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.

Guardian editor stands firm over Snowden

GUARDIAN editor Alan Rusbridger brushed aside claims that he had breached national security by publishing files leaked by former US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden.

Mr Rusbridger held firm in an hour-long session in front of the MPs of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and denied that he was in charge of a "rogue newspaper".

Indeed, it emerged that much less than 1% of the material from Mr Snowden had been printed so far, and that the paper had "made very selective judgements" about what to include. Additionally, no security officials' names have been revealed.

"We have published, I think, 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen," said Mr Rusbridger.

Meanwhile, in a slightly bizarre exchange, the editor was asked by Keith Vaz if he "loved this country", prompting an unsurprisingly forthright response.

"Yes, we [at the Guardian] are patriots," said the Harry Potter-lookalike. "One of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of democracy, the nature of a free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things.

"One of the things I love about this country is that we have that freedom to write, and report, and to think and we have some privacy, and those are the concerns which need to be balanced against national security, which no one is underestimating.

"I can speak for the entire Guardian staff who live in this country that they want to be secure too."

Interestingly, the question from Mr Vaz immediately recalled to my mind the recent story in the Daily Mail about Ralph Miliband, the late father of the Labour leader, Ed.

The Mail claimed in October that, because Marxist academic, Ralph, was against a market economy and rejected some of Britain's institutions such as the Royal family, he actually "hated Britain".

But what the Mail did not realise is that there are many different way to love your country, and not all - or indeed many - of which will subscribe to the right wing rag's one-eyed view.

Back to the Committee today, anyway - and a slightly more valid query came from Conservative MP Mark Reckless who pondered whether the Guardian had committed a criminal offence.

Again, though, Mr Rusbridger remained unmoved. "I think it depends on your view of a free press," he replied.

Instead, the Guardian chief reeled off a ream of examples of how his newspaper had been intimidated into spiking these huge public interest articles.

Mr Rusbridger said: "They include prior restraint, they include a senior Whitehall official coming to see me to say, 'There has been enough debate now'.

"They include asking for the destruction of our disks. They include MPs calling for the police to prosecute the editor... things that are inconceivable in the US."

"I feel that some of this activity has been designed to intimidate the Guardian."

The Guardian, though, is thankfully not alone. There is some safety in numbers as stories from the files taken by Mr Snowden have also appeared in Der Spiegel in Germany, and the New York Times and Washington Post in the United States.

Of course, the Post is still most famous for uncovering the Watergate scandal in which it was found aides close to President Richard Nixon had broken into the Democratic party headquarters.

The reporters of Watergate, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, have subsequently gone down in journalism folklore for their brave, investigatory work.

And so, it was rather apt, then, that Mr Bernstein took the time to write an open letter to Mr Rusbridger, praising him for standing up to government intimidation and summing up the debate quite presciently.

Indeed, Mr Bernstein hit the nail on the head when he wrote: "Generally speaking, the record of journalists, in handling genuine national security information since World War II... is far more responsible than the over-classification, disingenuousness, and (sometimes) outright lying by a series of governments, prime ministers and presidents. Especially in recent years."

Trust, effectively, is the crux of the debate. Mr Rusbridger today promised that the Guardian "would not be put off by intimidation, but nor are we going to behave recklessly".

On this matter, it would be bizarre if he were lying and, to be honest, the MPs on the Select Committee would be better saving their questions for elsewhere.

In fairness to the politicians, that does, in fact, seem now to be happening with head of MI5, Andrew Parker, summoned to appear next week to justify the somewhat specious claim that the leaks endangered national security. 

No doubt, Mr Rusbridger and many others will watch on with a keen interest, confident that morality, at least would appear to be on their side.

Nothing to fear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sun takes the paywall plunge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it bleeds, it leads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On second thoughts...

HELLO again. I have decided to write here again; I suppose I just couldn't stay away.

Of course, I elected to stop updating this blog about a month ago with the aim of reducing the amount of unproductive time I spend waste on the internet.

Guess what? It didn't really work. I still spend waste far too much time online - on forums, on Facebook, on the BBC and Guardian news sites... and, ahem, elsewhere.

Indeed, on second thoughts, my blogging was actually a much more positive use of my time on the web - even if I think I did sometimes focus on the quantity over the quality of my posts.

Consequently, I am now returning to the fold and I intend to cover my usual interests with write-ups on politics and the media, football, cricket and other sports.

In addition to all that, though, I would also like to write more articles from a personal perspective about my issues with anxiety and depression.

Obviously, there are many personal matters which I will discuss in therapy that will not be published here. But, if I can perhaps share a few things which are helping me every now and then, my posts may even become half-decent reference points in themselves.

Anyway, this is just a quick post to say it's good to be back, more soon. Oh, and thanks for reading again. :-)

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.

Falklanders overwhelmingly opt to stay British

FALKLAND ISLANDS	"Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"
Yes	1,513 (99.8%)
No	3 (0.2%)

Total votes: 1,517 (one invalid ballot) Turnout: 90.7%


FALKLAND ISLANDERS have voted overwhelmingly to remain British in a referendum held in the south Atlantic territory over the past two days.

In all, 1,513 (99.8%) voters responded in the affirmative to the set question: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?". Only three people (0.2%) voted against in a strong turnout of 90.7%.

That the outcome was not a surprise is an understatement, to say the least. Indeed, in terms of elections, there will rarely be anything as inevitable as this result.

So, why hold the referendum then in the first place? Well, the Argentine government has claimed it is nothing more than a PR exercise and has already confirmed it will simply ignore the result.

And, in a certain sense, the Argentines are correct in their suggestion. The vote has been held for little other reason than for the Falkland people to make an unequivocal statement.

However, it is now over 30 years since the Falklands War, and more than 26 since the Falklanders last voted to affirm their desire to be British.

It is no wonder they have now felt inclined to do so, particularly with the Falklands recently having become a bit of a hot issue again.

Earlier this year, Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman said that the islands would be under the control of his country within 20 years. He also accused Britain of occupying the islands for "access to oil and natural resources".

Moreover, the fervour swept up by the Argentine government looks like it is working. Faced with an economic situation, which is worsening by the day, the baseless sabre-rattling is proving to be a successful distraction for Argentina President Cristina Kirchner.

Polling by Yougov and Argentine equivalent Ibarometro shows that, while only 1% of British people pick the Falklands as one of the most important international issues facing the country, 24% of Argentinians do.

Asked directly about Falklands, 54% of British respondents think it is an important issue to Britain, compared to 67% of Argentinians who think it is an important issue to Argentina.

Despite that, many Argentinians seem to have little idea of the islands' history, or remain knowingly ignorant.

The argument used by foreign minister Timerman - that there is no such thing as a Falklander and that Britain occupies the islands solely for use of its natural resources - is parroted unthinkingly.

But, even if it was the case that Britain now maintains a south Atlantic base for oil, it certainly was not in the past. Not unless the first British settlers had incredible foresight in 1690, that is 126 years before Argentina even became a country in its own right.

Of course, the nadir in diplomatic relations between Britain and Argentina occurred in 1982 with the outbreak of the Falklands War, a 74-day conflict which cost the lives of 255 British servicemen, approximately 650 Argentine servicemen, and three Falklands civilians.

The single biggest loss of life came with the sinking of the Belgrano, an Argentine navy ship, by HMS Conqueror. 323 Argentina servicemen were killed in what remains a highly controversial military assault by the British.

Worse, though, was the now infamous tub-thumping reaction of the Sun newspaper, and its sickeningly vainglorious "Gotcha" headline.

No doubt, the fate of the Belgrano and its occupants is the most memorable incident in the war, and one which has coloured the view of many people in Britain of the whole conflict.

Certainly, there seems to be a lot of bitterness about the Falklands War generally by those on the political Left.

For example, there have been no fewer than three articles on the Guardian website in the last few days, all of them written from an Argentine perspective, including one by the South American country's ambassador to London, Alicia Castro.

Of course, it did not help the Left that one of the direct consequences of the British victory was the huge boost in morale for Margaret Thatcher's ailing Conservative government.

Indeed, having been struggling in the polls through almost all of her first term, the Tories rallied from the summer of 1982 onwards and pulled off a huge landslide win in the 1983 general election.

It was an even bigger victory for Mrs Thatcher than her breakthrough win in 1979, and it essentially sealed her position at the top of British politics for the rest of the decade.

But, while the fate of history was clearly not on the side of the Left politically, such pettiness should be put aside and the Left should accept the necessity of the Falklands War (if not, necessarily, the Belgrano incident).

Ultimately, as far as I am concerned, the good folk in Port Stanley are as British as anyone living in Bristol, Bradford or Birmingham.

And, after the dark day on 2 April 1982 when Argentine forces swept unannounced across the island, those Britons' lives deserved to be protected by a British counter-offensive.

Far from being meaningless, as suggested by ambassador Castro, this referendum result actually means everything to the Falklanders.

It is their only way of making a statement to the rest of the world that they will not be moved. Now, if only Argentina would listen.

Halfway to hell?

COALITION partners David Cameron and Nick Clegg reaffirmed their belief in their historic agreement as the Government's fixed five-year term reached its midway point this week.

Conservative Prime Minister Mr Cameron said: "It is a Ronseal deal: it does what it says on the tin. We said we would come together, we said we would form a government, we said we would tackle these big problems. That is exactly what we have done."

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron's Liberal Democrat deputy Mr Clegg looked ahead to the next general election, adding: "Of course we can fight, as we will do, as two separate, independent parties.

"Of course we will set out different visions of the future. Of course we can start explaining that before the general election. But we will govern and provide this country with good government until the election is held in May 2015."

Yes, it looks as if this coalition government is going to last a full five-year term but what Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg will not say is that this is due to necessity, rather than choice.

Frankly, either party pulling out of the coalition would be the equivalent of pulling a gun on itself, considering their respective, weak positions.

The Conservatives have trailed Labour with every single polling company for more than half a year now, and the Tories have further been damaged by the emergence of UKIP as the new home of the protest vote.

Almost as a consequence of the rise of Nigel Farage's party, it seems, Mr Cameron's Conservatives have stepped further to the political right in their recent rhetoric.

The launch of what can only be described as a brazen propaganda campaign which demonises all benefits claimants will play well with misinformed members of the public.

And, as the Independent newspaper pointed out this week, there are plenty of people who fall into that category, unfortunately.

The Guardian went even further, mounting a counter-offensive by pointing out the 1% cap on benefits will actually have most effect on the likes of nurses, soldiers and teachers.

After all, several of the capped benefits - such as Maternity Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, and tax credits - are paid to working people on a low wage.

And so, while the benefits cap will inevitably play well to the archetypal Daily Mail reader, for many of the affected workers in the political centre, the move will simply reinforce the toxic Tories' negative brand.

This could be important, as a loss of voters in the centre makes it even more difficult for the Conservatives to get a majority in 2015.

Indeed, as explained here on the UK Polling Report blog, the way the boundaries are set up means that they are already at a mathematical disadvantage, compared to Labour.

Furthermore, those boundaries are unlikely to be changed by the time of the next election following the coalition partners' fall-out over the Alternative Vote referendum and House of Lords reform.

However, the Lib Dems' opposition to the boundary changes is unlikely to reprieve them in the eyes of the public at large.

For, from voting through the rise in tuition fees in December 2010 to forcing through a 1% cap on benefits tonight, the Lib Dems will rightly be seen as patsies for the worst excesses of the Tories' agenda.

Already subject to some humiliating by-election results, it is not yet quite clear exactly what the extent of the damage will be when the country goes to the polls as a whole.

But it seems unthinkable now that the Lib Dems will have time to turn around the way which the public perceives them.

It is therefore almost inevitable that the party will lose some of its 57 seats, a total which it has painstakingly built up over the last 20 years since the 1992 election.

Back then, under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown, the Lib Dems scored 17.8% of the vote but, due to the intricacies and indeed biases of the First Past the Post system, took only 20 seats.

Gradually, the party was able to build up a supporter base and become stronger in certain areas, which allowed it to pool its resources into more winnable seats.

Ultimately, their historically strong performance for a third party in British politics in 2010 left them in the position of kingmakers - but, equally, their choice of a coalition with the Conservatives may reduce their number of seats down to 1992 levels. It might even be worse.

Surely, then, the Government struggles must mean that Labour - as the only major HM Opposition party - must be odds-on to win an overall majority in 2015. Well, not quite, as it happens.

The problem for Labour is that the public's political consciousness not as short as the party would like it to be, and the Conservatives - despite their poor ratings generally - are still more trusted to deal with the economy.

Perhaps most damagingly, Labour leader Ed Miliband still trails Mr Cameron when it comes to the public's preference for Prime Minister, and he has rarely looked like shifting this perception.

Labour's mid-term poll lead will count for very little once the increasingly-personified general election campaign gets properly under way, if Mr Miliband's personal ratings remain so poor.

Indeed, the 2015 general election is pointing towards being yet another election in which no one wins.

Even going back as far as 2005, none of the main parties can claim to have had a particularly impressive general election result.

Of course, in 2005, Labour won a majority for the third consecutive time - but it did so on the back of just 35.2% of the popular vote, having nominally lost 47 seats against the backdrop of the unpopular Iraq war.

For the Conservatives, 2005 represented some progress compared to the wretchedness of 1997 and 2001. However, then-leader Michael Howard was still only able to attract 32.4% of the vote.

Finally, the Lib Dems could be best pleased with their 2005 result, winning many seats due to their opposition to the Iraq war - but their 62 MPs were still unable to do much to influence Parliament.

That all changed in 2010 of course - but, even amid the short-lived and ultimately fabled Clegg-mania, the Lib Dems could only manage 23% of the vote. In fact, their number of MPs actually fell by five.

For Labour, 2010 was an unmitigated disaster, as the party recorded its worst share of the vote - 29% - since 1983.

But, for the Conservatives too, the last general election was hugely disappointing with the party still unable to get an overall majority despite having been in opposition for 13 years.

Consequently, despite all the hullabaloo about the Alternative Vote system causing hung parliaments, there might be a second successive one under the First Past the Post method in 2015. 

Until then, no doubt, the coalition will stumble on, intermittently losing Cabinet ministers despite the Lib Dems bowing to most of the Conservatives' wishes. 

Sometimes, somewhat despairingly, it is easy to forget that this is only the halfway mark...

American politics and that four-letter word

Hope? Or hopeless?... The USA decides on Tuesday 6 November

PRESIDENT Barack Obama's plea for a second term at the White House was immediately undermined by poor jobs figures as the American economy continues to struggle.

Mr Obama made his keynote speech at the close of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, but the following day's headlines were dominated by yet more economic gloom.

For, while the unemployment rate across the United States actually fell from 8.3% to 8.1%, this was attributed to people giving up looking for work as only 96,000 jobs had been created in the last month.

Thus, the Obama presidency was summed up in less than 24 hours - some great oration followed up by too little substance.

Four years ago, of course, Mr Obama stood on a platform of change and that most over-used four-letter word in all politics - hope.

Millions of people lined up behind the simple "Yes we can" slogan of the president-elect, and the famous poster - designed by artist Frank Shepard Fairey - even has its own Wikipedia entry.

But, this week in an editorial in the Guardian, Mr Obama was compared to Icarus, the winged character from Greek mythology who flew too near the sun and crashed to earth.

Indeed, even some of his own supporters admit Mr Obama over-promised and under-delivered in his first four years.

At home, there has been criticism that the president has concentrated too much on his landmark healthcare bill when the lack of growth of tanking economy should have been the first-term priority.

Mr Obama was further undermined by the fact that when the bill was finally introduced, it was a much watered-down version of the original proposal due to his failure to convince Democrats in swing states to vote with him.

In terms of foreign policy, Mr Obama has been criticised by Noam Chomsky for being worse even than George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

That conclusion has presumably been reached by Mr Chomsky because Mr Obama has significantly increased the number of soldiers in the unwinnable Afghanistan war, and also increased the number of drone attacks on supposed ally Pakistan. Moreover, the promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has also not been kept. 

So, with the general election on 6 November just over eight weeks away, what is the alternative?

Well, the week before the Democratic jamboree in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Republican party officially endorsed Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate at their National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

The choice of the venue for the Republicans was quite deliberate. For, the way that the maths (math?) is working out, Mr Romney simply must carry the Sunshine State.

Already, incumbent Mr Obama looks certain to win the electoral college votes from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia - a total of 185.

Against that, Mr Romney can be confident of winning in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming - for a total of 158.

The four States which are leaning towards (toward?) Mr Obama are Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania - a further 52 votes in the electoral college.

Meanwhile, Mr Romney also seems likely to carry Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina, for an additional total of 48.

With the winning marker set at 270, Mr Obama thus already eyes 237 electoral college votes from states at least likely to vote in his favour.

By contrast, Mr Romney trails with 206 electoral college points altogether. Dangerously for the GOP, then, Mr Obama's total leaves him just 33 short of the winning post and a second four-year term.

Take Florida's 29 votes and Mr Obama is just about there - only four short - with the remaining points possible from a single state, New Hampshire, or from Wisconsin, which has sided with the Democrats every time since 1988.

That perhaps explains why Mr Obama remains an odds-on favourite with the bookmakers, despite the projected national vote currently separating the candidates by just a single percentage point.

After all, Mr Romney too has had trouble convincing his own side that he is the man to lead the United States through these difficult times.

Doubts over Mr Romney's record as Governor in liberal Massachusetts made him a hard-sell during the primary campaign to the states in the Deep South.

Even at the National Convention itself, there were signs of internal dissent with supporters of defeated candidate Ron Paul actively disrupting the proceedings.

Since then, there have also been a couple of other uncomfortable moments in Florida for Mr Romney on social issues.

First, the White House challenger was forced on the back-foot after GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin made a completely boneheaded comment that "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy.

For the record, Mr Romney denounced Mr Akin's quite unbelievable stance but the latter remains a candidate in the Missouri Senate race.

Later, in the toss-up state of New Hampshire, Mr Romney seemed completely oblivious that a Vietnam war veteran quizzing him on gay marriage was himself a gay man.

Indeed, if anything, so far the election campaign has simply seemed to expose the nuttiest elements of the Republican party to an even wider audience.

And so, while Mr Obama may have been a disappointment for the first four years, he still offers more hope than a Romney presidency... even though the situation still currently seems pretty hopeless.

US ELECTION 2012 PREDICTOR 

(270 TO WIN)

NewYorkTimes

BARACK OBAMA	237	v	206	MITT ROMNEY
Strong Democrat  (185)	Leaning Democrat  (52)	Toss-up (95)	Leaning Republican  (48)	Strong Republican  (158)
California CA (55)	Maine district ME (1)	Colorado CO (9)	Arizona AZ (11)	Alabama AL (9)
Connecticut CT (7)	Michigan MI (16)	Florida FL (29)	Indiana IN (11)	Alaska AK (3)
Delaware DE (3)	Minnesota (10)	Iowa IA (6)	Missouri MO (10)	Arkansas AR (6)
Hawaii HI (4)	New Mexico (5)	Nevada NV (6)	Nebraska district NE (1)	Georgia GA (16)
Illinois IL (20)	Pennsylvania (20)	New Hampshire NH (4)	North Carolina NC (15)	Idaho ID (4)
Maine ME (2+1)		Ohio OH (18)		Kansas KS (6)
Maryland MD (10)		Virginia VA (13)		Kentucky KY (8)
Massachusettes MA (11)		Wisconsin WI (10)		Louisiana LA (8)
New Jersey NJ (14)				Montana MT (3)
New York NY (29)				Nebraska NE (2+2)
Oregon OR (7)				North Dakota ND (3)
Rhode Island RI (4)				Oklahoma OK (7)
Vermont VT (3)				South Carolina SC (9)
Washington WA (12)				South Dakota SD (3)
Dist. of Columbia DC (3)				Tennessee TN (11)
				Texas TX (38)
				Utah UT (6)
				West Virginia WV (5)
				Wyoming WY (3)

Turner turns the tables on his critics

FOLK musician Frank Turner has gone on the attack after the Guardian newspaper attempted to expose him as a phoney in one of the worst pieces of journalism so far this year.

Turner wrote a post on his own blog - entitled Schmolitics - in response to a horrendously cobbled-together article by Michael Hann, written under the headline: "Frank Turner: turns out he was right-wing all along. We just never noticed".

The story actually originated from Labour MP for Bristol East Kerry McCarthy who called Turner "a twerp" on her Twitter account for comments which he gave on his political stances in an interview three years ago - but which she presumably had only just found.

Hann subsequently wrote a lazy piece for the Guardian music blog by rehashing old quotes from interviews given by Turner to other magazines and websites.

Perhaps the simple task of picking up the telephone to speak to the artist himself sounded like too much hard work for this journalist...

To clarify, the quote which seems to have caused the most consternation is: "I do firmly believe that leftist politics lead to the misery of many, the crushing of the little guy and all that kind of thing".

But Turner has attempted to clarify the situation on his blog post. He wrote: "My politics are based on principles like democracy, individuality, equality of opportunity, distrust of power and, above all else, freedom, including economic freedom.

"They’re not the same as when I was 19, or indeed 23 – a few more years kicking around the world has made me adjust my views a little, although the basic principles remain the same.

"Once I would have called myself an anarchist. These days I suppose the word 'libertarian' does pretty well for me, though I suspect it’s a little over-intellectual as a description."

Turner continues: "Incidentally, here’s some things I’m not: 'Tory', 'conservative', or 'Republican'. If you don’t know the difference between these and libertarians, I suggest reading up a little before slagging me off. I don’t consider myself 'right wing' either. I’m just not a leftist."

Now, time for some full disclosure on my part: if you had not already guessed, I am a fan of Turner's work, particularly as a solo artist.

And, although I accept that it makes this viewpoint automatically subjective, it also works somewhat in my favour, as I have a good knowledge of his music.

I know, for instance, that he released an album with the song called 'Thatcher Fucked the Kids' in 2006, but I also know that he no longer sings it at his gigs because it associated him with being a left-winger.

Furthermore, it is clear that Turner was at the very least frustrated with the left-wing of politics back as early as 2008 when he released his acclaimed album Love Ire & Song.

For, in the song of the same name, he laments: "But it was worse when we turned to the kids on the left / And got let down again by some poor excuse for protest /

"Yeah, by idiot fucking hippies in 50 different factions / Who are locked inside some kind of 60s battle re-enactment / And I hung up my banner in disgust and I head for the door."

If those lines demonstrate what Turner is not politically, his more recent release 'Sons of Liberty' on his third album Poetry of the Deed (2009) would seem to give a better reflection of where his views lie.

But, even if Turner was actually a Tory, I would like to think that, as a fan of acoustic folk, I would still appreciate the considered way which he candidly writes and sings about the themes of love and heartbreak in the likes of "Jet Lag", "Sunshine State" and "Fastest Way Back Home", to name just three. 

Then there is the simple pleasure which I get from listening to some of his more up-tempo numbers such as "Reasons Not To Be An Idiot" and "Try This At Home". 

Now, even as a fan, I am aware that Turner can be somewhat of a 'Marmite' musician, and that the little rants in his songs can come across as like something out of a students union open mic night.

However, there has really been no need for the irrelevant attacks on Turner's background, which have come from some critics. 

Yes, he is a posh boy from Winchester in Hampshire, who went to school with Prince William at Eton and he is also the grandson of a banker. 

But, as far as I can tell, he is his own man with his own views making his own way in life - and it is simply inverse snobbery to bring his upbringing into it. 

That is not to say that, like a soppy boyband hanger-on, I agree with everything Turner says, and it seems my politics would be still to the left of his own.

Indeed, if the article had focused more on the fact that apparent hypocrisy of Turner featuring at the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, then it would have undoubtedly had more of a point.

After all, Turner has expressed his distaste for non-essential services, including the arts, receiving state funding but then appeared at a ceremony which had received millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

However, journalist Hann simply decided to accuse him, wrongly as it turns out, of being a right-winger, and then defended his slanted perspective in the comment sections below the line. 
There, he wrote: "The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper. What we do is disagree with the right."

But, even here, it was pointed out that Hann himself was wrong. Commenter, MickGJ, stated more accurately: "The Guardian is supposed to be 'small-l' liberal newspaper, which means you should be horrified at the thought that anyone should be automatically "castigated" for his or her political views, whatever their profession."

Meanwhile, another member of the public, mrMilitant, summed up a more relevant divide than the old left-wing/right-wing axis quite succinctly:

"So let me get this right. Frank is:
- Against the surveillance state
- Against National Identity Cards
- Against complete European integration
- For the NHS
- For government playing less interfering roles in people's lives."

... and added...

"Let's remember that New Labour
- Tried to bring in National ID cards
- Built the biggest part of the surveillance/database state, including the Contactpoint children's database, automatic number plate recognition cameras/network, encouraged fingerprinting children in schools and drinkers in bars and clubs, created a centralised, highly insecure medical records project and many others.
- Instigated the building of grossly expensive and unnecessary aircraft carriers, and presided over an MOD so uselessly that it is the bankrupt shambles it is today.
- intrusive and inept CRB checking that wrongly labelled thousands as criminals
- refused to change the law over people's records unnecessarily on the biometric DNA database even after an EU ruling.
- EU or not EU has riven the left on various occasions
- passed Terrorism Acts and efforts to increase detention without charge to 90 days
- removed habeous corpus [sic] and the right to silence
- generally acted in the most breathtakingly authoritarian, some would say 'right wing', way of any government of the last century".

Basically, when it comes to Frank Turner versus the authoritarian worst of New Labour - and their journalistic sympathisers - for me, there is only one winner. FTHC.

The Sun plays safe on Sunday debut

THE SUN ON SUNDAY celebrated a successful launch this weekend, pulling in 3.26 million punters for its debut edition.

It was certainly an impressive start for Rupert Murdoch's new tabloid, easily outselling its nearest rival, the Mail on Sunday, which managed its usual 1.9 million.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Mirror on 1.7 million, the People on 780,266, and the Daily Star Sunday with 640,406 were left trailing in its wake.

And so, Mr Murdoch was undoubtedly pleased with the newspaper's performance.

Having earlier said he would be "very happy" with the sale of two million copies, he tweeted: "Amazing! The Sun confirmed sale of 3,260,000 copies. Thanks all readers and advertisers. Sorry if sold out - more next time."

Already, there can be no doubt that the Sun on Sunday has shaken up the weekend market. In true Murdoch-style, it has arrived in a blaze of publicity and sparked a price war by retailing at just 50p.

The Daily Star Sunday tried to compete by doing likewise while Trinity Mirror - owner of the Sunday Mirror and the People - opted for an unconvincing strategy by reducing prices in only some areas of the country.

Nothing could match the novelty of the Sun on Sunday, though - even if the newspaper actually had a familiar look to it.

For a start, it was not the News of the World - that had become famous, and indeed infamous, for salacious 'kiss and tells', sensationalist undercover investigations and, eventually, its illegal practices.

Instead, it was more like a copy of the Sun in midweek. Leading with a big celebrity interview from Amanda Holden, the Sun on Sunday otherwise relied heavily on columnists such as Katie Price aka Jordan and political commentator Toby Young.

A full-page editorial - with the headline "A new Sun rises today" generally appealed to the readers' better nature, stating that, in the past, it had been "a tremendous force for good".

It added: "A newspaper which holds the powerful to account must do the same with itself. You will be able to trust our journalists to abide by the values of decency as they gather news." 

Nevertheless, this first edition was hardly hard-hitting stuff and, as such, it has generally received a lukewarm review from media commentators such as Roy Greenslade.

Of course, the opinion of the Guardian columnist will not have caused the staff on the Sun to lose much sleep but it is fair to say that the newspaper has had better days than on Monday.

The Leveson inquiry into media ethics has now moved on to cover the relationship between press and police following its coverage of the phone hacking allegations.

On a dramatic day, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sue Akers, said evidence suggested a "culture of illegal payments" at the Sun.

DAC Akers also claimed that payments allegedly made by the Sun to public officials, including the police, were authorised at a senior level.

Meanwhile, outside of the inquiry, singer Charlotte Church was the latest celebrity to agree damages with Mr Murdoch's company News International.

Ms Church said she was "sickened and disgusted" after a court found that her phone had been hacked and the newspaper had gained access to her medical records.

Certainly, then, it would have been more interesting if this bad day had come straight before the launch of the new newspaper.

But, even if it had, it still remains likely that the curiosity of some members of the British public would have no doubt got the better of them following Mr Murdoch's multi-million pound campaign.

Rightly or wrongly, many readers will consider the Sun on Sunday to be a fresh start for the News International stable.

They will be pleased that it stayed away from trouble whilst also providing a big celebrity splash, exclusive columnists, and a 28-page football pullout.

From a journalism purist's perspective, this new newspaper may not quite have the same week-to-week impact as the News of the World - but nor will it be half the trouble of its predecessor.

For that reason alone, it looks as if the Sun on Sunday is here to stay for some time yet, regardless of what the inquiries say.