Election 2010 - Northern Ireland Prediction

Northern Ireland
Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Belfast East	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Belfast North	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Belfast South	SDLP	SDLP
Belfast West	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
East Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
East Londonderry	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Fermanagh & South Tyrone	Sinn Fein	Independent
Foyle	SDLP	SDLP
Lagan Valley	Ulster Unionist	Ulster Unionist
Mid Ulster	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
Newry & Armagh	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
North Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
North Down	Ulster Unionist	Independent
South Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Ulster Unionist
South Down	SDLP	SDLP
Strangford	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Upper Bann	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
West Tyrone	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein

Election 2010 - Scotland Prediction

Scotland
Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Aberdeen North	Labour	Labour
Aberdeen South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Airdrie and Shotts	Labour	Labour
Angus	SNP	SNP
Argyll and Bute	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock	Labour	Labour
Banff and Buchan	SNP	SNP
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Central Ayrshire	Labour	Labour
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill	Labour	Labour
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East	Labour	Labour
Dumfries and Galloway	Labour	Conservative
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale	Conversative	Conservative
Dundee East	SNP	SNP
Dundee West	Labour	SNP
Dunfermline and West Fife	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
East Dunbartonshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow	Labour	Labour
East Lothian	Labour	Labour
East Renfrewshire	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh East	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh North and Leith	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Edinburgh South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Edinburgh South West	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh West	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Falkirk	Labour	Labour
Glasgow Central	Labour	Labour
Glasgow East	SNP	Labour
Glasgow North	Labour	Labour
Glasgow North East	Labour	Labour
Glasgow North West	Labour	Labour
Glasgow South	Labour	Labour
Glasgow South West	Labour	Labour
Glenrothes	Labour	Labour
Gordon	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Inverclyde	Labour	Labour
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Kilmarnock and Loudoun	Labour	Labour
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath	Labour	Labour
Lanark and Hamilton East	Labour	Labour
Linlithgow and East Falkirk	Labour	Labour
Livingston	Labour	SNP
Midlothian	Labour	Labour
Moray	SNP	SNP
Motherwell and Wishaw	Labour	Labour
Na h-Eileanan an Iar	SNP	SNP
North Ayrshire and Arran	Labour	Labour
North East Fife	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Ochil and South Perthshire	Labour	SNP
Orkney and Shetland	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Paisley and Renfrewshire North	Labour	Labour
Paisley and Renfrewshire South	Labour	Labour
Perth and North Perthshire	SNP	SNP
Ross, Skye and Lochaber	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Rutherglen and Hamilton West	Labour	Labour
Stirling	Labour	Labour
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
West Dunbartonshire	Labour	SNP

Election 2010 - Wales Prediction

Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Aberavon	Labour	Labour
Aberconwy (formerly Conwy)	Labour	Conservative
Arfon (formerly Caernarfon)	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Alyn and Deeside	Labour	Labour
Blaenau Gwent	Independent	Independent
Brecon and Radnorshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Bridgend	Labour	Labour
Caerphilly	Labour	Labour
Cardiff Central	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Cardiff North	Labour	Conservative
Cardiff South and Penarth	Labour	Labour
Cardiff West	Labour	Labour
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire	Labour	Conservative
Ceredigion	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Clwyd South	Labour	Labour
Clwyd West	Conservative	Conservative
Cynon Valley	Labour	Labour
Delyn	Labour	Labour
Dwyfor Meirionnydd (formerly Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Gower	Labour	Labour
Islwyn	Labour	Labour
Llanelli	Labour	Labour
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney	Labour	Labour
Monmouth	Conservative	Conservative
Montgomeryshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Neath	Labour	Labour
Newport East	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Newport West	Labour	Labour
Ogmore	Labour	Labour
Pontypridd	Labour	Labour
Preseli Pembrokeshire	Conservative	Conservative
Rhondda	Labour	Labour
Swansea East	Labour	Labour
Swansea West	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Torfaen	Labour	Labour
Vale of Clwyd	Labour	Conservative
Vale of Glamorgan	Labour	Conservative
Wrexham	Labour	Labour
Ynys Môn (formerly Anglesey)	Labour	Plaid Cymru

Ratf*****g - UK Style

There is a new style of politics developing in Britain, to anyone that has just a passing interest in US politics, the insidious sniping and constant mudslinging are all too familiar. It is not surprising that Nick Clegg has become a serious threat to the Conservatives and Labour, his performance on the first Leaders debate was accomplished in this X-Factor driven society, and his bounce in the opinion polls came as shock to everyone that had not seen Will Young beat Gareth Gates in Pop Idol.

Therefore it is only to be expected that the Right of Centre press has reacted to Nick Clegg in a way that is normally only reserved for war criminals and paedophiles. These personal attacks are shameful, they add nothing to the political debate, just contribute to atmosphere of cheap politics in the minds of the public. By all means attack the policies of the other parties, that is what the election is about - but personal slurs reduce this election to a substandard US election run on a shoe string budget.

Furthermore, the election debate is dragged further down into the mire when organisations like ConservativeHome, run "advertisements" like this:



Firstly, this is amazing from a party that, during the MPs Expenses scandal, claimed for duck houses and moat cleaning. Secondly and probably more importantly, it cheapens the Conservative message. At least in America they throw a bit of money at their slurs (see below):

The Kingmaker and I

In the run up to a general election, party leaders can be forgiven for making some pretty rash statements, the pressure and punishing schedule will inevitably cause a lack of focus. But to base your entire election campaign and manifesto around these pretty rash statements is disingenuous and fool hardy at best. Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party have taken centre stage this week with their manifesto launch and some pretty dubious claims concerning how they will use their influence in a hung parliament to gain concessions for their respective countries.

The claims themselves are not particularly dubious, every small party or independent will sell their vote on certain issues to gain influence in other areas, it is the way of a Westminster Parliamentary System. The disingenuous aspect to their claims is the misrepresentation and exaggeration to the electorate of the likelihood of these events; in essence they are suffering from small dog syndrome - they believe they are bigger than they are.

Currently the SNP have seven Members of Parliament whilst Plaid have three out of the total of 646, this represents 1.5% of the elected representatives at the House of Commons. This has always been traditionally adequate to contribute to debates, influence policy and potentially effect some legislation, but to now suggest that the national parties will have undue influence on any potentially weak or coalition government after this current election is simply not feasible.

According to the latest Populus Poll the current voting intentions are as follows:

• Conservatives - 32%
• Labour - 28%
• Liberal Democrat - 31%
• Other - 9%

If this was the result on 6th May, the potential breakdown of seats in the House of Commons would look something like this according to the BBC (the winning number of seats is 326):

• Conservatives - 234 seats
• Labour - 278 seats
• Liberal Democrat - 109 seats
• Other - 29 seats (SNP - 8 seats, Plaid - 3)

There is no conceivable calculation that would allow the national parties the influence they claim they will exert over the legislative process. The best case scenario for both Plaid and the SNP is that a minority government is formed by the Conservatives in which they control approximately 320 seats, this is the only outcome that would allow them the influence they desire. If Labour form a minority government the Lib Dems will probably become the kingmakers, either by way of coalition or by supporting only specific aspects of legislation.

However, this issue perfectly highlights the incredible inequities in our current electoral system and the bias that the incumbent administration can command over redrawing constituency boundaries to make marginal seats safer.

Fear and Loathing on the 2010 Tory Campaign Trail...

Harold Wilson once perfectly defined the British political landscape with his truism that a "week is a long time in politics", and for David Cameron the last week has possibly felt more like an epoch rather than just a long time. The only other person that can truly relate to this incredible sense of time distortion is the Chinese tanker Captain who crashed into the (not so insignificant) Great Barrier Reef, after sailing through illegal shipping lanes, causing untold environmental damage. He knew the outcome a long time before the accident happened, but he still tried in vain to turn the ship around, but those tankers take a lot of turning and the crash was inevitable.

This general election has already thrown up a few surprises (the Lib Dems second in YouGov latest opinion poll, anyone?), but the biggest surprise of the whole election campaign is the Tories inability to gain any significant political momentum. Given the economic conditions and the unpopularity of the incumbent government, the Tories must have believed that the election would be an easier fight than it has been...

The constant media references to the similarities between David Cameron and Tony Blair, have been somewhat misleading - giving the impression that the 2010 general election was going to be an inverse repeat of 1997, in which Labour swept to power on a popular tide of goodwill and hope. Probably a more insightful comparison would be to compare this election with 1992: the opposition in both examples are trying to reinvent themselves, attempting to throw off the shackles of negative public opinion and a lack of trust. Plus the rising spectre of increasing tough economic conditions, in which the harsh realities of a global recession will come to bear - the public may just be comforted by the devil they know.

There are several key factors which are impacting upon the Conservatives inability to gain a significant lead in the opinion polls:

• The Shadow Cabinet is weak and unable to connect with the public - in 1997 the Labour Shadow Cabinet was a significant strength of Tony Blair's election strategy, whether it was Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or David Blunkett; the Cabinet was prompted as a 'Cabinet of Talent'. Currently the Conservatives are appearing to focus solely on David Cameron and George Osborne, sidelining the poor(!) Chris Grayling for fear of costly gaffes. Even John Prescott was given meaningful airtime in comparison.

• Lack of a coherent message - the main focus of the Conservatives' election manifesto is the 'Big Society' in which the public can effect the running and management of many public institutions. The issues for most people are rooted in real problems, employment, transport or education, but the Tories have proposed an abstract concept that generates few pragmatic solutions for real issues. The Labour Party in 1997 offered a tangible response to the genuine concerns of the nation. The 'Big Society' is perceived as empty rhetoric, from the party that once claimed that "there is no such thing as society".

• Whilst other parties are weak on the topic of Europe, the Conservatives can not exploit their advantage - in the public's opinion the European Union is at a particularly low point, the rise of UKIP is testimony to this fact. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are potentially committed to further European integration, but David Cameron is wary of using the populist EU stick to beat his opponents for fear that it may open old wounds, in the Conservative Party, that have only been plastered over - not healed. Witness the undercurrent of discontent at the 2009 Conservative Party conference, with David Cameron's pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the next Tory government would work within its parameters.

• David Cameron's inability to connect with many of the electorate - whether this is due to old fashion class prejudice or the perception that he is style over substance, David Cameron has struggled to find a voice that speaks to a majority of people. This is not helped by an advertising campaign, organised by Andy Coulson, that appears to be confused and artificial. Most elections that are fought on the concept of 'change' have their vanguard amongst a section of the population that have been under-represented in previous regimes; youth, working class or ethnic sections of the community. It is difficult for the general public to believe that a privileged and wealthy white man is sincere about significant change - also it is not a typical election pledge by a party that is perceived to be more concerned with the conservation of society rather than its radical overhaul.

• The inability of the Conservative Party to reassure the public that the recession would have been better under their guidance - even though there are significant differences between Labour and Tory economic policy, it would have been impossible for the Conservative Party to have claimed that they would have avoided the recession with tighter regulations of the banking sector. After all it was the Conservative Party that actively encouraged deregulation of the finance sector allowing 'bankers' the freedom to recklessly gamble the country's economic stability by chasing larger profits.

 The Chinese tanker Captain and David Cameron have both discovered something important in the last fortnight - big ships take a long time to turn so it's vital to make sure that you have plotted correct course before you sail.

Clause 76

General Election Live TV Leaders Debates Rules

Audience selection

1. The objective is to select an audience which is broadly a demographic cross section of the country.

2. The audience to be made up of roughly 200 people, subject to venue capacity.

3. ICM has been appointed as an external recruitment agency and the methods of recruitment are based on their expert advice. In broad terms, we will aim to:

4. Recruit within a 30 mile radius of the host city, mindful of administrative borders on either side of that radius based on the revised ICM list of constituencies.

5. Recruit according to gender, age, ethnicity and social class to best reflect the broader voting-age population. The recruitment procedure will be transparent, and its methodology will be available to the parties for comment.

6. Ensure around 80% of the audience is made up of voters who express a voting intention at the time of recruitment.

7. These will be subdivided into ratios which reflect a ratio of 7 Labour, 7 Conservative, 5 Lib Dem .The political ratios will take precedence over the demographic in the final selection of the audience by ICM.

8. Within the 80% (see point 6) the broadcasters retain the right to recruit some audience members who express an intention to vote for smaller parties.

9. Ensure that around 20% of the audience will be undecided but will be politically engaged. ICM's definition of undecided voters to be the basis of this selection.

10. Reserve a small number of seats for participants from outside the ICM selected audience, whose questions have been pre-submitted and selected by the broadcaster's editorial panel. The broadcasters may use a variety of methods to encourage the submission of such questions from across the UK in the build up to the debates.

11. The number of questions from outside the ICM selected audience will be a maximum of four per debate.

12. Over-recruit by a small margin to accommodate "drop outs" or "no shows"

13. Issue audience members with a protocol of rules, including security procedures for entry and conduct during the debates. The protocol will be agreed by the parties.

Audience role

14. The objective is to ensure maximum debate between the party leaders - the distinctive characteristic of these programmes - whilst allowing the audience's voices to be heard directly posing questions.

15. Each broadcaster will nominate a panel to choose the questions for its debate. The panel's membership will be public, but they will meet in private.

16. Each selection panel will include a member to oversee compliance. List of names of panel members attached

17. The objective of each panel shall be to ensure fair question selection in order to frame a balanced debate within the rules of our agreements.

18. The panel will meet confidentially in the weeks running up to their debate.

19. All questions submitted by the ICM selected audience will be seen by a member of the panel. Email questions will be sifted and a selection given to the panel.

20. Initially, each panel will sift through a selection of questions drawn from those submitted by members of the public.

21. They will narrow down their selections in a series of meetings up to and including the day of the debate.

22. Each panel will have five to seven members, including a designated chair who would have a casting vote if necessary.

23. The panel cannot be quorate with fewer than three of its members present.

24. In selecting its questions, the panel will take full account of the following:

25. Each question will be relevant to all three party leaders.

26. No question shall focus on one party or one leader.

27. All questions will be based on election issues

28. Audience members will be made aware of these rules before submitting their final questions.

29. Half the programme will be based on the agreed theme. Within that portion of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme (as listed in point 65 of this document).

30. Half the programme will be unthemed. In this portion of the programme, a maximum of two questions will be selected on a single subject.

31. The range of questions chosen will reflect the broadcasters' legal and compliance responsibilities for due impartiality and fairness.

32. The panel will use its editorial judgement to select questions and will take into account factors such as the prominence of certain issues in the campaign, the distinctiveness of the different parties' policies on election issues, voters' interest and issues relevant to the role of the Prime Minister.

33. Within these rules, the editorial independence of the panel shall be paramount, because each broadcaster is answerable to its regulator for its programme content.

34. Questions may be selected by the editorial selection panel up to the start of the debate.

35. The selected questions will not be shown to anyone outside the editorial team in advance of the programmes.

36. Members of the audience will ask their questions. The moderator will ask the leaders to respond. The moderator may read email questions.

37. All questions will be addressed to and answered by all three leaders.

38. The audience members will be restricted to asking the selected questions.

39. There will be an option of viewer involvement via emails read by the moderator.

40. In order to maximise the time available for viewers to hear the leaders discussing election issues with each other, the studio audience will be asked not to applaud during the debate. There will be opportunities to do so both at the beginning and at the end of each programme.

Structure of programme

41. The programme will start with all three leaders on set and standing at their podiums.

42. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

43. The moderator will introduce the leaders,

44. The first half of the programme will be on the agreed theme but with the agreement of all the parties, in case of a major national or international event not included in the theme of the debate, the moderator will ask the leaders for their reaction to the development at the start of the programme before moving on to the theme.

45. The time taken for the reaction to such an event will be added to the time available for the themed part of the debate, unless the event is clearly part of the theme of the debate, in which case the reaction will be counted as part of the time allotted to the theme.

46. Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme. There will be closing statements of 1 minute 30 seconds from all three leaders at the end of the 90 minutes.

47. Each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question.

48. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond to the answers.

49. The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.

50. The length of the debate on each question will be decided by the programme editor.

51. The programme editor will use their best endeavours to keep to the 4 minute time allowance but it may need to be extended in the interest of equality of treatment.

52. Questions will be taken on the theme until around half way through the programme, depending on timing and ensuring fair treatment of all three leaders.

53. At the end of the themed period, the moderator will open the debate to general questions selected by the broadcaster's panel from the audience or via email.

54. The same timing format will apply to the general questions i.e. each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond. The moderator will then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit

55. There will be a clock indicating the time remaining for statements, answers to questions and responses. This will be visible to the candidates and moderator but not to the audience in the debate or on screen.

56. The order of speakers, based on an agreed grid, has been determined by the parties drawing lots.

57. At the end of the programme the three leaders will shake hands.

Role of the moderator

58. To moderate the programme

59. To keep the leaders to the agreed time limits

60. To ensure free-flowing debate being fair to all candidates over the course of the programme.

61. To ensure fairness on the direction of the programme editor

62. To seek factual clarification where necessary

63. It is not the moderator's role to criticise or comment on the leaders' answers.

64. The candidates accept the authority of the moderator to referee the rules on stage and ensure a free flowing, fair debate conducted within the agreed rules

Themes

65. Order of themed debates. The order of the themes for the first half of each programme was determined by the broadcasters drawing lots. The order is as follows:

1.Domestic affairs including but not exclusively: NHS; Education; Immigration; Law and Order; Family; Constitution; Trust in politics; Political reform;

2.International affairs including but not exclusively; International relations; Afghanistan; Iraq; Iran; Middle East; UK defence; International terrorism; Europe; Climate change; China; International Development

3.Economic affairs including but not exclusively: financing of public services; Taxation; Debt; Deficit; Public finances; Recession; Recovery; Banking and finance; Business; Pensions; Jobs;

Set

66. The leaders will stand at podiums throughout the debate. The positions of the three leaders during the debates are to be determined by agreement with all parties.

67. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

68. Each broadcaster responsible for their own titles, music, branding etc.

Audience cutaways

69. The purpose of the programmes are for the viewers to see and hear the party leaders engaging in debate with each other and answering questions from the audience. The audience is a key element of the programmes and has to be seen by the viewers but there will not be undue concentration of the reactions of individual audience members.

70. There will be a close up of the questioner while he/she is asking a question.

71. There will be no close-up cutaways of a single individual audience member while the leaders are speaking.

72. However if one of the leaders directly addresses an individual audience member, a close-up shot of that individual can be shown e.g. if a leader answers a question by directly addressing the questioner.

73. There may be group shots and wide shots of the audience during the programme.

74. The programme will be confined to events inside the debate studio.

75. Breaking News straps will not be put over live coverage of the debate. On news channels (Sky News, BBC News channel), the scrolling news tickers will offer other news but will not cover breaking news lines from the debates while the debates are taking place.

76. Each party will have the right to recall the negotiating panel made up of representatives from the broadcasters and the parties, during the campaign to discuss issues arising from the debates

A Plague On Both Your Houses...

Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have done it again. They are amongst three Senior Labour MPs that have been exposed in the Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches' as touting for large sums of money in exchange for advice on the legislative process, with the implication that they can exert undue influence on current policy decisions on their benefactor's behalf. The deadly duo seem intent on destroying any chance that the Labour Party have of re-election, whether it is unsuccessful coup d'etat or getting themselves embroiled in a scandal, they seem hell bent on becoming a tag team wrecking crew aimed solely at maintaining their semi-celebrity status.

However in all seriousness, these latest allegations against both the Houses of Parliament call in to question the nature of the British democracy. A democracy that allows: MPs to maintain more than one job; that allows lobbying of special interest groups directly to individual MPs; a bicameral system that in every respect is not bicameral; and a democracy that allows MPs not to follow the best interests of their constituencies or the country, but of their own self-serving requirements. How can any Cabinet member, former Cabinet member or individual MP, be allowed to take money for direct influence upon the legislative process?

This really begs the question; who runs this country?

• MPs: Apparently not - they are willing to sell their political capital to feather their own nests
• The People: Not a chance - our ability to effect the political process is marginalised to once every five years
• The Media: To a certain extent - campaigns can have an influence, but their impact is often over stated by themselves
• Corporations: Probably - through offering big money directorships, sponsorships and through paying MPs for advocacy, corporations often wield undue influence over the political process in Britain

There is something far more sinister about this scandal in comparison to the relatively benign expenses fracas; which was essentially a minor scandal that revolved around most MPs over claiming on expenses within a predetermined and legal system. Most were greedy, but not dishonest.

There should be no difference in perception when considering the lobby system of paying for the advocacy of MPs and MPs undertaking a second, third or fourth job. Just because one is slightly more transparent than the other does not make either of them acceptable.

Furthermore, David Cameron has already attempted to gain political capital off this scandal, but a word of warning: a year ago, the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet had twenty-six members and between them they had one hundred and fifteen non-executive directorships. Now whose interest are they going to serve - the electorate or the companies that are paying very well for their services?

The solution is relatively simple, but a tough pill to swallow. MPs should be paid more, but on a few conditions: the expenses system is completely over hauled (see earlier post), no secondary employment can be undertaken and there can be no paid consultancy between MPs and lobbyists. MPs can only have one master - and that is the British public.

Michael Foot 1913 - 2010

Today witnessed the passing of a true maverick of 20th century parliamentary life, Michael Foot sadly passed away at the age of 96 years. As a committed Member of Parliament and socialist, Michael Foot represented the Plymouth Devonport and the Ebbw Vale constituencies for 45 years in the House of Commons, including 3 years as Leader of the Labour Party between 1980 and 1983.

Bill Jones describes the essence of Michael Foot:

"Possibly the most brilliant public speaker and parliamentarian of his day as well as one of the most cultured and civilised politicians of the century, he was widely popular in many sections of the party, but suffered from a poor media image."

A politician that was respected by both sides of the House; a man of principles that cared more for the content of people's character than the image they portrayed in the media. He was a person that could teach many current MPs many valuable lessons about a politician's conduct in public life.

The Power of the Communications Director

Nick Davies and Andrew Sparrow, published in today's Guardian, have investigated the role of Andy Coulson (David Cameron's Communications Director) in the use of illegal journalistic practices, whilst he was Editor of News of the World. The article claims that Andy Coulson, in both his Editor and Deputy Editor roles, hired at least four private investigators with dubious criminal histories to research stories through various semi-legal and illegal methods. Mr Coulson has completely denied all knowledge and involvement in any illegal practices.

The power of these media gurus is worrying, but also it belies a presidential trend in British politics that started in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham, and which has grown in significance ever since. This relationship between Prime Minister and Communication Director is inversely proportional to the power of the political party in parliament; as the power of the PM's closest advisers increases, the power of the political party has diminished. The Prime Minister has become to believe that on their shoulders alone does the fate of the party rest - reality or extreme hubris, only the perspective of history will allow full comprehension.

The diminishing role of the political parties can be attributed to a number of sources; the centralization of government, the focus of the media and the strength of the Government's majority. But the most significant factor is the rise of the career politician; a politician that is a product of the party machine, a politician that is more a voice for the party in the local constituency, rather than a voice for their constituency in Parliament.

Without the collective will and strength of the public and Parliament combined, this worrying trend will continue unabated. The Prime Minister and their Cabinet will continue to collect Parliamentary and legislative power, at the expense of democracy, in the end the Prime Minister will become President in all but name.

It is becoming all too easy to substitute Andy Coulson and Alastair Campbell for Charles Colson and Karl Rove; in a system in which style and media presentation are far more important than actual facts, it is easy to believe that the Communications Director can really determine the collective reality.

National Bullying Helpline is Suspended

The National Bullying Helpline has just released a statement concerning the future of the organization, in which it states:

"Due to the situation at this time we are temporarily suspending our helpline... We would assure you that we are not politically driven in any way... We are currently considering the future of the charity. Christine Pratt is prepared to resign if necessary."

How did the situation get to this point? How did a leading anti-bullying charity get caught up in a political tit-for-tat?

There have been many rumours circulating recently in the press that Gordon Brown is quick to anger; with unsavoury accusations of furniture kicking, mobile phone throwing and lapel ruffling, the actions of the Prime Minister have been more closely scrutinized than the private lives of Chelsea footballers.

The most recent accusations have been made by former Labour Special Adviser Lance Price in his book, 'Where the Power Lies: Prime Ministers Verses the Media' which was serialised in the Independent, and by Andrew Rawnsley in the book 'The End of the Party' which had extracts printed in the Observer. It is obvious why these newspapers released these stories now, it is the perfect time to maximise circulation ahead of a general election, and given the precarious financial situation of these publications, a much needed shot in the arm. Ditto for the authors, if these books were released in mid election cycle they would cause barely a ripple in the pond of political intrigue.

However, the motives for Christine Pratt's disclosures are much less obvious. Why did the CEO of the National Bullying Helpline break many aspects of their own confidentiality rule to reveal that she had received four to five calls from Downing Street staff complaining of working practices within Number 10? The reason that Mrs Pratt disclosed the information were at best a naive and ill judged attempt to garner national publicity for her charity or, at worst, a cynical, politically motivated attempt to further pressurize the Prime Minister and the Labour Party.

Without the highest level of confidentiality any helpline renders itself redundant. Therefore it is a shame that through whatever her motives, Mrs Pratt has discredited much of the good work that has been undertaken by the National Bullying Helpline over the years and also has deflected a considerable amount of the attention away from Gordon Brown and his 'confrontational' work practices.

Christine Pratt... Indeed.

Nick Davies Reveals Fleet Street's Dark Arts

The New Issue of The Raconteur is Out

The latest edition of the The Raconteur is released.

The Not So Gravy Train

It is a continual source of amazement, and possibly amusement, that when a political party appears to be showing well in opinion polls, there is a tendency to self implode. Witness Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's abortive attempt at a very British coup earlier this year, a blundering exercise that did not so much take off, but crashed in the hanger with the doors closed.

So it will come as no surprise that the latest opinion poll, released today, placed the Conservatives a commanding 9 points ahead of Labour, should be followed shortly by a ill judged outburst by veteran MP Sir Nicholas Winterton on BBC Radio 5 Live. The comments centred around the plans for MPs to travel standard class on trains, instead of the traditional first class, when travelling between their constituencies and Westminster. In a rant that appeared to reinforce every negative Conservative stereotype that David Cameron has attempted to eradicate, Sir Nicholas Winterton stated:

"If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction. They are a totally different type of people. There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling."

This outburst was followed quickly by the denunciation of Sir Winterton by Tory Head Office as "the out-of-touch views of a soon-to-retire backbench MP". David Cameron feels he has worked too hard and too long at re-branding the Conservative Party for an "old Tory" to ruin it. It is not the first time that one of the Wintertons has started a train related controversy; Ann Winterton (wife of Sir Nicholas and fellow MP) told a racist joke involving a train in 2002, which ultimately cost her position in the shadow cabinet.

David Cameron is learning very quickly that it is impossible to control a parliamentary political party of the size of the "Big 3", in fact it is almost impossible to manage a political party of more than one.

Just ask Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage, who only had eleven other MEPs in their party and they still got mired in several controversies... but they did have to deal with Robert Kilroy-Silk, so they can be forgiven for taking their eyes of the political football.

Charlie Brooker's Take on Formulaic News Reporting