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.

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.

There's power in the Union

SCOTLAND will decide on whether to become an independent country following the signing of an historic agreement by Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish Nationalist leader Alec Salmond.

Mr Salmond will hope the referendum - to be held in autumn 2014 - represents a successful end to a long road, given the original purpose of the party's formation in 1934.

However, it is also the biggest gamble of the SNP leader's political life as, so associated is he with the campaign for Scottish independence, that a failure to win the vote could only ever be taken personally.

The good news for Mr Salmond is that he remains personally popular. Latest polling gives him an approval rating of plus 10, which compares favourably with the three leaders in Westminster, Mr Cameron (minus 24), Labour leader Ed Miliband (minus 14), and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg (minus 58).

Meanwhile, the Nationalists continue to hold a lead in overall polling for Scotland, despite their status as a party of government north of the border following their stunning election win 17 months ago.

The bad news for Mr Salmond is that his popularity, and that of his party, does not extend to a desire to see Scotland make a break as a fully independent country.

Latest polling shows that, among definite voters, only 30% would opt for independence against 58% who would preserve the Union, a lead of 28 points.

And, in worse news again for Mr Salmond, there is only one way which that trend is going, with smaller leads - 11% in January and 20% in June - showing in favour of the Union previously.

So, why this apparent contradiction then? Well, perhaps the most likely reason is that the Scottish people are not quite as different to the rest of Britain as they would like to think.

Historically, any political or constitutional changes on this sceptred isle have generally only come to fruition after being eked out over years and years.

Maybe, it is the case that the Scots are just as small-'c' conservative as the rest of us.

Certainly, Scotland could not be accused of being big-'C' Conservative, with still just a solitary Tory MP represented in the House of Commons.

Indeed, getting away from the murkiness of Westminster politics altogether is easily one of Mr Salmond's strongest arguments - and it is not difficult to see why that is the case.

This week, an aide of George Osborne told a ticket inspector that the chancellor "could not possibly" sit in standard class, despite apparently only holding a ticket of that type and refusing to pay for an upgrade.

Then, late yesterday evening - just as the Westminster village was packing up to go back to its second homes for the weekend - the Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell finally resigned.

Mr Mitchell had been under pressure for weeks from Conservative backbenchers and the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph after allegedly calling a Downing Street policeman a "pleb".

And, although Mr Mitchell denied once again using that word in his resignation letter, he also wrote: "Over the last two days it has become clear to me that I will not be able to fulfil my duties."

Mr Mitchell never actually did confirm exactly what he did say.

He did, in fairness, provide a background hubbub of gossip to another staid party conference season, the only other highlights of which were Mr Clegg's lamentable apology being wonderfully remixed with Auto-tune for charity, and Mr Cameron announcing he had joined Twitter.

No, easily the most fascinating party conference - an oxymoron, perhaps - is the one which is still ongoing in the Fair City of Perth on Tayside, featuring the Scottish Nationalists.

Today, the pro-independence campaign announced it will distribute one million leaflets claiming that every Scottish family will be £1,000 better off under independence.

Meanwhile, in his keynote speech, Mr Salmond has claimed that that an independent Scotland will be a more prosperous and more just society. 

However, big questions remain about some of the fundamentals of life in an independent Scotland if the vote were to be carried. 

Would Scotland remain a part of NATO despite the SNP's stance against using nuclear deterrents? Which currency would Scotland use, if not the pound? Certainly, joining the Euro does not look like a particularly good idea at the moment. 

Thirdly, amid the contradictory arguments put forward, would Scotland really be better off financially on its own? 

It is a lack of a coherent response to these questions which is likely to see the five million voters in Scotland decide this referendum in an emotive way instead. 

Perhaps that explains, from the Nationalists' perspective, why the date of vote is on the 700th anniversary of the Scottish victory by Robert the Bruce over the English at the Battle of Bannockburn. 

Indeed, on a separate note, if Scottish independence could guarantee the national football team qualifying for the World Cup, then it would more than likely pass. 

However, as Craig Levein's team stumbles instead to the bottom of its qualifying group, Scotland has had to look to the talent of its individual sportsmen and women more and more. 

At the top of that list is record six-time Olympic gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray, who also won Olympic gold as well as his first Grand Slam title this summer. 

Both of them are recognisably Scottish, and yet both of them draped themselves in the Union Flag and broke down in floods of tears as they spoke of their pride in winning gold for Team GB. 

In many ways, this vote for Scottish independence has come at a bad time for the Scottish Nationalists. 

After all, the party never actually expected to win an outright majority in the Scottish Parliament due to the proportional aspect of the electoral system. 

But, given the Scots' desire to see a centre-left alternative to the Westminster coalition, the outright SNP majority can almost be said to have happened by accident. 

Consequently, Mr Salmond's hand was forced by popular demand - and, while he no doubt feels that he can still yet win this vote, it looks as if there is power in the Union yet.

Miliband still struggling to make an impression

LABOUR leader Ed Miliband declared himself to be "his own man" this week as he celebrated one year in charge of Her Majesty's Official Opposition at the party conference in Liverpool.

But the problem for Mr Miliband is that, so far, the public has not really liked what it has seen.

For, while Labour has had a consistent lead over the Conservatives in the polls throughout 2011, Mr Miliband's personal ratings are pretty dire.

As reported on the UK Polling Report website, only 18% of people think he has provided an effective opposition, and 64% think he has not. Only 19% think he has made it clear what he stands for, 66% do not.

And, perhaps most pertinently of all, only 19% of people think he would be up to the job of Prime Minister, compared to 62% who think he would not.

Indeed, even Labour supporters have failed to warm to Mr Miliband - 51% do not think he has provided an effective opposition, and 52% of them think he has not made it clear what he stands for.

A plurality of Labour supporters believe he would be up to the job as Prime Minister but the 45%-34% lead on this question is hardly a ringing endorsement.

So, if Mr Miliband struggles in convincing his own supporters, just what sort of impression has he given the population at large?

Well, a recent report by Populus for Lord Ashcroft on this matter suggests that most of the general public cannot get past the obstacle that, frankly, Mr Miliband comes across as a bit "weird".

His demeanour, his manner of speaking, his apparently reluctant marriage and his 'fraternicide' in the leadership election were all factors which people found decidedly odd.

Of course, such qualitative discussions can swiftly denigrate into the most base and populist of debates but this was not the first occasion in recent times that the word "weird" has been applied to a major UK politician.

Former Labour PM Tony Blair described his Conservative opponent William Hague as such.

Now, because Mr Miliband is "his own man", he distanced himself away from his predecessors and, indeed, the very mention of Mr Blair's name was booed by some sections of the conference hall.

It would be difficult to imagine the Conservative party conference giving Margaret Thatcher that sort of reception and yet the fact is that they both won three successive elections.

But, while Lady Thatcher's reputation on the Right remains largely unharmed, Mr Blair made such a negative impact in the end for Labour, Mr Miliband has been quick to emphasis their differences.

Last year, the newly-elected leader stated his clear opposition to the Iraq war.

This year, in his keynote speech, Mr Miliband attacked New Labour's cosy relationship with certain businesses in the City and Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

The problem for Mr Miliband on the latter issue is that he was seemingly just as keen to seek the approval of News International until the phone hacking scandal really took off in the summer.

Mr Miliband was also on the defensive about his plan to tax some private equity firms differently - though, in response, he came out with what was perhaps his best line of the week, stating he is "not anti-business but anti business-as-usual".

However, much damage was already done by BBC presenter Andrew Neil who ran rings around several baffled shadow cabinet ministers on his show.

The lack of clarity there was not the only setback which the party has faced over the last few days.

For, although Mr Miliband was successful in diluting the union bloc vote in future leadership elections, no one failed to spot the irony that his brother David would have almost certain won the contest under the new rules.

By far the most ludicrous moment of the week, though, came when Shadow Culture Secretary Ivan Lewis suggested there should be a register of journalists who could be struck off if found guilty of serious wrongdoing.

The move was inevitably greeted with derision from all corners of Fleet Street with one journalist, writing on her blog, taking particular care to point out all the weaknesses of such a scheme.

Indeed, the best argument from Fleet Street Fox was that journalists, just like anyone else, remain subject to the ultimate regulation: the law.

Unsurprisingly, then, the register of journalists policy was quietly dropped that same evening in what has been described as the "fastest U-turn in history".

It seems, then, that Mr Miliband can do little to please anyone at the moment.

He made few friends with the Left at the Trade Unions Congress earlier this month when criticising some members' decision to strike while negotiations over pensions were ongoing.

Meanwhile, his attempt to distance himself from Mr Blair will have made the supporters on that wing of the party bristle at best.

Mr Miliband has already been given the hurry-up by the Fabian Society, a left-wing think tank, in the run-up to the conference.

Now, having left Liverpool without a major impression, the sands of time really are starting to slip away from him.

Fighting talk from the Lib Dems has come too late

ONE by one, leading Liberal Democrats have taken to the platform at their annual party conference to attack their coalition partners.

In a bid to put some clear water - though it is probably best not to say some clear, blue water - between themselves and the Conservatives, this was Bash A Tory week in Birmingham.

The party's deputy leader Simon Hughes got his joust in early, referring to the Tories as "ruthless" in an interview with the Guardian on the eve of the conference.

But it was party president Tim Farron who ramped up the rhetoric in a speech on Sunday which suggested that a Conservative-majority government would be "an absolute nightmare".

Mr Farron, who - like Mr Hughes - is not a minister, also determined that "divorce is inevitable" after three or four years.

This time-frame caused a bit of consternation as the coalition partners have always stated they would serve a full five-year term in office together until 2015.

But, nothing too much should be read into it as, three years from now, the parties will be just about going their separate ways at their last major conference before the next general election.

Perhaps more pertinently, there was some dissent from the frontbench, too.

Chris Huhne, who was an avid supporter of the Alternative Vote, is clearly still feeling a little sore over the perception that Prime Minister David Cameron campaigned vigorously for a 'No' vote having previously stated he would stay out of the debate.

Energy minister Mr Huhne compared the Tory hard right with the "madcap" Tea Party movement in the United States, and he criticised Conservatives for "slavering over tax cuts for the rich".

And then Business secretary Vince Cable took a swipe at Mr Cameron's policy advisor Steve Hilton and others on the Tory right who have suggested that Britain should abolish maternity leave.

"What I will not do though is provide cover for ideological descendants of those who sent children up chimneys," Mr Cable said.

Party leader Nick Clegg was noticeably more careful with his words in his 42-minute keynote speech - stating only that his party was "in nobody's pocket" - but then, as Mr Cameron's deputy, he probably has to be.

Instead, Mr Clegg has used the past few days to try and emphasise the Lib Dems' achievements in government.

There were several mentions of their strong opposition to the removal of the 50p tax rate, and a repeated highlighting of the doubling of the pupil premium.

The Lib Dems also launched an almost continual PR effort in seeking to demonstrate which concessions they had won in the Health and Social Care Bill.

But, on the NHS bill in particular, the attempt at positive spin has been disputed internally, most notably by Lib Dem peer Baroness Williams.

All this after activists were unable to force a vote on the controversial changes, failing to get the two thirds majority needed for it to be considered.

Meanwhile, there has been a general discomfort about the changing nature of the party and its conference with the necessity of extra security on the venue entrances coming in for questioning.

And former MP Evan Harris cautioned over the 'Toryisation' of the event whereby it becomes just a series of stage-managed speeches by the frontbench rather than a genuine forum for debate.

Of course, some delegates think that it has already happened and indeed that the very presence of the Lib Dems in coalition with the Conservatives is a byword for betrayal.

The broken promises over tuition fees and the VAT bombshell - as well as the comprehensive failure to win the argument over electoral reform - have left scars which cannot be healed by a few concessions here and there.

The really bad news for Mr Clegg and his party is that a large proportion of voters remain of this same opinion.

A poll released this week by Comres in the Sunday Mirror showed that 47% of people who voted Lib Dem in the 2010 general election would not vote for the party again.

This is largely in line with the recent polling averages on the UK Polling Report website which show their support hovering at around 11% as compared to 23% at the election.

Quite simply, it seems that, for many people, this fighting talk has come too little and too late.

Such a hopeless circumstance would usually put Mr Clegg in a vulnerable position as party leader but a lack of a credible challenger still leaves him in situ.

Mr Farron came closest to casting aspersions on Mr Clegg's authority this week - saying "there is no ruling it [a bid for the leadership] out in the future" - but he quickly backtracked once he had realised his mistake.

It all means the Lib Dems will struggle on for now with the electoral albatross that is Mr Clegg.

This has been a week in which the Lib Dems have talked tough but the general public has already seen through their self-aggrandizing bluster.

And now they are just waiting to deliver the knockout blow at the next major visit to the polls - whether that is in 2015 or sooner.

Conservatives party conference: Cameron remains rooted in rhetoric

CONSERVATIVE leader David Cameron closed this year's party conference in Manchester amid the widely held view that he will be Prime Minister at the next one.

Buoyed by month after month of strong opinion poll leads, it is indeed now difficult to imagine anything other than victory for Mr Cameron at next year's general election.

A poll just before the conference gave the Tories a lead of 14 points over Labour and the message to the delegates was to try not to look too triumphalist.

It was not something the attendees were used to hearing after 12 years of opposition.

But the week was not without its difficulties. The thorny issue of Europe has often divided the party in the past and it threatened to do so again.

In 2001, William Hague focused his election strategy on the ill-advised 'Save the Pound' campaign.

Further back, John Major called a vote of confidence in himself after he lost a vote in the Commons on the Maastricht Treaty to the party's Eurosceptics in 1993.

This time, there was a lack of direction from the top brass over the Lisbon Treaty.

Their current position - to hold a referendum if the treaty has not been ratified by all 27 EU members -holds little water after the Irish voted 'Yes' and the Poles and Czechs are set to follow.

There has been nothing forthcoming on what their new policy will be and a lack of policy generally remains a criticism of the revamped Tories.

It was evident again in the keynote speech by Mr Cameron. Unsurprisingly, his focus was on the broken society after more than a decade of Labour government.

That was fair enough given the current state of the country but Mr Cameron offered few concrete solutions.

Instead he preferred to recount the usual emotive tales of pensioners struggling to keep warm and a man called Viv who was denied work because of the ridiculous benefits system.

Mr Cameron even found time to include Fiona Pilkington's recent tragic story.

Ms Pilkington killed herself and her daughter after years of bullying from local youths but the mention of it in a conference speech seemed misplaced.

BBC correspondent Ben Wright wrote that it echoed when Tony Blair referred to the death of James Bulger in a speech shortly before gaining power.

Indeed, much of the speech echoed the build up to 1997 when Mr Blair made one promise after another without committing to specific policies.

A major difference, however, is that at that stage Mr Blair was regularly polling at 50% and more, while current polls put the Tories nearer 40%.

The feeling remains that the government will lose the election rather than the Tories winning it on the back of a huge swathe of popularity.

The reason for that to me is clear - Mr Cameron has yet to commit to many policies - he has no policies for which to like or dislike him.

Indeed he admitted in this latest speech that he favours personality politics and considers policy to be secondary.

"It's your character, your temperament and your judgment - not your policies and your manifesto - that really make the difference," he said.

Nevertheless, the polls still give Mr Cameron a comfortable majority of between 50 and 100 seats.

It seems unfeasible that he will not be the next UK Prime Minister in 2010 - but with what direction?

Quite frankly, the answer remains as clear as mud.

Labour party conference: Mortal blow for Brown as The Sun inevitably switches sides

BRITAIN's most popular selling newspaper The Sun has made the unsurprising switch in its political allegiance from Labour to the Tories for the next general election.

The Sun's front page headline "Labour's Lost It" leaves readers in no doubt which party it will be supporting when the country goes to the polls next year.

The switch deals a mortal blow to the premiership of Gordon Brown just hours after his rallying call to Labour members in his conference speech in Brighton.

And it brings to an end 12 years of support for New Labour, which it first declared six weeks before the 1997 general election.

Tony Blair and his director of communications Alastair Campbell had courted owner Rupert Murdoch in the run-up to the landslide victory.

They put great importance on gaining The Sun's endorsement after the newspaper claimed to be the decisive factor in John Major's re-election in the 1992 general election.

On the eve of polling day, it famously ran a front-page image of then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock's head in a light bulb.

The picture was accompanied by the headline "If Kinnock Wins Today, Will The Last Person To Leave Britain Please Turn Out The Lights".

Then, although exit polls suggested a hung parliament, the result put Mr Major back into office and the paper declared "It Woz The Sun Wot Won It".

Despite this, the political influence of the newspaper on the public is much-debated and it is regarded by many simply to back the party already most likely to win.

Certainly, in 1997, Labour had been well ahead in the polls for some time when The Sun, which sells 3 million copies daily, finally declared its support.

And it's the same story for David Cameron's Conservative party this time around.

The Tories have been ahead in the polls since the infamous non-election in October 2007 and they now hold a comfortable lead of up to 16 points.

The latest poll by Ipsos-MORI even has Labour in third for the first time since February 1982, with the Conservatives on 36%, Labour on 24% and the Liberal Democrats on 25%.

Indeed, perhaps the only surprise in recent weeks has been the lack of an official declaration of support for the Tories from The Sun.

But it is now clear that the paper has held their announcement back in order to deal as big a blow as possible to the Prime Minister and his ailing administration.

And while it is easy to dismiss The Sun's pandering to the public, it is difficult to feel any sympathy for Mr Brown.

He and his party have introduced draconian laws onto the statute book, eroding the civil liberties of the general public.

Labour has also led the nation's forces into seemingly unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most incredibly of all, Labour seems to have forgotten about its grassroots support.

Of course, Mr Brown and his supporters will hark on about its credible first term achievements of the introduction of a minimum wage and the tax credits system.

But the fact of the matter now is that it is better financially to be on benefits than work for the minimum wage, and the tax credits system has long been a mess.

My personal view is that Mr Brown lost any credibility as Prime Minister in his last budget as Chancellor before he got the top job.

In that budget, he announced the removal of the 10 per cent starting rate income tax band from the following tax year.

I was working in the tax office at the time and was stunned to hear this.

With the aid of a calculator, it did not take me long to work out that this effectively forced anyone earning between £6,000 and £18,000 would pay more tax.

That included most members of my family and the majority of my friends. It was the last thing I expected a Labour Prime Minister to be doing.

A year later when the policy came into force, Mr Brown was Prime Minister and, unsurprisingly, there was a furore.

Realising his mistake, Mr Brown instructed new Chancellor Alastair Darling to reverse the policy by increasing the tax free allowance.

But it was too late - the original act had left its dirty mark and the damage had been done.

Even after the U-turn, there were still up to 1.3 million low-earning taxpayers for whom the allowance increase was insufficient.

Is it any wonder he no longer has the support of Britain's most populist rag?

Liberal Democrats party conference: Clegg correct to reject Tory advances

NICK CLEGG closed the last Liberal Democrat party conference before the general election with a clear rejection of the Tories' advances.

In the Observer on Sunday, Conservative leader David Cameron cherry-picked policies on the third Heathrow runway, greener energy, ID cards and civil liberties.

Mr Cameron wrote that "there's barely a cigarette paper" on these issues between the parties and suggested they form an alliance to defeat their common enemy, Labour.

But, while making his speech on his wedding anniversary, Mr Clegg immediately rejected the Tory woos.

And rightly so, as for the good of British politics, I believe we need a Liberal Democrat party with a distinctive identity.

Unfortunately, distinction has been something which has troubled Mr Clegg in a tough week in Bournemouth.

High profile party members have grumbled that he has put their policy of scrapping tuition fees on the backburner, with him citing the need to save money in a recession.

This is despite it being something which had served them well according to former leader Charles Kennedy and it certainly attracted a lot of votes from students in 2005.

Mr Clegg was also criticised from members inside his party for using the term "savage" to describe the cuts which his party would make.

But he confirmed that much of this would be concentrated on freezing the salaries of executives and this sounds no bad thing to me.

It would stop incompetents like Paul Gray, former chairman at HMRC, picking up a £190,000 salary while leading a chaotic department merger which ended up with lost Child Benefit discs.

Other policy ideas also paint the Lib Dems as a progressive and radical force.

They were the first party to suggest a tax rate of 50 per cent on incomes above £100,000 before Labour adopted the policy.

And the Lib Dems remain the only party which would raise the personal allowance to £10,000, taking over four million people out of paying income tax.

Their position on scrapping the financial blackhole that is Trident is also something with which I agree, and they accurately predicted the carnage which would occur in Iraq.

Notably, they emerged from the Daily Telegraph's expenses revelations relatively unscathed - and certainly did so as compared to their Labour and Conservative counterparts.

While I accept the Lib Dems will not come close to winning the next election and Mr Clegg is unlikely ever to be Prime Minister, I would still like to see the party increase their representation.

The Lib Dems currently have 63 seats. This compares favourably with 46 seats when Labour came to power in 1997 and just 20 seats after the 1992 election.

But the first-past-the-post system still fails to reflect their vote and it is likely the party will lose several seats to the Tory juggernaut in the south.

It is therefore the disenchanted Labour voters in the north where the Lib Dems need to capitalise with a progressive manifesto.

They already control several important councils in Labour strongholds, including Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield, and Mr Clegg should be looking to take advantage of a weary Labour government in a national election.

Of course, if the Lib Dems are successful in increasing their number at the expense of Labour, it will have the inadvertent effect of helping Mr Cameron into office.

But, importantly, the Lib Dems would be gaining seats on their own terms at least and not on behalf of the Tories.