, sparking a mass fuel panic which is still an ongoing concern.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude probably thought he was being helpful when he suggested that motorists fill jerry cans with petrol and store them in the garage following the Unite union's vote among hauliers to strike. 

Instead, Mr Maude's words have had the inevitable effect of drivers bleeding service stations dry amid record prices, despite the fact that there was no sign of actual strike action on the horizon. 

Unite would have to give seven days' notice of any withdrawal of labour and the union has now confirmed it will continue with its negotiations over the Easter weekend. 

Nevertheless, the Daily Mail brilliantly summed up the situation with its headline this morning: "Pandemonium at the pumps".

All in all, then, a pretty terrible 10 days for the government. But, with a by-election defeat like this, Labour shows no signs of providing effective opposition under Mr Miliband.

Labourlist, a blog which is independent from the central party, wrote in its live report that the result was a "very, very bad one".

Meanwhile, a follower was rather more cutting in their comment below the line. Jon wrote: "You're up against one of the most calamitous governments of recent times in the longest recession since the Great Depression and you've literally been beaten by a man who likes dressing up as a cat."

For readers unsure of the cat reference, Jon was recalling Mr Galloway's infamous appearance on Celebrity Big Brother in 2006 while he was MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.

In one of the tasks, the Scot pretended to be a cat and licked milk from the cupped hands of fellow contestant, actress Rula Lenska.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Galloway's actions brought him much mockery from the wider public and there were even suggestions that, as a sitting MP, he had brought Parliament into disrepute.

It is a sign, then, of just how bad the options are from the three main parties that the people of Bradford have instead put their trust into the egotistical Respect candidate.

As the member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Mr Galloway had one of the worst attendance rates in the House of Commons, turning up for only one in 20 votes.

And, despite words to the contrary in his victory speech, it is hard to see him being in Bradford for the long run.

If he does cut his losses somewhere down the line, it would be another blow to a West Yorkshire city which is in dire need of some help.

Recently subject to the two-part Channel 4 documentary, Make Bradford British, the area for years has been held up as an example of the failure of different cultural groups to integrate.

And the city took another blow when a report by the Local Data Company claimed that it was the "riskiest city in the UK to invest in retailing" due to its high number of vacant units and charity shops.

Worse still, the public cannot even find respite in following the two main sports teams.

Bradford City FC are sixth-bottom in League Two, and only four points off relegation out of the Football League altogether, having previously played in the Premier League between 1999 and 2001.

Most recently, a mass brawl at the end of their home defeat to Crawley saw five players red-carded, including three from Bradford, with the subsequent FA charge almost sure to result in a substantial fine.

Meanwhile, Bradford Bulls, the rugby league team - again powerhouses at the turn of the millennium - revealed this week that they need £1m just to stay in business.

And so, in light of all of this, it can only be hoped that Mr Galloway is an effective MP and that he did not just win this election to bloody the noses of some former Labour colleagues.

For Mr Miliband, the current poll leads will mean very little this morning. Instead, the results of the May elections now become hugely significant for his chances of survival.

FIFA were wrong in poppy wrangle

FIFA took their time but eventually performed a U-turn to allow England players to wear poppies on their black armbands during the friendly with Spain at Wembley on Saturday.

But the climbdown only came after Duke of Cambridge Prince William and Prime Minister David Cameron had written to FIFA president Sepp Blatter.

Earlier Mr Cameron had branded the original decision of an outright ban on poppies as "outrageous", and he added: "The idea that wearing a poppy to remember those who have given their lives for our freedom is a political act is absurd.

"Wearing a poppy is an act of huge respect and national pride."

FIFA had stated, by way of explanation, that the ban on poppies had to be enforced as "such initiatives would open the door to similar initiatives from all over the world, jeopardising the neutrality of football".

However, Blatter's organisation has failed to realise that, despite the intervention of Mr Cameron, the poppy itself is not a political or religious symbol at all. It simply serves to commemorate those who sacrificed their lives in war for their country.

Jon Snow, the Channel 4 news presenter, famously refuses to wear a poppy (or indeed any symbol which may represent his views) on screen, condemning what he calls "poppy fascism".

Mr Snow added: "In the end, there really must be more important things in life than whether a news presenter wears symbols on his lapels."

But that is not the issue here, either, as the England players were more than happy to have a poppy embroidered on their shirt.

That was certainly the case for Arsenal youngster Jack Wilshere who tweeted: "My great-grandad fought for this country in WW2 and I'm sure a lot of people's grandparents did.

"[The] England team should wear poppies on Saturday. It's the nation's tradition and it would be disrespectful not to."

Indeed, the only extremism seemed to come from FIFA, the organisation with a president dictator who has famously been reelected unopposed on the last two occasions.

Meanwhile, the Royal British Legion expressed their disappointment at the original stance. George Batt, the general secretary of the Normandy Veterans' Associated, described the decision as "disgraceful".

Mr Batt added: "I'm lost for words. I can't see any harm in wearing a poppy. It's so sad.You surely don't need rules and regulations in Fifa like this?"

It is little wonder the soldiers were bemused and upset. They know that 90 minutes of exposure from England's top footballers would do much to help a good cause which celebrated its 90th birthday this year.

Of course, the row brought the usual measured response from the right-wing press and, even in supporting the cause, the Daily Mail slipped up.

First, the newspaper inexplicably pinned the blame for the poppy ban on the Germans before making a U-turn of its own.

But it is FIFA's change of heart which is more telling as the organisation gradually realised it was on the wrong side of the argument once again.

Indeed, as row escalated, the governing body went from banning poppies altogether to allowing black armbands to allowing poppies on the black armbands.

Nevertheless, the poppies will still not be on the shirts and so it could be argued that Blatter and co have still not nearly gone far enough.

Private Eye still packs a punch at 50

SATIRICAL mouthpiece Private Eye celebrated its 50th birthday this week in time-honoured fashion.

Featured on the front page of the latest edition, no. 1300, is David Cameron and his Conservative counterpart from 1961, Harold Macmillan.

It is the 23rd occasion that the current Prime Minister has been put on the cover though that is some way behind another of his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher, who leads with 95 appearances.

Famous front covers include a picture of Adolf Hitler telling us he is in fancy dress as Prince Harry after the young Royal's faux pas, and the hugely controversial 'Media to Blame' headline when Princess Diana died.

Other examples can be found on the Private Eye website which has a comprehensive index of its back issues.

Digging a little deeper, the Eye supplies fortnightly an irrepressible run of recurring in-jokes, regular columns, cartoons, and parodies of politicians, celebrities and, indeed, the newspaper industry.

Yes, journalism does not escape the clutches of the Eye: the Sun is oft-parodied for its SENSATIONALIST style, the Daily Mail mocked for its right-wing leanings and the Guardian - or Grauniad - for its spelling.

However, Private Eye is not just a joke mag but also a source itself of serious investigative journalism and a sanctuary for whistleblowers.

Indeed, the anniversary edition of the Eye has a list of 50 stories which it has broke over the years from the Profumo affair to Andrew Marr's more recent infidelity.

Among the magazine's current set of targets is former HM Revenue & Customs boss Dave Hartnett for his dodgy tax dealings with investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Of course, the Eye's propensity to push the boundaries has made it a few enemies in high places over the past half-century.

The proof of that comes in the fact that current editor - and Have I Got News For You panellist - Ian Hislop holds the unenviable record for being the most sued man in Britain.

Nevertheless, the Eye, with a circulation of more than 200,000, remains pretty well-regarded among political anoraks in this country, if not perhaps the British public at large.

Liberal Democrat MP Bob Russell even tabled an Early Day Motion at Westminster, proposing: "That this House congratulates satirical magazine Private Eye on its 50th anniversary".

The motion attracted 22 signatories, though the Eye notes that this total is five fewer MPs than the 27 who signed a similar proposal for its 1000th edition, 11 years ago.

Perhaps the recent scandals surrounding lobbying and MPs expenses means the Eye has got up a few more politicians' noses - but, in that respect, Mr Hislop and his team are only doing their jobs.

The American author and journalist Finley Peter Dunne once wrote that the job of a newspaper is "to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable".

And it would seem that Private... (cont. p94)

(That's enough, Ed.)

Cat fight overshadows Conservative conference

A DRAB conference season from all of the parties briefly sparked into life thanks to an extraordinary spat between two ministers over an asylum seeker with a cat.

Home Secretary Theresa May was first to unleash her claws at the Conservative conference in Manchester.

She used her speech to deride the Human Rights Act and claimed it had saved a South American man from deportation "because - and I am not making this up - he had a pet cat".

Mrs May was treading a dangerous line - surely her script-writers should have worked out that such a ridiculous claim would not stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed, it was unsurprisingly soon rebuffed by top judges from the Judicial Communications Office and Mrs May's Conservative colleague, the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

But, despite scorn being cast upon her comments, Mrs May had still done enough to play to the gallery who lapped it up gleefully.

And Mr Clarke, who has always cut a rather controversial and sometimes lonely figure with his pro-Europe stance in a largely Eurosceptic party, was also rebuked by Prime Minister David Cameron in his keynote speech.

Mr Cameron, who was, in fairness, attempting to make light of the issue, referred to the fact that he had been involved in recording audio books for the blind as part of a social project being run at the conference.

He said: "There was one book that I chose personally. I said 'Ken, this one's called Crime And Punishment and I want you to read it, twice'."

That appeared to be a slight on Mr Clarke's generally softer stance to sentencing than most of his party and, indeed, some of those on the opposition benches.

However, on a separate issue, Foreign Secretary William Hague was unable to appease the Tory right as the party's divisions over Europe continued to bubble under the surface.

Mr Hague ruled out a referendum on Britain's membership to the European Union, arguing one would be called only to approve or reject further transfers of sovereignty. "Our place is in the European Union," he said.

Nevertheless, this still did not stop the rather one-eyed populist press from claiming a breakthrough - most notably, here in the Daily Mail, and here in the Daily Express.

But those on the Tory right knew where they really stood after Mr Hague's speech, and some inevitably grumbled about taking their vote to UKIP instead.

Of course, although the number of defectors may actually be small, the issue of Europe still leaves Mr Cameron in a political quandary.

Does he pander to the right in league with the tabloid press or does he continue to alienate them and risk failing again to get an outright majority at the next general election?

For now, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats forces Mr Cameron's hand in that he must do the latter.

And, as the world economy dives into perhaps "the worst financial crisis in history", there seems much about Mr Cameron's premiership which is - frustratingly for him - outside of his control.

Certainly, when he launched his election manifesto over 18 months ago on Westminster Bridge, his vision of a Big Society was at the forefront of his objectives.

Now, in power, he seemingly faces a daily battle just to stop society from falling apart and so it is to his credit then that his approval rating remains as 'high' as it does.

In YouGov's weekly poll for the Sunday Times, Mr Cameron's rating is steady at -8, well ahead of Labour leader Ed Miliband who is on -32.

Similarly, the same report by Populus for Lord Ashcroft, 'The Leadership Factor' - which labelled Mr Miliband as "weird" - was much kinder to Mr Cameron whom the general public consider to be "determined" and "competent".

However, none of the party leaders scored particularly highly when people were asked who had the best policies on a wide-range of issues.

Of the ten areas selected, the 'none of the above' party led in eight with the Tories leading only in two categories - cutting the deficit and reforming welfare.

And so, while Mr Cameron is more well-liked than Mr Miliband, you would be hard-pushed still to argue that the current Prime Minister has widespread popular appeal.

Next year marks the 20th anniversary since the Conservatives last won an outright majority at a general election.

Once considered the natural party of government, Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes recently pointed out: "The Tory party is absolutely not the dominant force in British politics that it used to be."

As the UK Polling Report website notes, Mr Cameron and his party still have an image problem in vast swathes of the country up north.

Indeed, in some areas, the spectre of Thatcherism is so toxic that it is hard to see, now over 20 years on, the Tories ever recovering their ground.

This continued lack of presence in the north is especially problematic for the Conservatives as the retained first past the post system requires them still to win yet more seats to gain a majority.

Even accounting for the collapse in the Lib Dem vote, the rise of the Scottish Nationalists and the overall representation of other parties may still prevent there being a decisive result.

As the Britain Votes blog explains: "At the 2010 general election, 86 seats were won by parties other than Labour or the Conservatives.

"The result of that is, whichever of Britain's two major political parties comes out on top, they need to beat the other by 88 seats just to get a majority of two"

"The Conservatives' 48 seat advantage over Labour last year would have given them a majority in all post-war elections up until 1997.

"Instead, [Mr] Cameron ended up 20 seats shy, and more like 40 short of a workable majority. The worrying conclusion from all this is that Britain could be heading towards a state of perpetual hung parliament."

Of course, Mr Cameron was not slow in congratulating the work of the campaigners who argued against the Alternative Vote - it was, in fact, the second item of his speech.

What delicious irony it would be if the retained ever-so reliable old system can only provide us with another stalemate in 2015!

Perpetual hung parliament under first past the post? That would really set the cat among the pigeons.

Superinjunction farce leaves Giggs exposed

THE WORST-kept secret in Britain was blown out the water yesterday when a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to expose Ryan Giggs as the married Premier League footballer hiding his affair behind a superinjunction.

John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, revealed that Giggs was the man at the centre of the gagging order during an urgent questions session at the House of Commons.

But, while Mr Hemming's revelation was an unexpected part of the debate, it came as no great surprise to the many people who were already aware of Giggs' name being used in relation to this on Twitter.

Mr Hemming was able to make his statement without fear of prosecution for contempt of court as he is afforded the protection of absolute privilege in the Commons.

However, that protection does not extend to the media in areas of strict liability such as contempt.

And so that meant the BBC was originally in the frankly farcical position of being able to tell us an MP had blown Giggs' cover but without using the Welsh footballer's name.

Meanwhile, the superinjunction officially remained in place, much to the frustration of the Sun newspaper who had appealed twice to the High Court to have it removed - but failed both times.

The second of these failures came just minutes before Mr Hemming stood to speak in the Commons. 

And so, this morning, in a rare show of unity in strength by the national press - albeit perhaps an unintentional one - every newspaper had Giggs on its front page.

But, despite the Sun's attempts in the courts, top marks must actually go to the sub editors at the Mirror for their brilliant pun, 'Naming Private Ryan'.

Of course, Giggs is not the only philanderer failing to keep his name out of the public eye with the use of a superinjunction.

Last week, the former boss of collapsed bank RBS, Fred Goodwin, was similarly 'outed' in Parliament when Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used absolute privilege to reveal his name during a debate in the Lords.

And, earlier this month, BBC presenter Andrew Marr was technically in contempt of his own gagging order after he performed a spectacular U-turn by revealing the details of his affair himself.

"I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists," Marr told the Daily Mail, rendering his superinjunction invalid.

But, as the latest issue of Private Eye magazine succinctly pointed out, he had in fact spent the last three years of his career doing exactly that.

Now, the real issue here - as is often the case with media furores - is one of the public interest - i.e. is it in the public interest that people know about these affairs or is the right to a private life a more important consideration?

Well, the answer usually lies somewhere in between but, in the Marr case, the superinjunction should surely never have been imposed as the sheer hypocrisy of it absolutely wreaked.

As Private Eye notes, Marr is "a hack of three decades-standing, a respected writer on the history of journalism and a former political editor responsible for countless ministerial grillings".

And the satirical fortnightly magazine also reveals a Marr quote in which he opposes exactly the sort of gagging order which he himself had used.

"There is an argument about whether to allow a judge-made law to accumulate or to have a clean, honest, open debate in Parliament," Marr has said.

"I'm on enough of a traditionalist to believe that is what should happen rather than allow it to be settled by judges."

As for the other cases detailed in this blog, there is a compelling argument for Goodwin's injunction being overturned in that his affair took place in the months leading up to the collapse of his ailing bank.

The Giggs case is less clear cut than those of 'jug ears' Marr and Fred 'the Bed' Goodwin - but it is still wrong that some rich people use the law as a playtoy while other less fortunate have their private lives exposed.

Of course, the three cases mentioned here are just a drop in an ocean of gagging orders.

For a start, Private Eye states it is aware of no fewer than 53 superinjunctions and the nature of these instruments often means that the media cannot even mention that there is a court order in place.

Perhaps most importantly, it should be pointed out that not all of these injunctions will simply be a Who's Who gallery of shaggers.

Some of the orders will be protecting companies like Trafigura who used a superinjunction to hide the fact that they had been charged with dumping toxic waste off the coast of west Africa.

In line with events this week, this gag was also unmasked by a combination of 'mischievous' Twitter users and Paul Farrelly MP in Parliament.

It is becoming pretty clear that even superinjunctions are no guarantor of keeping your name out of the public spotlight.

That news will not sadden any journalists out there - especially considering the fact that these gagging orders are often evidently being used when the details are in the public interest.

Perhaps those who feel they have been mistreated by the media should use the law already in place to make their point, rather than hiding behind the gagging orders.

For the avoidance of doubt, the existing law is article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to privacy...

This is balanced, of course, by article 10 - the right to freedom of expression.