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.

The boy in the bubble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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...

Phone-hacking: how low can the News of the World go?

THE phone-hacking saga at the News of the World has now become an outright scandal.

Previously confined to the concerns of celebrities, it is apparent that the tapping tentacles of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, working on behalf of the News International paper, went much further.

Murdered teenager Milly Dowler was one such victim while she was missing, the Guardian reported on Monday.

Others, according to police, who may have been hacked include the parents of murdered 10-year-old schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the father of David Foulkes who died in the 7/7 bombings.

None of these people sought fame or notoriety. Rather, it was foisted upon them by tragic circumstances.

And, even when the phone-hacking related to celebrities, there was a sense of unease. Nevertheless, many journalists argued that these public figures were fair game having courted the media so much themselves.

Now that defence definitely cannot be used and the reputation of journalism as a profession is soiled once again.

Never mind that most local reporters would not dream of doing what the News of the World (and allegedly other nationals) have done.

FleetStreetBlues hoodies, stating 'I'm a hack, not a hacker', might help some of those reporters ride the storm of the next few days but, ultimately, it is the nationals on which journalism is judged.

This has not been a good week for the self-proclaimed Fourth Estate.

These phone-hacking revelations follow on the back of an admission by top Independent columnist Johann Hari that he routinely adds what interviewees have said or written previously, passing them off as quotes from his own interview.

But, while Hari was deservedly pilloried for his astonishing revelation, it could still be laughed off by the profession as a whole - hence these amusing tweets using the hashtag #interviewbyhari.

The difference this time is that the issue primarily concerns the News of the World (circulation of 2.78m), not the Independent (185,000), and it is of course no laughing matter.

Really, this should spell the end of the line for News of the World. It will not be - but, really, there is an argument it should*.

How the newspaper can ever take a moralistic tone on any issue again is quite beyond me.

No doubt it will still fill its pages on Sunday with stories about benefit cheats and drunken louts or teenage mums along with the news of who's screwing behind whose back, of course.

The phone-hacking issue will even be raised in Parliament today in a special Emergency Debate in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister David Cameron will surely repeat his condemnation from earlier this week of the practice of phone-hacking. But even Mr Cameron does not escape this tangled web entirely.

For, in 2007, the then-Leader of the Opposition appointed former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his senior media advisor where he remained in place until his resignation in January this year.

In fairness, Mr Cameron was presumably unaware of how critical the phone-hacking situation would get but Mr Coulson's appointment still showed a serious lack of judgement on the Conservative leader's part.

After all, Mr Coulson had previously resigned from his position on the paper after royal correspondent Clive Goodman was jailed for four months for conspiracy to access voicemail messages left for royal aides.

At the time, Mr Coulson claiming the actions were the work of Goodman alone but this is a defence which subsequently collapsed in court.

Now, having been caught out, Rupert Murdoch's News International group should be forced to come clean altogether.

Though, if indeed they do, it is already difficult to imagine anything other than the News of the World coming out of it smelling like raw sewage.

*EDIT: Well, surprisingly, it has actually happened. This evening, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, has announced that the last edition of the 168-year-old News of the World will be sold on Sunday. 

It is unclear at this stage whether this is simply an attempt to re-brand this part of the News International but clearly the outrage regarding the phone-hacking scandal has had an effect. 

When the advertisers started pulling out in their droves, it did not look good. Circulation among most newspapers is now so low that it is in fact the advertisers which provide the lifeline. 

Nevertheless, the News of the World - or the News of the Screws, as it became known for its salacious celebrity gossip - has been, in journalism parlance, spiked more quickly than I expected. 

Some remain skeptical that this is the end of News International's interest into producing a populist paper on a Sunday. 

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said: "All they're going to do is rebrand it". 

And Lord Prescott, who believes his phone was hacked while he was in government, added: "There's no doubt it will become the Sunday Sun". 

Perhaps, if that is Mr Murdoch's idea, someone should tell him that the Trinity Mirror-owned Newcastle Evening Chronicle group ncj media have already got there first.

25 years on, Chernobyl continues to cast its shadow

UKRAINE President Viktor Yanukovych yesterday commemorated the 25th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident alongside his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev.

The Chernobyl disaster occurred when an explosion and a fire at one of the plant's reactors sent a plume of radiation across Europe, potentially causing the deaths of thousands of people.

Of course, the anniversary is all the more poignant after last month's earthquake and tsunami at the Fukushima plant in Japan became only the second level seven event on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

Chernobyl was the first and, even now, its effect still lingers in social attitudes towards nuclear power.

'Nuclear' is perhaps the dirtiest word in science. The first widespread use of the word referred to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent arms race in the Cold War between the USA and USSR.

Even when scientists attempted to use nuclear fission for peaceful means, as an alternative to fossil fuels to create power, a series of accidents meant it could not shrug off its poor reputation.

It is no coincidence that the creators of The Simpsons decided to employ their bumbling protagonist Homer as an operator at the local plant. No one demonstrates the risk of leaving nuclear power in human hands better than him.

Now, the stricken Fukushima plant has brought the debate over nuclear power back to the forefront.

In France, which is hugely reliant on nuclear power for its electricity production, a poll after the Fukushima accident found that 57% of the respondents were opposed to its use.

And, in Germany, public opinion was even more strongly against and a reported quarter of a million marched under the slogan "Heed Fukushima - shut off all nuclear plants".

Surprisingly, the German government under Chancellor Angela Merkel partly heeded the call of the protesters by shutting down all seven of the reactors opened before 1981, leaving just 10 open.

But many scientists fear that the incident at the Fukushima plant was badly reported and that news organisations acted as scaremongers by preying on the reputation of nuclear power.

Certainly, here in the UK, it was noticeable how quickly the story moved away from the devastating earthquake and tsunami, and towards the seemingly impending atomic doom.

Indeed, at times, it seemed as if the BBC and Sky had completely forgotten that it was the magnitude-9.0 quake and tsunami which has killed more than 10,000 people - and not radiation from the nuclear power plant which has so far killed no one.

Thankfully, retrospective views have been less reactionary and this BBC website page suggests that, though Chernobyl and Fukushima were both rated as level seven accidents, the leak in 1986 was much worse.

The truth is that if the UK is going to reduce its carbon footprint in line with international targets, then a greater use of nuclear power must be part of the solution in the medium-term at least.

It is an uncomfortable truth for some, and other people or groups who are more stridently opposed will undoubtedly continue to bury their heads in the sand and not accept it.

But, as the Independent newspaper reported in 2009, even some leading environmental figures have performed U-turns by recognising nuclear power as the way to reduce carbon emissions.

That was pre-Fukushima, of course - but it is difficult to see how the events in Japan have made the argument in favour of nuclear power weaker.

The fact is that, despite one of the strongest earthquakes ever and an tsunami which breached the 18ft concrete wall defences, the amounts of radioactive materials released from the site are unlikely to cause any detectable long-term health problems.

Thankfully, the UK is not on a major fault line caused by the shifting tectonic plates and new technology actually means that reactors can shutdown and cool themselves without power or human intervention.

Dealing with nuclear waste is, admittedly, a contentious issue as it is normally buried deep underground and can remain dangerous for millions of years.

However, scientists are constantly looking at ways of avoiding this and it is now accepted that far more used nuclear fuel should be reprocessed to be re-used.

It seems to me that a greater number of nuclear plants would go a long way to easing Britain's energy concerns and carbon footprint.

And so it is unfortunate and actually unhelpful that the bad reputation of nuclear power precedes it and the Chernobyl scars still run so deep.

MPs back Libya action but confusion reigns over Resolution 1973

PROPOSED MOTION
That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Result: Ayes (for) 557 Noes (against) 13 Majority 544

557 Ayes: See Hansard
13 Noes:
Con John Baron (Basildon & Billericay)
Lab Graham Allen (Nottingham North), Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Barry Gardiner (Brent North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington), Linda Riordan (Halifax), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Mike Wood (Batley and Spen), Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South-East),
Green Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion),
SDLP Mark Durkan (Foyle), Margaret Ritchie (Down South)


MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya but confusion reigned during yesterday's six-hour debate over the extent of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Resolution 1973, passed in an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Thursday, was backed by 557 members and opposed by just 13 for a thumping 544 majority.

But, as bombs fall over the Libyan capital Tripoli for a third night, the ultimate aim of Operation Odyssey Dawn depends upon to whom you are speaking.

Today's front page of the Independent newspaper had it just about right with a series of flags and statements above the headline "The disunited nations".

Unsurprisingly, the biggest international criticism has come from Russia and China who both abstained during Thursday's vote, passing up their right as permanent members to use a veto.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has compared the air strikes on Libya to the Crusades while Chinese state media condemned "armed actions against a sovereign country". Both have called for an immediate ceasefire.

However, a more worrying concern has come form the head of the Arab League, which requested Western involvement in the first place.

Amr Moussa has called for civilians to be "protected, not bombarded" while Turkey PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that the operation must not turn into an occupation.

In a move also supported by the French and Germans, Mr Erdogan has also called on the UN to lead the mission rather than the exercise turn into a NATO-led military one.

But, conversely, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has threatened to withdraw authorisation for the use of its military bases if the airstrikes do not come under NATO command.

And yesterday President Barack Obama confirmed the US would reduce its role "within days" in favour of a NATO-led campaign.

Undeniably, the shadow of Iraq and lack of international support for that campaign casts itself long over this new episode.

American nerves will not have been helped by this morning's pictures of a crashed US warplane although both airmen are confirmed as having been rescued.

Mr Obama had already appeared reluctant to take any action until calls by Britain and France were supplemented by the Arab League.

And, back in Britain, concerns were also raised in a six-hour House of Commons debate that this operation does not become another Iraq.

Prime Minister David Cameron denied that this would be the case, and said: "A successful outcome [of this campaign] is the enforcement of the will of the UN, which is a cease of attacks on civilians.

"In Iraq, we had been prepared to go into a country, to knock over its government and put something else in place. That is not the approach we are taking here."

He was supported by Labour leader Ed Miliband who said: "Where there is just cause, where there is reasonable action that can be taken, where there is international consent - are we really saying we should be a country that stands by and does nothing?"

But Scottish and Welsh nationalist party leaders also raised concerns over the open-ended statement in the Resolution which refers to "all necessary measures short of an occupation force".

SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson told the government to "address concerns about an open-ended commitment and the potential for mission creep."

And Elfyn Llwyd, leader of Plaid Cymru, said: "We are concerned the clear wording of resolution 1973 might become clouded and this whole matter could be a smokescreen or shorthand for regime change."

However, the biggest criticism of the day came from Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.

Ms Lucas suggested that while the action may have at least gone through the UN this time, the UK itself lacks the moral high ground to intervene.

She said: "We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point.

"We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate."

Ms Lucas is correct in what she says about the UK's role in the grubby world of arms dealing in which Mr Cameron was recently implicated after details of a six-figure party donation.

But, surely the greater crime at this stage last week, would have been to allow the unhinged Colonal Gaddafi to massacre his own people in Benghazi.

For that reason, I agree that the Resolution had to be passed and a no-fly zone over Libya established.

However, like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, I remain worried about the open-ended nature of the statement in the UN Security Resolution 1973.

The US has repeatedly said so far that Col Gaddafi himself is not a target and that it has no desire to enact regime change.

That does not appear consistent, though, with the bombing of an administrative building in central Tripoli.

It is no surprise that some nations who supported the action originally are already becoming slightly nervous.

Of course, the most vital of these parties is undoubtedly the Arab League. Lose the support of them and this operation will effectively become the Western Crusade which Col Gaddafi claims that it already is.

Surely the way forward from this point is to continue to extend the no fly-zone but tone down the aerial attacks. Certainly, there can be no good reason to bomb central Tripoli again.

After that has been established and enforced, it would be then up to Col Gaddafi and the rebels to sort out their differences - and hopefully through mediation and not a continuation of this bloody civil war.