The Brexit month of political May-hem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, May 2015 happened.

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

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

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

Almost immediately, he unsurprisingly ran into trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That gut feeling was to leave the EU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs May was in the clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERESA MAY'S CABINET

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

The boobs are back - but for how much longer?

THE DEMISE of the Page 3 model in the Sun newspaper last week was greatly exaggerated with the tabloid defiantly printing the photo of a topless young lady in its Thursday edition.

Campaigners in the No More Page 3 pressure group had tentatively celebrated victory last Tuesday after even the Sun's sister paper the Times suggested the 44-year Page 3 era was finally over.

However, it now appears to be the case that the whole thing was a bit of a publicity stunt, something which the Sun itself was not too sheepish in pointing out.

"Further to recent reports in all other media outlets, we would like to clarify that this is Page 3 and this is a [topless] picture of Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth," it said.

"We would like to apologise on behalf of the print and broadcast journalists who have spent the last two days talking and writing about us."

But it would be a surprise if this was the final chapter in this particular story.

Rumours that Page 3 was on its last legs began circulating as early as February 2013 when the newspaper's proprietor Rupert Murdoch dropped hints of a different direction on Twitter.

Later that year, in August, The Sun’s Irish edition dropped topless Page 3 pictures, with Dublin-based editor Paul Clarkson citing “cultural differences”.

Then, last September, the surest signs yet of a change of mindset came when Mr Murdoch pondered: "Aren't beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?"

By the middle of this month, the Sun seemed to be following their owner's lead - or, more likely, his direct orders - with the topless model missing from three consecutive editions.

And indeed, the feeling remains that, despite the triumphant return of the feature last Thursday, this may well yet be a short-lived stay of execution.

Not that any final decision will be the result of pressure from the No More Page 3 campaigners.

Rather, octogenarian Mr Murdoch will decide the fate of Page 3 on the basis of a hardened commercial calculation with the increasingly raunchy celebrity world seemingly helping him make his mind up.

His latest tweet said yesterday: "Worry not, The Sun will always have great looking women - and men!"

Noticeably, though, this again does not stipulate that they will necessarily be topless.

Time has, indeed, moved on. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, some of the Sun's Page 3 girls ended up being bona fide celebrities in their own right.

Nowadays, that does not really happen anymore - and it is fair to say, at best, the feature seems dated.

To its worst critics of course, Page 3 has always been totally incongruous with the Sun's self-proclamation of being a "family" newspaper.

But it would potentially be the start of a very dangerous game if any government were ever to legislate control over what any newspaper printed simply on grounds of taste and decency.

And so, for now, boosted by a big wave of somewhat self-made publicity, it is no surprise to see the boobs are back.

And that, while you can't see tits on the radio, you can still see them on page three of the country's best-selling daily newspaper.

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.

Election night: UKIP "earthquake" strikes

LOCAL ELECTIONS

	Vote	Councils	Change	Seats	Change
Conservatives	29%	41	(-12)	1359	(-231)
Labour	31%	82	(+5)	2101	(+338)
Liberal Democrats	13%	6	(-2)	427	(-307)
UKIP	17%	0	(-)	163	(+161)
Green	10%	0	(-)	36	(+16)
NOC/Other	-	32	(+9)	125	(+23)

UKIP produced a political surge last night to trouble all three of the traditional parties after taking 163 seats across the 161 local authorities which went to the polls.

Yes, of course, as it stands today, Nigel Farage's party still does not control a single council in England and it still does have a single MP in the House of Commons.

But a strong performance in Essex yesterday suggested that may well change in next year's general election.

UKIP gains meant that the likes of Brentwood, Castle Point and Southend in Essex fell from the clutches of the Conservatives into no overall control.

Notably, so did Basildon, where UKIP made an astonishing 11 gains to become the second largest party in a town historically famed for its working class support of Margaret Thatcher.

It was not just against the Tories that UKIP tasted success, though. Labour also had three authorities fall into no overall control including another Essex town, Thurrock, which Mr Farage visited after five gains there.

And, in Labour's northern heartlands too, UKIP made an impression, surely ending the myth once and for all that its vote only damages the Tories.

In Rotherham, it won 10 seats and finished second in the other 11 which were up for grabs. Meanwhile, on the basis of ward results, the party would have won the Westminster seat of Great Grimsby in a general election.

Indeed, the only area in which UKIP struggled was London, coincidentally the only area where Labour performed to a level required to win an outright majority next year.

The most noteworthy result in the capital came in what had previously been a flagship Tory council in Hammersmith and Fulham. There, Labour won 11 seats directly from the Conservatives to win back power for the first time since 2006.

Labour also overturned the Tories in Croydon and made other capital gains in Harrow, Merton and Redbridge which it controls for the first time ever.

Outside of London, Labour gained Crawley and Amber Valley in Derbyshire from the Conservatives, as well as Bradford and Cambridge from no overall control.

And, altogether, Ed Miliband's party gained more than 2,000 local authority seats to become the largest party in local government in England and Wales for the first time since 2004.

But the projected national share of the vote was not such good news for Labour with the party's 31% down seven points on 2012 and only two percent ahead of the Conservatives.

The Tories, as expected, had a tough night at the ballot box, losing control of 13 councils including Havering, Maidstone, Peterborough, Purbeck in Dorset, and West Lancashire as well as those already mentioned.

Prime Minister David Cameron doused calls from the Eurosceptic wing of his party for a pact with UKIP next year, stating the Conservatives would be fighting for an "all-out win".

But room for optimism was confined to strong holds in Swindon and Trafford, and a sole success in Kingston upon Thames against their beleaguered coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.

In fact, across the board, Nick Clegg's party lost an amazing 41% of the seats which it was defending, being replaced by the Green Party as the official opposition in Liverpool and getting totally wiped out in Manchester.

Nevertheless, Mr Clegg vowed to fight on as leader, echoing a familiar refrain to that which he gave following similar local council losses last year.

But it has not only been Mr Clegg's future which has been challenged by these results.

Labour's lacklustre performance was greeted this morning by the Times newspaper running the headline 'Knives out for Miliband as Labour jitters grow'.

The story was based upon the assessment by a "senior" party insider that Mr Miliband "looks weird, sounds weird, is weird".

Meanwhile, Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, Graham Stringer - a regular critic - lambasted the campaign, calling it "unforgivably unprofessional".

And he was joined by fellow backbencher John Mann. The MP for Bassetlaw criticised Mr Miliband for a "tremendously ill-judged campaign", and accused his own party of complacency in the belief that UKIP would only harm the Conservatives.

If that was indeed the Labour party strategy, it was undoubtedly a mistake - although it must also be accepted that UKIP was always going to do well in a year alongside the European elections.

By the way, the results of those Europe polls are announced from 10pm on Sunday evening.

And, with Mr Farage predicting a first ever win for UKIP in a national election, the other parties have already begun to brace themselves again.

SWITCHED COUNCILS
- Labour gains (9)
From Conservatives: Amber Valley - Crawley - Croydon - Hammersmith and Fulham
From NOC: Bradford - Cambridge - Harrow - Merton - Redbridge
- Conservative gains (1)
From Liberal Democrats: Kingston upon Thames
- No overall control gains (14)
From Conservatives: Basildon - Brentwood - Castle Point - Havering - Maidstone - Peterborough - Purbeck - Southend-on-Sea - West Lancashire
From Labour: Great Yarmouth - North East Lincolnshire - Thurrock - Tower Hamlets
From Liberal Democrats: Portsmouth

LONDON
All seats are up for election
Conservatives
Barnet - Bexley - Bromley - Hillingdon - Kensington and Chelsea - Kingston upon Thames - Richmond upon Thames - Wandsworth - Westminster
Labour
Barking and Dagenham - Brent - Camden - Croydon - Ealing - Enfield - Greenwich - Hackney - Hammersmith and Fulham - Haringey - Harrow - Hounslow - Islington - Lambeth - Lewisham - Merton - Newham - Redbridge - Southwark - Waltham Forest
Lib Dems
Sutton
No overall control
Havering - Tower Hamlets 

MAYORS
All five mayors held their seats
Labour
Hackney (Jules Pipe) - Lewisham (Steve Bullock) - Newham (Robin Wales)
Lib Dems
Watford (Dorothy Thornhill)
Independent
Tower Hamlets (Lutfur Rahman)

METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS AND UNITARIES One-third of seats are up for election (*whole council)
Conservatives
Solihull - Swindon - Trafford - Wokingham
Labour
Barnsley - Birmingham - Blackburn with Darwen - Bolton - Bradford - Bury - Coventry - Derby - Doncaster - Dudley - Gateshead - Halton - Hartlepool - Kingston upon Hull - Knowsley - Leeds - Liverpool - Manchester - Newcastle upon Tyne - North Tyneside - Oldham - Plymouth - Reading - Rochdale - Rotherham - St Helens - Salford - Sandwell - Sefton - Sheffield - Slough* - Southampton - South Tyneside - Sunderland - Tameside - Wakefield - Warrington - Wigan - Wirral - Wolverhampton
No overall control
Bristol - Calderdale - Kirklees - Milton Keynes* - North East Lincolnshire - Peterborough - Portsmouth - Southend-on-Sea - Stockport - Thurrock - Walsall

NON-METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS One-third of seats are up for election (*whole council, ^half council)
Conservatives
Adur^ - Broxbourne - Cherwell - Craven - Daventry - Elmbridge - Epping Forest - Fareham^ - Gosport^ - Harrogate - Havant - Hertsmere - Huntingdonshire - North Hertfordshire - Reigate and Banstead - Rochford - Rugby - Runnymede - Rushmoor - South Cambridgeshire - Stratford-on-Avon - Tamworth - Tandridge - Tunbridge Wells - Welwyn Hadfield - West Oxfordshire - Woking - Worthing 
Labour
Amber Valley - Bassetlaw - Burnley - Cambridge - Cannock Chase - City of Carlisle - Chorley - Crawley - Exeter - Harlow - Hastings^ - Hyndburn - Ipswich - Lincoln - Newcastle-under-Lyme - Norwich - Nuneaton and Bedworth^ - Oxford^ - Preston - Redditch - Rossendale - Stevenage
Lib Dems
Cheltenham^ - Eastleigh - South Lakeland - Watford - Three Rivers*
No overall control
Basildon - Basingstoke and Deane - Brentwood - Castle Point - Colchester - Gloucester - Great Yarmouth - Hart* - Maidstone - Mole Valley - Pendle - Purbeck - St Albans - Stroud - West Lancashire - Weymouth and Portland - Winchester - Worcester - Wyre Forest


NORTHERN IRELAND 
New councils
Antrim and Newtownabbey - Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon - Belfast City Council - Causeway Coast and Glens - Derry and Strabane - Fermanagah and Omagh - Lisburn and Castlereagh - Mid and East Antrim - Mid-Ulster - Newry, Mourne and Down - North Down and Ards

A field for the Fallen

THOUSANDS of little wooden crosses all lined up, each carrying a poppy and adorned with a message clearly mattering to someone.

The Field of Remembrance at Saltwell Park in Gateshead is back following its successful introduction last year.

Situated near Saltwell Towers, the grand Victorian mansion, the memorial was opened on Saturday 2 November with a service led by The Reverend James Breslin, Chaplain to the Royal British Legion in Northumbria. A two-minute silence was held at 11am.

Yesterday, of course, was Remembrance Sunday and, in keeping with tradition, the Queen was joined by thousands of veterans and civilians at the Cenotaph in London for a further two-minute silence to remember fallen service personnel.

And today, on Armistice Day itself, I paid my own respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for Britain with a visit to the impressive sea of crosses and poppies at Saltwell.

The Field of Remembrance only came about following a campaign by north east newspaper, the Sunday Sun, and the family of Tyneside Rifleman Mark Turner.

Aged just 21, Rifleman Turner, from Sheriff Hill in Gateshead, was killed in 2010 by an improvised explosive device as he searched for roadside bombs in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

Ever since, his mother Anne has worked tirelessly on creating a place where loved ones could pay tribute to absent family members and friends. Plans on creating a permanent garden are still ongoing.
 
For now, visitors have until dusk on 15 November to see the temporary arrangement. 

And the sun was indeed setting on another crisp winter day as I knelt down and planted my little wooden cross into the earth.

But, before the cloak of darkness could once again fall across Tyneside, I read one last message which featured the words of Laurence Binyon from his commemorative poem, For the Fallen.

Originally published in the Times in September 1914, it included Binyon's famous Ode of Remembrance: "Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

"At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them."

• Donations to the Royal British Legion can be made on their website here.

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.

Ashes 2013: Mighty Root helps England rout Aussies

Second Test: England 361 & 349-7dec beat Australia 128 & 235 by 347 runs Scorecard
Man of the match: Joe Root (180)

JOE ROOT hit a magnificent century as England doubled their Ashes advantage with a thumping 347-run win over abject Australia.

The Yorkshireman scored 180 for his second Test ton, his first at Lord's and his first against Australia. At 22 years and 202 days old, he is the youngest man to make an Ashes century for England at the Home of Cricket.

Immediately on his dismissal, caught by Steve Smith off a lofted high shot behind his head, England captain Alastair Cook declared, well aware that his side had more than enough on the board.

The score was 349-7, a lead of 582, after Australia followed up England's sub-par first innings effort of 361 with an even worse display to be bowled out for 128 in less than 54 overs.

Written off before the campaign as possibly the worst Australian touring side in history, it is likely that it will be little remembered by the end of the series just how close the tourists came to taking a 1-0 lead at Trent Bridge.

But, even if the Aussies had managed to pull off a spectacular win in Nottingham, it could only have to be attributed to two extraordinary last-wicket partnerships, rather than an all-round solid performance.

And so, when the tail refused to wag this time in the first innings at Lord's, Australia were done for - having actually made another reasonable start to this Test match.

Cook won the toss for a second time and elected to bat but some of England's batsmen are also enduring a difficult series - and when the skipper was dismissed for 12, lbw to Shane Watson, Root (6) and Kevin Pietersen (2) quickly followed as Ryan Harris justified his selection.

England were in trouble on 28-3 - but Ian Bell again led a recovery, equalling his score of 109 in the first Test, while being ably supported by Jonathan Trott (58) and another Yorkshireman, Jonny Bairstow (67).

That was not the end of the story on the first day, though, as part-time leg-spinner Steve Smith struck three times to remove Bell, Bairstow and Matt Prior and leave the hosts on a hardly-commanding score of 289-7.

Vital early runs on the second day boosted the England total to 361, aided mainly by another swashbuckling last-wicket stand of 48 between Stuart Broad (33) and Graeme Swann (28 not out).

But few considered that a good enough score as Australia appeared to be easing their way towards lunch without the loss of a wicket. 

There was no accounting for what happened next, though.

In the last over before the interval, vice-captain Watson was trapped lbw by Tim Bresnan before wasting a review which only went on to show he was plumb in front of the stumps.

Suddenly, England could go into the 40-minute break with a different mindset, and it showed when the two teams returned to the field for the afternoon session.

Swann struck to remove Chris Rogers lbw for a wicket which, if it had been reviewed, would have been overturned. Watson's hasty use of DRS had cost Australia doubly.

Three overs later, Bresnan - a replacement for the wayward Steven Finn and, thus, a third contributor from Yorkshire - took his second and Australia lost their second review when Phil Hughes was adjudged to have feathered behind to Prior.

That made it 53-3, and it would only get worse for the tourists.

Swann, in an unrelenting mood, would end up taking 5-44 - although even he admitted he got lucky by getting a wicket from a rank waist-high full toss to Rogers which would have gone on to miss the stumps.

Yes, this was another match with its fair share of controversial decisions and the Australians' baffling (mis)use of DRS undoubtedly contributed to their downfall.
 
But even the controversial manner in which the review system is being used by the umpires could not excuse such a lame batting performance.

On the stroke of tea, poor Ashton Agar was run out for 96 runs fewer than he managed in his first innings effort a week earlier on debut.

Then, after the interval, Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin both fell with the score on 104 while James Pattinson and Harris added 24 for the last wicket before the latter was out to Swann.

Australia were all out for 128 and England, with an innings lead of 233 had a decision to make - to enforce the follow-on or not.

Of course, with so much time left in the game, Cook was never likely to ask Australia to return to the crease but the captain's choice to bat again was tarnished as England closed day two on 31-3.

Again Cook (8) and Pietersen (5) failed to contribute, and they were joined by Trott who was out, unusually, for a duck.

All the wickets fell to Siddle who bowled an excellent spell of 3-4, as Australia looked to reduce the impact of their own failings and give themselves a sniff of a chance.

That sniff was snuffed out by lunch on day three, though, as Root and Bresnan survived the opening session unscathed.

Bresnan was an early victim after the break but that only served to bring the in-form Bell out of the hutch to support Root's bid for three figures.

The landmarks were passed after tea as Bell (74) joined centurion Root in a stand of 153 for the fifth wicket - and, though Bell fell to Smith before close, the game was well and truly up for the Aussies.

Still with two days left, England resumed their innings on the fourth morning, presumably in the hope that Root would make a double-century.

It all became rather pointless when Bairstow (20) and, eventually, Root - looking for quick runs - were out, having added only 16 to the overnight score.

And so began the hard work.

Surely Australia could not be as incompetent with the bat again. Surely they would put up a fight in the unlikely hope that they could rescue a draw.

Not exactly. The tourists' top-order faltered again with Watson (20) lbw to Anderson this time, Rogers (6) injudiciously leaving one from Swann which clipped the top of off-stump, and Hughes matching his first innings score of one before he also fell victim to spin.

Hard work? Pah! Australia had simply got themselves in another mess on 36-3.

Thank goodness, then, for the partnership of 98 between Usman Khawaja (54) and skipper Clarke (51) which gave the occasion even the very briefest suggestion of a contest.

The pair had even seen off Swann - but Root, not content with excelling only with the bat, showed his talent with the ball as well and sent both men spinning out before tea.

Indeed, Smith quickly joined them as Australia slumped to the interval on 136-6. It was the latest chapter in a long line of failed review for the Aussies with Smith adjudged to have got the faintest nick behind off Bresnan.

On Twitter, the Cricket Australia official feed called the decision "bullshit" - a reaction for which they quickly apologised.

But, while they may have been technically incorrect about Smith, there was no over-riding evidence to overturn the on-field not out decision given to Agar. 

Nevertheless, England reviewed on a whim and, despite there being nothing on HotSpot, a noise as the ball passed the bat was enough to convince the third umpire that Agar had been dismissed.

It was a harsh decision on the youngster - and, shortly afterwards, when Haddin was unable to review another Swann lbw, Australia were 162-8.

Finally, the hard work actually began as the hosts set about removing the Aussies' obdurate tail.

Siddle and Pattinson added 30 for the ninth wicket but, having been able to claim the extra half hour and take the new ball, England still had a good chance of finishing it off on the fourth evening.

Duly, they did - but only just, as Swann trapped Pattinson plumb lbw in the final over of the day, the 10th wicket having again put on 43 runs.

Immediately, the Notts bowler became the most popular man in the dressing room, preventing a return to the ground for a final day's play which could have potentially been over in one ball.

Undoubtedly, though, it was Root who deserved his man of the match honour, and his bright star is in stark contrast to the dearth of talent in the Aussie ranks.

Australia changed their coach just over two weeks before this series and the dislodged man, Mickey Arthur, is now taking legal action against his former employers, claiming the dismissal has damaged his reputation.

But it is going to take more than a change at the top to get to the bottom of what is wrong with Australian cricket.

England now find themselves on the verge of retaining the Ashes at the earliest possible opportunity, having gone 2-0 in a home Ashes series for the first time since 1890!

Victory at Lord's was also the first time since 1929 that England have won four Ashes Tests in a row. And, with Anderson and Swann now both gracing the top-ten list of England wicket-takers, it is fair to say that these are heady times for English cricket.

Only once before has a team come back from 2-0 down in an Ashes series to win - Australia in 1936-37 - and that team had the hardly small matter of Sir Donald Bradman to call upon.

And, as former England captain Mike Atherton sagely said in his report in the Times: "These Australians are no history boys in the making. Not in the winning sense, at any rate."

I actually have a ticket for the second day of the fourth Test at the Riverside in Chester-le-Street. By then, I suspect, the Aussies will just be playing, and praying, to keep the score down.

They singularly failed to that at Lord's over the last weekend. This was a thumping.



THE ASHES 2013
FIXTURES

10-14 July	First Test: England 215 & 375 beat Australia 280 & 296 by 14 runs	Trent Bridge
18-21 July	Second Test: England 361 & 349-7d beat Australia 128 & 235 by 347 runs	Lord's
1-5 August	Third Test	Old Trafford
9-13 August	Fourth Test	Riverside
21-25 August	Fifth Test	The Oval

CENTURIES
180 Joe Root (England), second Test
109 Ian Bell (England), first Test
109 Ian Bell (England), second Test

FIVE-WICKET HAULS (~ 10 wickets in the match)
5-44 Graeme Swann (England), second Test
5-50 Peter Siddle (Australia), first Test
5-72 Ryan Harris (Australia), second Test
~5-73 James Anderson (England), first Test
~5-85 James Anderson (England), first Test

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.

Reshuffle points towards third Heathrow runway

THE PROSPECT of a third runway at Heathrow moved closer today after David Cameron announced his first major Cabinet reshuffle since he became Prime Minister in May 2010.

Mr Cameron has moved Justine Greening from Transport to International Development, and replaced her with Patrick McLoughlin, who was formerly the Tories' chief whip.

Miss Greening, MP for Putney in south west London, was strongly opposed to any expansion to Heathrow, and has even marched publicly against it.

By contrast, Mr McLoughlin is a Midlander with a constituency in Derbyshire. That, of course, is nowhere near the third busiest airport in the world, and therefore he is an ideal MP to lead a change of tack.

Nevertheless, such a change of policy - still unconfirmed at this stage - would represent yet another major U-turn by Mr Cameron's government.

The Tories' 2010 manifesto, which helped the likes of Ms Greening to be re-elected, said its aim was to "make Heathrow airport better, not bigger".

It is no surprise, therefore, to see London mayor Boris Johnson angrily reinstating his long-held opposition, considering the obvious inference to be made from today's activity.

"There can be only one reason to move her - and that is to expand Heathrow Airport," said Mr Johnson, who added that the idea was "mad".

Now, on this issue, Mr Cameron needs to be careful. Once contemporaries of the infamous posh boys Bullingdon club, the Prime Minister and the mayor have increasingly been seen as political rivals. 

Indeed, following Mr Johnson's successful re-election in May - and poor results elsewhere for the Tories in the local polls on the same night - the headline on the front-page of the Times was "Boris wins, Tories lose". 

Ever since then, Mr Johnson has been seriously touted as the next Conservative leader, rather than Mr Cameron's friend George Osborne after the Chancellor oversaw a disastrously-presented Budget.

Yes - while it has been a glorious summer at the Olympics and Paralympics for British athletes - this has been another tough few months for the government... and making life hard for themselves has become somewhat of a speciality.

Mr Osborne's budget was criticised for freezing pensioners' personal allowances to pay for a cut to the top rate of income tax.

And, subsequently, there was a series of U-turns over VAT on pasty tax and caravans, charity tax relief, and a planned 3p per litre fuel duty rise.

Meanwhile, then-Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt came under pressure following a nervous appearance at the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics which revealed his close links to the Rupert Murdoch media empire.

Mr Hunt, who was considering Mr Murdoch's BSkyB takeover bid, even faced a vote of no confidence in which the Tories' coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, abstained.

Fortunately for Mr Hunt, though, he retained the backing of the PM, and somehow gained a promotion to Health secretary in this reshuffle, replacing Andrew Lansley.

Mr Lansley had made himself deeply unpopular with a large amount of healthcare professionals after forcing through the government's controversial reforms. 

It remains to be seen whether Mr Hunt will use better judgement as Health secretary than he did over the BSkyB debacle - though that seems doubtful considering he believes homoeopathy works.

It also remains to be seen if this reshuffle will actually improve the perception of government among the wider public, but most of them have little effect, and this will probably be the same.

For a start, the other three newsworthy Great Offices of State, outwith the premiership - the Chancellor, the Home secretary, and the Foreign secretary - have all remained unchanged.

Similarly, none of the five Lib Dem Cabinet ministers - Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Michael Moore, and Danny Alexander - moved from their positions either.

However, David Laws did get back into government as a minister in the Education department.

Mr Laws, of course, began life in the Cameron Ministry as Chief Secretary to the Treasury but he had to resign that position within just three weeks after being badly exposed in the Daily Telegraph expenses scandal.

Despite this, it was always likely that Mr Laws would find his way back into the government in some form as he is a close friend of Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg.

And, having endured yet another wave of internal dissent from the party ranks, it will come as no surprise that the Lib Dem leader once again needs all the friends he can get.

Perhaps the worst of the latest bout of criticism came from peer Lord Smith of Clifton, who told BBC Five Live: "We are currently being governed by young boys in small trousers.

"If we put Vince Cable in we'll have our poll rating soar because he is economically literate - unlike Nick Clegg. And he is clearly a leader of the future. We don't need all these young kids running the government."

Lord Smith was joined on the attack by Adrian Sanders, MP for Torbay, who accused Mr Clegg of "just bumbling along".

And it did not help Mr Clegg's battered image, of course, that his first task in the new parliamentary term was to announce to the Commons the withdrawal of reform to the House of Lords after Conservative backbench opposition scuppered the bill.

Similarly, his latest attempt to distinguish the Lib Dems from the Tories - by once again bringing up the idea of a wealth tax - fell flat after he was reminded that he had only just months ago voted through a cut to the top rate of income tax in the Budget.

Yes, it has been clear for some time now that Mr Clegg is the very definition of a busted flush. Quite frankly right now, though, the Conservatives do not look much more competent either.

Certainly, Armando Ianucci cannot have struggled for material from the coalition government for the fourth series of his superb political satire, the Thick Of It.

The Thick Of It returns on Saturday at 9.45pm on BBC2 - but Ianucci is well aware that truth can be stranger than fiction when it comes to modern-day politics...


CAMERON'S CABINET RESHUFFLE

Minister	Party	From	To
Jeremy Hunt	CON	Culture	Health
Andrew Lansley	CON	Health	Leader of the Commons
Justine Greening	CON	Transport	International development
Patrick McLoughlin	CON	Chief whip	Transport
Andrew Mitchell	CON	International development	Chief whip
Ken Clarke	CON	Justice	Minister without portfolio
Chris Grayling	CON	Employment minister	Justice
Lady Warsi	CON	Party chairman	Foreign Office minister
Maria Miller	CON	Disabilities minister	Culture
Caroline Spelman	CON	Environment	TBC
Owen Paterson	CON	Northern Ireland	Environment
Theresa Villiers	CON	Transport minister	Northern Ireland
Grant Shapps	CON	Housing minister	Minister without portfolio
David Jones	CON	Minister in Wales office	Welsh secretary
Michael Fallon	CON	Party co-chairman	Minister in business department
David Laws	LD	Backbencher	Education minister
Cheryl Gillian	CON	Welsh secretary	TBC

Note: Italics denote not a Cabinet position

Paying for the news

JOHNSTON Press has taken the plunge.

The local newspaper group, which has more than 200 titles in the UK, will ask readers of the Northumberland Gazette, Whitby Gazette and Southern Reporter to pay for their online content.

Subscribers can pay £5 for full access during the three-month trial, the equivalent of 40 pence per day.

Another three of the group's papers, the Carrick Gazette, Worksop Guardian, and Ripley and Heanor News, are undergoing a separate trial.

Bizarrely, the stories on their websites have just an introductory paragraph before readers are diverted to the print edition for the full account.

The outcome of the trials is sure to be followed closely by industry chiefs eager to learn if they can make money from their websites.

Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, is among the interested parties ahead of his plan to charge for the online versions of The Sun and The Times from April next year.

A major problem for the papers is the prevalence of the BBC's 'free' website.

The Beeb is unlikely to justify charging for its content given that the public already shell out £142.50 a year for the licence fee.

While the BBC's local news pages are patchy at best, its coverage of a story of national prominence would dwarf the output of anything from a local newspaper in terms of quantity and quality.

Herein lies the true problem. Good local journalists with the ability to produce a standard to rival the BBC are being made redundant almost every week.

Others, like me, cannot even get a look in. The remaining reporters work ever-increasing hours trying to fill the same number of pages as previously.

The sad truth is that few local papers have a website worth charging for.

Most of the sites which I have seen upload the story from the print edition without any additional analysis or comment.

But that is not the fault of the under pressure news desk staff.

It is the short-sighted company chiefs just looking to make their next buck who are really to blame for the slow death of a once-proud industry.