General Election 2015 is Lose/Lose for Labour

The polls on the eve of the general election point to a Miliband government, but one requiring vote by vote deals with the SNP to survive. If I were a Labour supporter I would be very concerned indeed.

Both main parties are neck and neck in the polls. The Tories need a reasonable margin over Labour just to match their seat numbers. There's a chance the polls are underestimating Tory support and underestimating Labour's. But they would have to be wildly wrong to allow the Tories to achieve a haul of parliamentary seats that would outnumber Labour + the SNP's total. And that is what the Tories have to do. Nicola Sturgeon has promised to "lock the Tories out of government", even if the rest of the countries votes Tory and gives them more seats than Labour.

Unless there's an upsurge in Conservative votes that the polls aren't predicting (like there was in 1992 when the electorate belatedly realised Kinnock was going to get in and turned out en masse to vote against him) Miliband will be PM on Friday but will have to rely on the SNP to get his legislation through, even if he comes second in the election to Cameron. If Cameron can't partner up with other parties to achieve a majority (as the polls suggest he won't be able to), Miliband will, regardless of how much such an arrangement lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the British people. Concessions to the Scottish separatists will be necessary if a Miliband government is to survive from vote to vote and from week to week. But he would rather that than not govern at all, whatever he says to try and placate nervous English voters before the vote. 

Miliband, who has already lurched his party to the left, will be forced to move further leftwards by the far left in his own parliamentary party and by the SNP, both of which, due to the lack of a in-built majority, will be pivotal to the survival of his premiership.

Labour's first Queen's Speech will probably sail through. The SNP will be happy to back it, as it puts the Labour fly firmly in the SNP's web ready to be influenced to achieve their own separatists and leftist agenda. In order to provide an legislative agenda for the first year that will gain adequate support from the Labour left and SNP, the speech will be chocker full of Miliband's most populist left wing policies - bankers bashing, rich rinsing, business bashing policies a plenty, similar to Miliband's ideological French soul-mate François Hollande. The effects on the British economy will be similar; high unemployment, an exodus of wealth creators, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, industrial relations unrest as unions get more and more confident, powerful and demanding under "their" government and, eventually, a reckoning with reality.

That reckoning will come after a year or so, with the backdrop of a faltering economy about to crash to the ground as economic gravity inevitably reasserts itself. Of course, all this will come to a head quicker if the pending Euro crisis re-emerges if Greece crashes out of the Euro due to its own populist left wing leader's reality-defying ideological policies. But, assuming external crises don't occur to bring all this forward, by 12 to 18 months, Miliband's premiership will already be tarnished in England by several concessions he will have to have made to survive key votes in parliament. Now Miliband will be forced to moderate his ideological fervour and he will be at his most vulnerable. He will experience revolts from his own MPs as he is forced to move away from a left policy agenda to address the real issues the country is experiencing. The SNP will be even more important to Miliband's survival at this point.

The Labour government will limp from crisis vote to crisis vote. Miliband will experience humiliation at the hands of Alex Salmond, the SNP's leader in the Commons as well as his own left wing, and ridicule throughout the land. We can look back to the John Major years, when, after a string of lost mid-term by-elections, Major lost his Commons majority. He had to battle the Tory right from week to week, who took every opportunity to undermine him to promote their own utopian ideas and often massive egos, and he had to rely on DUP support to govern with a majority in parliament. Major's reputation was trashed in the eyes of voters as he was made to look weak, as was the Conservative party's generally. It has never fully recovered (evidenced by their failure to win a majority since then).

The DUP, being Unionists and with no strong left/right ideology (economically at least), weren't particularly demanding. The SNP will be a totally different proposition for Miliband. He'll struggle to contain them, even if he turns out not to be the weak leader people think he is.

The aftermath of this scenario is long term damage to Labour's reputation, possibly leading to a generation of being locked out of power. It's almost as if the election is lose/lose for Labour.

I'd find that funny if it wasn't so serious for the future of the country.

Can You Make Porn Come Back On My Internet, Please?

Based on the reactions I've read on Facebook & Twitter I was concerned at the seemingly unfeasible and possibly oppressive plan David Cameron has for Internet censorship.

This is one area politicians are keen to stick their noses into as it plays to a very strong concern amongst parents about their children accessing inappropriate, even vile and illegal material on the web. It almost always ends badly, usually in embarrassing retreat but can also result in overbearing legislation that potentially infringes freedom of expression.

I gleaned from the various social media comments and the odd blog post I had time to read that there was a lot of confusion out there. Just some of the things Cameron apparently wants to do are: a) ban access to illegal porn via the Internet b) limit access to all porn on the Internet c) make all porn illegal d) define what is and is not porn himself e) maintain a central list of all pervs who are "opted into" porn etc etc. it gets sillier and sillier the more you read.

Some points of concern, however certainly resonate with me. One good point made by (an unsurprisingly) critical article in The Independent, was that we don't need filters we need more effort invested in identifying and closing down illegal porn production and distribution on the Internet. Very wise, I thought.

But, given the high proportion of conspiracy theorising and deliberate, politically motivated obfuscation of the subject clearly aimed at making the proposals sound ridiculous and unworkable, I felt I needed to read the proposal from the horses keyboard (yes, I know, that doesn't make any sense). So, I searched out what Cameron actually said. Here it is:

As I said today, there are two big things we’re going to do.

HELPING PARENTS

First, we’re going to help mums and dads stop their children looking at adult material. For too long, parents have been on their own in this fight.

So today we’ve announced big, new steps forward. In a nutshell, the internet providers have agreed to do much more to filter inappropriate images out – they are going to install family friendly filters automatically unless you, as a parent, say otherwise.

STOPPING CHILD ABUSE IMAGES

Second, we need to do much more to eradicate vile and illegal images of child abuse from the internet. As a Government we will boost police action, back the Internet Watch Foundation and ensure there is one database to pool intelligence.

At the moment, search engines aren’t doing enough. So today I’ve said loud and clear to Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest – they have got to stop letting people put in these disgusting search terms. If they don’t commit to action, or progress is too slow, we are already looking at how we can change the law to make them.

I want Britain to be the best place in the world to raise a family. That's why we need to take action now. Fundamentally this is about protecting childhood itself - few things matter more.

So, he wants to make existing filters default to on. These filters already define what is and isn't porn in a way that isn't causing enormous concern. And, if you aren't happy with the restriction, you can opt out.

Additionally, Cameron wants to boost investment in the current police operations identifying and closing down online child abuse, rape and other illegal images. I can only suppose The Independent journalist missed this bit when he made his excellent point calling for Cameron to do exactly this. This is probably the most effective part of his proposals, as a lot of the really awful porn is accessed via private and peer to peer networks that require intelligence and investigation to crack.

He also wants search engines to block certain search terms. This is a problematic suggestion, as who decides what terms are unacceptable? I can well understand the censorship and practical concerns here. But, assuming the terms are universally accepted as unacceptable, "child rape" for example, that would be okay, wouldn't it? As long as legitimate sites that exist to support abused children aren't filtered from the results as well. The real issue, it seems to me, is setting a precedent of politician defining "unacceptable terms". What's to stop a future Labour Prime Minister (perhaps Andy Burnham) adding "NHS quality of care failures" to the list of terms that must not return any results, for example?

So, while I'm never comfortable with politicians interfering with Internet freedom, as a parent with genuine concerns about what my children (once they're older and more tech savvy) may stumble across on the web, I think they are fairly measured policy suggestions. Only time will tell how successful they will be in practice. The anti side of the reaction today seems a bit shrill and premature (but then that's what watching too much porn does to you, I suppose).

The threat of legislation is a big worry. It would be preferable for the industry to put its own house in order. I'm sure motivation for them to do so is the point of the threat. But should it come to legislation, then there will be big questions about definitions, future safeguards against political interference etc. Again, we should flush that tissue when we come on it. (Sorry)

Having read the anti-change Facebook and Twitter comments again, I think I know what is really bothering some of them. It's almost certainly the realisation that they will either have to ask their wives for permission to (in the, slightly modified, words of Alan Partridge) make pornography come back on the Internet, or have to resort to lingerie catalogues or, most controversial of all, actual sex with their partners.

It's a hard (hopefully) life.

Local Elections 2013

Ed inspiring commuters on the Tube

Lots of spinning going on about the council elections results. In reality, it's been a typically bad mid-term result for the Tories and the Lib Dems. Labour's gains have been patchy and mostly disappointing. Only UKIP can take any pleasure in that they attracted a significant percentage of the vote and some councillors. Although no councils, of course.

Apart from the UKIP performance, the only other notable outcome is Labour's lacklustre progress. Ed Miliband had the following going for him:

• With the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Tories, Labour are the lone party of opposition on the left. Dissatisfaction with the government should drive votes to Labour as the only possible alternative
• The Coalition parties are in mid-term, midway through implementing very painful reforms and departmental budget cuts that have sapped their political capital.
• UKIP are splitting the vote on the right, sapping support from the Conservatives
• Labour were starting from a very low point and the Tories a very high point, as the last time these wards were fought was during the darkest days of the previous Labour government. Any slight improvement in Labour's vote should have delivered hundreds of councillors.

Given all of this, you'd expect a Labour landslide, gains of 4/5/600 or more. But no, nothing like it. More worrying for Labour is its lack of success in the South. The only councils Labour won were Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire - both rock solid Labour before Labour's disastrous result in 2009. Few significant inroads were made in the South of England.

Ed Miliband has had an easy run in the media for a while. But following recent poor decisions, especially around opposing Conservative welfare reforms, another car crash interview and now these disappointing results, pressure should start to mount on the Labour leader. But, I suspect, most of the electorate have already made their mind up on him, and Labour's only hope will be no economic recovery and UKIP's popularity persisting to the election in 2015.

If yesterday's vote proves anything, it proves the country has a strong right of centre mind set. Ed Miliband's march to the left is leaving people cold.

Leveson On Political Spin

All the focus following the publication of the Leveson report has been on the big issue of press regulation and whether or not we want our newspapers answerable to politicians (i.e. statutory "underpinning"). This is a big question and one that deserves extensive coverage and public debate.

But there are a myriad of other questions addressed by The Lord Justice, not least, Labour's serious accusations about the Tories relationship with News International and Cameron's handling of the BSkyB bid. Leveson's findings here also deserve attention but won't get it due to the gravity of the press regulation debate. However, Guido helpfully distils Leveson's judgements:

Labour claimed the Conservatives did ‘a deal’ with NI over BSkyB and other policy in exchange for their support.
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling a “deal”’.

Labour claimed Jeremy Hunt ‘was not judging the [BSkyB] bid he was backing it’.
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘there is no credible evidence of actual bias on the part of Mr Hunt’.

Labour claimed ‘Cameron should never have given the decision to Hunt in the first place’.
But Lord Justice Leveson says Jeremy Hunt ‘was the obvious candidate to entrust with the decision because of his portfolio… The evidence does not begin to support a conclusion that the choice of Mr Hunt was the product of improper media pressure, still less an attempt to guarantee a particular outcome to the process’.

Labour claimed ‘Jeremy Hunt “was acting as a backchannel for the Murdochs”’
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘Mr Hunt immediately put in place robust systems to ensure… fairness, impartiality and transparency’ and Jeremy Hunt’s ‘actions as a decision maker were frequently adverse to News Corp’s interests’.

Labour claimed the Prime Minister had discussions with James Murdoch about the BSkyB bid at a dinner on 23 December 2010.
But Lord Justice Leveson says the Prime Minister was ‘perfectly in order’.

God knows there's enough dodgy behaviour going on in public life without this kind of mendacious spinning. Perhaps the next public inquiry should be into the ethics of party political spinning* and the way parties attempt to smear each other at every turn. No wonder politicians are down there with journalists in people's regard.

* Somehow I suspect this is one inquiry Ed Miliband will not be calling for.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Local Election Results - Nothing We Didn't Already Know

I'm getting a bit bored of the hysterical local election results coverage now. It's difficult to see what these results tell us that we didn't already know. There is a lot of commentary, especially from anti-Cameron right wing commentators as well as the normal party political spin from Labour, around the state of the Conservative party and its leadership.

Based on the local election results the BBC estimates the national share of the vote as the Tories on 31%, Labour on 38% and the Lib Dems on 16%. This outcome reflects what polls have been telling us about Tory support for about a month now. Labour's support is not anywhere near the peek of 45% some polls have suggested and the Lib Dems (who always do better at local elections) is higher.

If anything, the lack of much improvement in the popular vote for Ed Miliband's Labour party since last year's local elections is comment worthy, but instead we're hearing how fantastically well Labour have done and how Cameron's "gaffe prone" government is in real trouble.

Focus has been on the number of council seats gained and lost by the parties since these seats were last up for election in 2008. But Labour couldn't have failed to win 700 odd seats given the low base they were at 4 years ago and the very high base the Tories achieved. Labour did well to win about 100 more than that but that's still not terribly surprising. It's worth remembering that Labour gained over 400 seats in the local elections on the same day they lost the General Election in 2010, with a Michael Foot-esque share of the national vote due, again, to the base positions of the parties when those seats had last been elected. So, Labour haven't produced anything worth the hype. The danger is that all the positive coverage they are getting will start to embed the idea that the same lot of failures that ran this country into the ground up to 2010 are credible candidates to run the country again in 2015.

The main difference between now and last year's election is the fall in Tory support. There's no doubt Cameron has some major issues with communicating his government's agenda. This has been a major contributor to the Tories drop in support of about 5% since the general election. For example, the last budget cut taxes for the poor and increased the amount of tax raised from the rich, but you'd think the opposite was true from the coverage it received in the media. This last month has seen one issue after another spin out of control. The government's position in most cases has been reasonably defensible. But no adequate expectation setting before policy announcements seems to take place. Then, following announcements or potentially damaging events, no effective rebuttal of opposition attacks occurs, allowing them to drive the media agenda and influence public opinion.

I have to admit, the lack of aggressive media management from the likes of the mendacious Alistair Campbell is refreshing in this government. But perhaps Labour had it right. Could it be that a modern political party can't survive without aggressively bullying the media to get your line into their headlines. I hope that is not the case. But one way or the other the Tories need to get their point across. Otherwise, Labour's minor successes like these local elections will continue to be blown out of all proportion and their, often misleading, narrative on government policy will become the perceived truth in the public's mind. It could already be too late.

Of course, the Tories woes are not all down to poor communication. They are lacking a strong message that goes beyond getting the nation's finances back into shape (and even that is arguably suffering as they increasingly water down their policies as the going gets tough and in response to pressure from their worried coalition partners). The Big Society was supposed to provide a broader agenda but it's disappeared as has Steve Hilton, Cameron's policy guru and nothing seems to have replaced it or him.

Cameron shouldn't be panicked into any policy lurches to the left or right. But he should take some time now to clarify what his broad message is and how to effectively get it across to voters. He should start by looking at who he has working on media management and policy development. Then he needs to start planning to differentiate the Tories from the coalition, focusing on what he'd like to do but currently can't and how a majority Tory government would deliver if given a chance.

Dishonouring The Honours

It's fair to say that honours and, more so, peerages have always been used by politicians to favour their own cronies. Never was this more blatant than under Tony Blair's Labour administration where begging party fund raisers would actually offer honours and peerages at set prices. The more you gave the greater the honour. If you gave enough you would be able to seat your generous arse on the hallowed benches of the House of Lords.

The honours system was reluctantly reformed by the last Government following exposure of their abuse of it. The reforms introduced more independent scrutiny and nominations. Also, the provision of peerages now go through the House of Lord's appointments commission. The idea being that blatantly party political nominations get weeded out and rejected if there's no genuine reason for their inclusion. David Cameron, as can be seen here, was keen to broaden recognition to those that made efforts in their own communities to tackle issues and improve lives.

But none of this has stopped the papers and opposition politicians kicking off and denouncing the latest round of New Year honours. It's interesting to see who and why people are getting so upset this time round. For Labour and the Daily Mail it is "ex-cons" Gerald Ronson and Chris Preddie. These two evil bastards have, in Ronson's case, raised more than £100 million and donated £30 million to charity including, amongst others, the NPCC and the Princes Trust, and in Preddie's case, turned his life around, renounced crime, set up a charity to help other young people do the same (Making Dreams Reality) and is acting as a positive role model to a section of society that has very few.

However, both have in the past been on the wrong side of the law. And for some this is reason enough to exclude them from any recognition of their subsequent good deeds. Labour and the Daily Mail are also gunning for Paul Ruddock, a serial fund raiser and philanthropist for the arts. Both the tabloid and Labour's Michael Dugher point to the donations Ronson and Ruddock made to the Conservative party as further reason for their nominations to be called into question. While, given the abuses of the past, this is more understandable, I don't see why philanthropists should be excluded from honours just because they donate money to a political party. Indeed, it is highly likely that those who raise and donate money for good causes are going to want to support a party they think will do most for those same causes.

Not for the first time we see Labour and the Daily Mail, albeit for different reasons, being on the same reactionary side. As with the Jeremy Clarkson controversy they are both quick to leap on what the think looks like the moral high ground. But only manage to convince themselves that the ground they are on is high in the mountain ranges of morality by ignoring the broader context of the story.

It's a shame, because, from what I can see, these people all deserve their awards. There are also lots of other very deserving recipients that deserve the air time and column inches being given to these politically motivated accusations. Coverage that would provide a fantastic boost to some very good causes. But, at the end of the day, if newspaper sales are anything to go by, we all love a scandal. Even when there isn't really any.

F*ck Cameroon!

Guest post from @j0n0p...

Lots of you will have seen this brave woman’s speech before, but I wanted to share it because I’ve just noticed that someone has sprayed graffiti on the wall behind her with the words FUCK CAMEROON, which, you know, seems a bit harsh. I wonder what the football-loving residents of that particular West African country have done to upset the twat that sprayed the message?! I imagine they're jolly offended.

Of course I'm being silly. I'm 99% certain that the sprayer simply cannot spell the name of our mighty PM, but whether he* has a problem with spelling or West African countries (or both), I think it pretty much sums up his level of intelligence.

* i am certain it was a HE that did it, as he has also added the phrase SUCK MY DICK. I cannot complain about the spelling here - he shows promise - though adding PLEASE would be a bit more polite. He would also appear not to have left a phone number or indeed any kind of contact information, which will make it very difficult for the PM (or the residents of Cameroon) to track him down and provide the oral pleasure he so desires. Wanker.

Guilt By Press Association?

Is this another blow for Cameron? Jeremy Clarkson, who was at a party attended by the evil James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and the Camerons (yes, even the fragrant SamCam is involved in this tawdry affair), reveals all that happened in today's Sunday Times...

We began with a cocktail made from crushed socialists and after we’d discussed how the trade union movement could be smashed and how News Corp should be allowed to take control of the BBC, Rupert Murdoch joined us on a live video feed from his private volcano, stroking a white cat.

Later, I remember vividly, a policeman knocked at the door and Rebekah gave him a wad of cash. Cameron tapped the side of his nose knowingly and went back to his main course — a delicious roast fox.

Sadly, well sadly for any Guardian readers out there, this wasn't the case. It turns out conversation was fairly mundane, including discussion of such things as sausage rolls and the environment (James Murdoch taking issue with Jeremy Clarkson, apparently).

Of course, the very idea that Cameron was friendly enough with the News Corp execs to attend a party with them (and the even more reviled Clarkson and his neighbours) is enough to send the left into spasms of conspiracy fits. It won't be explanation enough to point out that most of them live close to each other and are friends. But, there's certainly a question to be asked about Cameron's judgement in maintaining friendships with people who have clouds hanging over them. But I judge someone by their actions. And, had Vince Cable not compromised himself in an attempt to impress two young ladies (sent by the evil Telegraph to "illegally*" expose what an egotistical coalition malcontent he was), Cameron was all set to allow the Murdoch hating octogenarian (I don't mean in age but in number of times he's predicted recessions in the past 10 years) to make the final decision on the BSkyB takeover by News Corp.  Surely that would be the last thing the "puppet master" Murdoch would have "allowed".

As it happens, there's very little evidence that the values and opinions of the right-wing press (News International owned or not) have had much, if any, influence on Cameron's government, much to the dismay of many of its Conservative supporters.

But guilt by association is the name of the game for Cameron's opponents currently. Let's hope the general public see through the flimsy attempts to link the phone hacking scandal to Cameron personally and they judge the proponents of these self-serving arguments harshly while demanding they look more closely at what really matters - press ethics, police corruption and oh, yes, the small matters of massive government debt, an unreformed NHS, education, etc etc...


* It's not illegal to use subterfuge to gain information if it's in the public interest. However, this particular rule looks like it may have had its day. And how pleased many dodgy MPs, judges, medical charlatans etc will be about that.

They're All At It!

When the serious allegations regarding the News of the World phone hacking scandal emerged last week it was clear that this "scandal" had finally produced some real substance. Previously, the faux outrage being exhibited by left leaning papers, politicians and celebs was transparently in their own self-interest. Bitter at News International for turning their back on Labour after so long, their hatred had undermined the case that was being made against the press, mainly because they sought to focus on the one organisation. But now we hear the extent of the use of phone hacking went beyond those in public life to include innocent private individuals, even victims of crime. The worst accusation involves PI Glen Mulcaire, apparently in the pay of The News of The World, listening into voice mail messages of Milly Dowler when she was still missing. This is an appalling revelation and all the outrage and indignation was well justified.

News International has moved decisively and ruthlessly to cut out the cancer in its midst by closing down the title in the frame for this disgusting behaviour. It seems massively unfair to the many staff and journalists, not to mention millions of readers, who have not done anything wrong. But such was the damage to the paper's brand and the potential for that damage to seep into other News International titles that Murdoch clearly felt the action was necessary. However, more and more revelations are emerging that could yet threaten his other titles. Ironically, it is this threat that would do more damage to media plurality that any BSkyB takeover would.

What is sickening is seeing Ed Miliband attempts to be seen, all of a sudden, as a leader of the campaign against The News of the World and now News International. This is a man who employs a News International ex-journalist as a press secretary who was, just a day before the story broke, following his advice to lay off the topic. Miliband even undertook a complete about turn over night by saying the BSkyB/News International deal was not affected by the revelations one day, and then calling for the deal to be reassessed the next, when he had to appear in Prime Minister's question time... on the telly.

The danger is that the politically motivated johnny-come-lately opposition politicians and original protagonists in this saga will, in their attempts to maintain focus on Andy Coulson because of his 4 year stint in the employ of David Cameron and News International generally, distract attention from the broader issue of how the press conducts itself. So desperate are they to implicate Cameron in the scandal and destroy Murdoch's company, they may deny this country a real opportunity to reset the values and moral compass of our tabloid media, or at least deny them easy access to ill-gotten information without a true public interest justification. By public interest I don't mean "interesting to the public", of course!

It is this last point that I think everyone who used to buy the News of the World or any other tabloid such as the Mirror, Sun, Mail... should ponder. What motivated these journalists to go to such lengths to get info on people? It was the fight of readership. You get what you deserve in the real world, not necessarily what is good for you. We have the press and politicians we deserve. The truth is salacious stories about celebrities (or anyone who finds themselves in the public eye) sold newspapers. The News of the World was the top selling Sunday newspaper for a reason. It did sex and scandal better than its rivals. And we lapped it up. Despite what the anti-Cameron/News International brigade want you to believe, the NotW's competitors are just as deeply immersed in the mire of dark arts in the search for a juicy story. As the What Price Privacy Now report found, there exists a market in confidential personal data, often provided by private investigators (like Glen Mulcaire), grubbing around in bins, blagging confidential information, accessing personal voice mail messages and exploiting contacts with the police etc, to get information on anyone they think the tabloids would be interested in. And if you thought it was only the News International titles making use of these dodgy services, think on...

So, it's great that we have a public enquiry into the activities of the press. I hope it exposes their practices which, for decades, have been hardly questioned because of the assumption that anything was justifiable in the name of a free press; the myth that such practices were ultimately in the public interest. In reality they were mostly pandering to the salacious interests of the public and didn't care who they hurt or destroyed along the way. It wasn't just the News of the World, or the Sun or the Mail (the papers most of those on the left want attention focused on). It was all papers, including left leaning ones like the Mirror, the Observer and the People. Yes, the Observer. It's not even limited to tabloids! The whole industry needs to be looked at. Party politics has no place in these deliberations. It is shameful that there are those that wish to make it about Cameron or the "right wing press". I think Miliband and others will come out of this looking very shabby indeed.

But once the enquiries report and we understand the full picture, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The MPs expenses scandal required the receipt of stolen goods to be overlooked as the story was clearly in the public's interest. Phone hacking is similarly perfectly justifiable if it is in the search for information that could lead to similarly important story being broken. The public needs to understand how journalists get their information and be reassured that, should they use illegal methods without a real public interest case, they will be prosecuted and their paper will bear a heavy cost for overstepping the mark. For that to happen we need to:

• Have a clearer definition of "public interest" - this isn't as easy as it sounds. A real public debate is required to sort the answer out. But the real penalties that will make Newspaper's think twice before using intrusive measures to dig up information.
• That there isn't a corrupting relationship between the police and media that could be exempting journalists from their legal responsibilities (hence Cameron's second enquiry into the police's role in this scandal)
• Politicians that are not frightened to hold media organisation to account. Something all party leaders have only now, belatedly and only after all media proprietors are running scared, started to do.
• A newspaper buying public that doesn't reward papers that publish the most base, sensationalist and scandalous stories. This final requirement will be the hardest to achieve. Impossible in fact, unless the nation changes its tastes all of a sudden!