91Èȱ¬

Ice skating, tummy rubbing, 'tree hugging', hoodie loving, sweet loathing, bitter making, substance lacking, lipsmacking Davy.

Cameron's policies:Hoodie you think he is?

I can't think of any slogans, I'm still thinking (nice one Charlie, I like it!) I was just wondering how do the people in hoodies feel about what David Cameron has said! Do they want to be hugged? I'd like to see Cameron hug a hoodie!

The ultimate danger of soundbites. Reid, Cameron et al obviously feel they have to respond to a current issue as soon as they can. It must be very wearing for cabinet/party colleagues who have to pick up the pieces afterwards. Time for more reflection and less ego before speaking?

Surely David's campaign to hug-a-hoodie is the best way to stop people wearing them!

Even as a Labour voter, I have to admit that this posting seems slightly biaseda against Cameron!

Kitchen sitting, pedal pushing, paternity leave taking, jive talking, good looking, sunday lunch cooking, chatshow king Davy

Separated at birth: David Cameron and Maid Marian? She loved a Robin, he hugs the robbing. It works on two levels, do I win £10?

is it the job of the 91Èȱ¬ to come up with slogans for Labour´s spin doctors?

"Hoody hugging" seems to be Labour spin not Cameron speak. Lack of self esteem is the big culprit and this can be made worse by the simplest putdown which can happen in the home, in the classroom, in the playground...

Soft on hoodies, soft on the causes of hoodies.

Gary

This strikes me as a ploy to gain young votes. Has anyone considered putting the Conservative logo on a hoodie? That might work better.

'Graybo' should take a chill pill. (Where is Ruralville anyway??) 'Dave' lends himself to such treatment with his policy-lite, desperately-seeking-to-be-hip-but-failing-miserably positions and attitudes. 'Hug-a-hoodie' is just the latest - remember his 'tough on chocolate oranges, tough on retailers of chocolate oranges' tantrum recently? 'Dave' needs to get serious, start espousing some core conservative values - such as less government amnd regulation, lower taxes, more freedom and responsibility for the individual - and appealing to natural Tory Party supporters and those who voted Tory in the 1980s and early '90s if he is to pose a serious threat at the next election. Some degree of mockery at this point is, in my view, entirely justified. Oh - and who are 'a lot of people' graybo, exactly??

How long before Camden market is flooded with Cameron hoodies?

And how long before the telegenic Tory gets the nick-name "Camera-on"?

I think that time is now.

The Leader of the Opposition articulates a valid, liberal's concern about tackling crime's causes rather than simply hanging ASBO awards around every wrong-doers' neck and we are invited to mock him.

It doesn't really matter how long it takes now for Labour to spin against Cameron does it, Nick? You've just done the job for them by wondering out loud how long it will be before the Tories will be accused of being "all spin and no substance".

A paragraph above we are told that the Government had denied that more troops are destined for Afghanistan when they plainly knew otherwise and this is passed over as an everyday economy with the truth and something that we just have to live with. That's utter complacency.

Rather than hosting an open competition that damns Cameron for having a thought in his head, why doesn't the Corporation get after the truth-dodgers at the MOD or Reid the headline-chaser-in-chief?

Rather than reporting spin for New Labour how about commenting on some news, dumbed-down, trivialising, soundbiting, fluff-gathering, Blair-back-slapping, impartiality-caught-napping, frittering-away-the-licence-fee 91Èȱ¬?

This is a poem for Dave the Cave
Our new leader, once all the rave
A right wing party, moved to the left
Traditional tory policies now bereft
From huskies to hoodies I do despair
Not yet as deplorable as Tony Blair
Tough on crime, not on your nelly
open neck policies designed for telly
He is in the process of policy review
Some of his rhetoric makes me spew
We're told to vote Blue and go Green
For tory die hards, totally obscene
It's now time to embark on a Tory mission
and return us to normality good old conservative tradition.

To redress the balance I've come up with a catchy slogan for Blair aand his government:-

Lying,lying, lying, lying, lying, lying ,liars.

Nick, don't you think asking for more slogans such as these just adds to the present and prevailing culture of disrespect, encourages more trivialisation of a serious issue and is rather unhelpful and pointless. I am in favour of any politician of any party who is willing to explore sensible explanations for why some/many/most(?) "hoodies" behave the way they do if it helps to combat perceived problems and result in effective solutions. Please "grow up" and stop encouraging such immature responses and become a responsible part of the solution. However, I am sure wind-up merchants like yourself will somehow always find some justification (and draw a respectable salary!)for this kind of puerile contribution to social debate. Somehow, I have little confidence that this comment doesn't make it onto your blog!

Cuddly on crime, cuddly on the causes of crime.

I am a bit tired of all this spin and style over substance.

How about substance over style – Prescott for PM!

Hello Nick

I don't get your logic when you say we were told the truth about a request for troops, we clearly weren't and what is worse, Reid originally gave the impression that British troops sent into Afghanistan were headed for a walk in the park. I don't think Language is the problem, it is either incompetence or downright deceit due to short term political expediency( or a combination of both) that are the actual cause.

As for Dave Cameron's position on hoodies it was an easy goal for Labour's spin doctors to score. Truly they are the masters of spin and no substance and the results of that are everywhere in Britain. The facts are that we have been "tough" on crime for a long time now and all it has achieved is a massive prison population and a high recidivism rate plus a removal of Civil Liberties in the form of ASBO's. Perhaps it is time we stopped being tough on crime and started to be actually effective at reducing crime and tackling the causes of crime. I hope that Dave Cameron has refocused the debate slightly at least, although I fear the knee jerk reaction to "hug a hoodie" will lead us nowhere in actually dealing with crime.

I think Mr Cameron should be regarded as the 'Hood Samaritan' in all of this.....

How about Hoodie-helping, rather than Hoodie-hugging? I fail to see how ASBOs etc. help these youngsters. At least Cameron's addressing the root problems rather than just ASBOing away the symptoms.

'Only 24 hours to save the hoodie'

Gary

If we are going to ban an item of clothing, why dont we start with the business suit?

While i don't condone shoplifting, terrorising old ladies or generally making other people's lives a misery, Mr Cameron seem to be picking on the wrong people. Casual research suggests serious fraud, insider trading or acts of corporate manslaughter are unlikely to be carried out by people wearing hooded sweatshirts. Photographs of senior executives of British manufacturers of land mines, anti-personnel grenades and cluster bombs have shown no evidence of hoodie-wearers. Businessmen offering large amounts of cash in return for peerages, and the politicians who accept the cash, tend towards less casual items of clothing. When the decision was made to invade Iraq, no-one wore a hoodie. And the men who think Guantanamo Bay is still a good idea do not wear hoods themselves, though they have been known to offer them to guests. Sure, there's the odd villain who wants to conceal his face. But there's bigger villains around who have no such shame.

Lib-smarming, Tony-apeing, Euro-squirming, Tory-baiting Dave C! (obviously not "The Real Thing").

If every one of Nick's posts had to be completely unbiased, then it would read just like a news report. There's already plenty of those on the 91Èȱ¬ site and this is far more entertaining. You should look for an unbiased view across a series of posts, rather than within one post.

The Tories should just amend their slogan from the last election to Are you drinking what we've been drinking?

Cameron is right. Wearing a "hoodie" does not make you a criminal and not all criminals wear hoodies - Robert Maxwell never wore one and yet he was crook, raiding pension funds for all he could get.

Hoodies are no more than the current "gang membership". It used to be that you were a mod, a rocker, a biker, a skinhead, a punk, etc.

I could well believe that this control-freak govt would automatically slap hoodies in jail - almost as easily as they toss bankers into US jails.

So Nick, tell us WHY Cameron is wrong to attempt to solve a big social problem. Tell us WHY he is wrong to say that circumstances make crooks rather than items of clothing. Don't just echo New Labour rhetoric - tell us why Cameron is wrong, if you can.

Argh! It was bad enough when soundbites from politicians' speeches were 'pre-announced' on eg Today on Radio 4 on the morning of their speech. Now we've got the following exchange..

- Sat - Tories announce contents of Monday's speech

- Sun - Labour attack same

- Mon - Tories defend speech

.. all before the actual speech has been made!

Please start reporting the news and not the future!

Oh cheer up you miserable bunch - it's only a bit of fun.

Dave’s Secret Victory Campaign Plan
1) Change Conservative logo to soft focus pic of me nose to nose with a fluffy blue kitten
2) Launch campaign against disposable nappies in ‘Fresh and Wild’ Supermarket, W8
3) Announce plans for a United Nations NSQ (national smiling quota) index in Bhutan (NB remember to buy large carton of fags at Heathrow)
4) Make keynote ‘Criminals - Our Nation’s Forgotten Treasure’ speech at Wormwood Scrubs
5) Move into Number 10.

I think this criticism is all very harsh on David Cameron who is raising a fair point, as a society we do demonise youngsters - especially in the right wing press, and then we wonder why they feel alienated from society.

I am glad at least someone in politics is prepared to challenge this unfair stereotype.

All this talk of hoodies is ridiculous - I know exactly who people mean when they refer to hoodie wearers - they are referring to chavs. So, to those all who complain about hoodies: get it right - you specifically mean chavs, not hoodie wearers (the majority of whom are decent, law-abiding people).

As for Nick being biased, that's ridiculous as well. An unbiased analysis of Cameron's speech will come to the conclusion that he's desperate to cast his party in a new light - even Tories will admit to that. Who knows whether he is trying to provoke a fight with the party's right - who cares! What does matter is that it is a desperate and unashamed attempt to pitch for the youth/liberal tolerant vote.

When Cameron first emerged as a potential leader, it was conceivable that he was a 'different kind of Tory', one who would have even had a chance of appealing to those who have become culturally allergic to all things perceived as blue-rinse Conservative. However, instances such as this, such as being photographed wearing fake Converse trainers, being photographed on his bike - all of these examples mark him out as Desperate Dave.

I think John Prescott would look good in a hoodie, if they do them in his size.

Having heard a little more than of what Cameron said than appears here, I propose "Worth thinking about".

Graybo and Slighthammer, I don't understand how hypothesising about future Labour spin doctoring - and implicitly pointing out the gaping hole in its logic and accuracy - amounts to support for Labour. To show that spin-doctoring and political posturing has come full circle since 1994 is not to support either the Tories or Labour; it is to highlight that both parties approach policy-making in the same superficial way.

The Tory leader should try to live in the real world. Hug a hoodie indeed. How about this for a slogan ' Clout a Cameron' or ' Trash a Tory' or 'Crock a conservative'

As always the parties manage to boil extremely important and complex issues down into a one sentence soundbite ... isn't governing a country too complex for a one sentence answer?

Liberals get a bit soft when it comes to hoodies. People have no problem with requests to remove crash helmets going into banks after armed robbers used them to escape identification. No-one much supports the wearing of stocking masks being de rigeur on the high street. But there is something about the more quotidian hooded top that gets folk going, even when it is clearly used by some as intimidation and by others as disguise. Perhaps it because years ago many of us innocently wore them ourselves? I still have my Red Wedge number? Remember those? In fact if you do you'll realise that in a prescient move the Labour Luvvies and Radical Rockers created a hoodless number. Were we the preppie, skanking and even hippy good guys when punks and indie kids like Dave Cameron were the social terrorists?! If he's bigging up these "Robbin' Hoods" can we find some names for his team among the Sherwood canon? Alan Duncan Adair? Little John Redwood? Maid Marion ... Will Scarlet ...Friar Tuck anyone? DC himself will have to be the new Robbin' Hood - with a twist in that tale of his - "Robbing from the poor, giving to the rich, Robbin' Hood, Robbin' Hood. Robbin' Hood ..."

'Dave's hoodies, are not working'

'Ask not what hoodies can do for your country,ask what hoodies can do to you!'

Gary

'Be a hugger of a mugger'

It would appear that what a Government minister or high ranking political party member actually says these days has much more to do with the reaction they expect, seek or fear than with the truth. Ideally what is said should bear tangentially on the truth and should not be an overt lie, but other than this veracity is not a pre-requisite. Telling a lie is not the same as not telling the truth. It is that broad bleak no-man’s land short of telling the whole truth, but not to the extent of telling a lie that seems to be the battleground and sometimes the last resting place of high ranking politicians. Why anyone should want to inhabit that place, I don’t know.

However, before we start condemning our political leaders out of hand, perhaps we should reflect on how much what ultimately became known as ‘spin’ actually developed as a mechanism of defence against ferocious media interrogation, demanding answers when no answer existed, while failure to provide said answer would only be interpreted as an admission of failure or personal incompetence.

And on top of this we have the party system. Its funny how, while every political party proudly boasts of being a broad church, the principle (is that the right word?) of collective responsibility amongst its leadership broaches no departure from the party or government line at the top level. So much so, in fact, that it leads to the most powerful individuals in the country being effectively contractually obliged not to tell the truth, or at least to be at the vanguard of arguing emphatically for a case, in which they may not personally believe. Thus come the public retractions like those of Geoffrey Howe, Robin Cook and more recently to some extent of Charles Clarke as they retreat back to their trenches of truth.

It’s a pretty unsavoury place the political battleground of our democracy. And, as I have said before it is INTEGRITY that is its first casualty. That doesn’t strike me as being a particularly sound foundation for our society.

Nick,
I am surprised at you, peddling a complete spin statement that bears no relation to what DC said.
I actually think it was unwise for him to have said it.
Th New Labour spin machine does not miss opportunities like this.
With New Labour,its all spin and no substance. Just look at what was said about no need for more troops in Afghanistan. and what are we doing,.... sending more troops to Afghanistan.
When It comes to trust, I khow whom I would put my trust in, and in politics its all about trust.Noone trusts anything New Labour says.

Nick heres how to stop Hoodies waering well...Hoods.

I bet you if Cameron started wearing one the kids and thugs would stop wearing them like a shot..better yet
Jeremy Clarkson..if HE wore it as fashion that would be the end of the issue.

Finally what cahnce is there of YOU wearing a hood outside No10 during your broadcasts..instead of that well cut rather nice but unfashionable caot of yours the Grey one !!!. That would be the death kn
ell of the Hoodie industry.

One last thought Bluewater who banned hoodies have not banned the shops in teh centre from selling them !!! That is a bit rich. Me ?
I like my camel coat with velvet collar and top pocket a Crombie until Del Boy ruined it.

Dear Will Haydock,

The blog above reports that John Reid is to be slapped down by the Attorney-General for his poorly-judged bluster in the serious case of the sentencing of Craig Sweeney. It speculates that the Government has been disingenuous about its plans to commit troops to Afghanistan. Then it relates how David Cameron's attempt to promote a progressive approach to dealing with the causes of crime have been dismissed by the Government with a glib one-liner.

The first two of these matters above are extremely serious to my mind and the third is piffling. Yet, we are asked to contribute to the piffling matter by writing some witty doggerel thereby trivialising all of the issues discussed. For the first time, possibly since Peel, a senior Tory has contributed a progressive argument to the law and order debate. I think that is a noteworthy matter, but he is derided for spinning. I couldn't be bothered to write anything funny about it.

I generally admire the 91Èȱ¬'s independence and think that it should be cherished. I also appreciate that a certain amount of dialogue adds to the vitality of this part of the 91Èȱ¬ website, so I thought I'd have a go at the 91Èȱ¬ instead of David Cameron in the manner that Nick suggested just because the 91Èȱ¬ lets us do that kind of thing.

All these 'hoodies' have passed through an education system that has been molded to Labour's requirements. Ministers of the status of Blunkett and the women who resigned because she wasn't up to the job have created these kids.

The acceptance of the Labour spin "Hug a Hoodie" and the resulting mis-inteptretation of what Cameron was to say both on this blog and in many 91Èȱ¬ reports today (and on the phone in this morning) is why many say the 91Èȱ¬ has a bias.

Did you perhaps feel you had to "balance" the first two bits on Labour politicians by putting in a jokey attack piece on Cameron?

Picking one of the comments above - Alfie Mullin at 1:47 "Hug a hoodie indeeed" did Cameron say that? no, a Labour spokesman did. I don't know what Cameron said yet because I haven't seen a report on it only surmise on what he might be going to say.

Whatevery they say about the position of the 91Èȱ¬. Nick is getting on with his job. Ha ha.

'How long before they turn back on the Tories the claim they made repeatedly against Labour - that they're "all spin and no substance"'

Hazel Blears already did on the Labour91Èȱ¬ website last week. C'mon Nick, keep up

Nick, I'm not really bothered by the suggestions lately about bias as I think we all read into your blog what we want in those terms.

What saddens me is to see the level of dumbing down that you are stooping to as 91Èȱ¬ Political Editor. Frankly I would have expected better from the 91Èȱ¬ (that is what normally sets it apart from commercial "Big Brother-esque" channels).

The 91Èȱ¬'s role is primarily to educate and inform; let the others simply entertain. The public are completely switched off by the sort of negative sound-bite approach visible in Labour's "Hug a Hoodie" slogan, and yet you have helped to perpetuate this trivial level of "debate".

You should be trying to raise the level of debate and engage/encourage your readers/viewers in the political process more. By covering the Anschutz issues as "The dummies' guide to Prescott", or Cameron's speeches on crime and Youth Justice today in terms of a Pepsi ad competition is weak and lazy journalism, and normalises this standard of debate for the politicians.

Time to up the game somewhat methinks - you have a long line of distinguished shoes to fill...

Nick,

Yesterday on GMTV, Nick Jones (I think that was his name) made an excellent point that if 91Èȱ¬ journalists (not you I know) had worked in a coherent fashion when dealing with Dr David Kelly, then Blair and his cronies would not have got away with their deception over the Iraq war.

Last week at PMQs Blair was asked a direct and very simple question - see link -

The reply was

You now dismiss yet another piece of blatant deception, it is frankly unbelievable that Blair did not know of a request for more troops and equipment in Afghanistan at that time.

So what do you do? Let's have a rhyme about Cameron

So here's one for the 91Èȱ¬

We do serious debate
Did David Cameron Masterbate?
Telling lies to go to war
That don't matter, such a bore!
We all know that he's got 2 Jags
The question is how many *hags?
Let's pass that by, Blair won't be happy
Instead we'll prove that Ming is crappy.
How on earth will we be viewed
If our charter ain't renewed?
Being fair ain't easy Nick,
But that's your job, don't be a - sorry I can't find anything that rhymes.

PS There was also an interesting article on Blogs with Iain Dale on GMTV (strange as I always put them down as lightweights)

"The Tory leader should try to live in the real world. Hug a hoodie indeed. How about this for a slogan ' Clout a Cameron' or ' Trash a Tory' or 'Crock a conservative'"

If you're going to ridicule policy, at least read beyond the double-decker headline.

The phrase "hug-a-hoodie" has been entirely generates in the media (and yes, probably by opposition operators just doing their jobs). It is a little puerile to let them stop you from agreeing with the eminently sensible substance here.

Cameron's point is that because some kids in hoodies commit crime and use them to hide away from CCTV cameras, wearing a hoodie does not make you a criminal. Some kids seem to want just to hide away inside these tops. It is a prime responsibility of government to ensure the security of its citizens, something at which Labour has palpably failed, but it is a shared responsibility of us all to ensure that we do not have a future generation disengaged from the rest of society.

I applaud Cameron's stance on this - if we were to write off a portion of a generation in the way that some contributors to this blog suggest we would only be storing up problems for ourselves, and rightly so.

What's is really annoying in my view is that a few lines of the speech were first leaked to the Sunday newspapers. Then Cameron appears on television this morning defending a fews lines of a speech that his media spokespeople have leaked and spun. Surely it would be far better for Cameron to make the speech first and then for all the analysis and spin to happen? I thought the Tory leader wanted a new sort of politics instead he appears to be using the same techniques as Blair. Does this country want Blair Mark II?

Cameron speech's had lot's of nice management consultant type language:
-"Youth cime .... it's doing more to wreck the sense of general well-being than just about anything else."
-"And I believe that inside those boundaries we have to show a lot more love. We have to think about the emotional quality of the work we do with young people."
-"The first thing we have to do is recognise that we'll never get the answers right unless we understand what's gone wrong."
-"But it is love. It seems sometimes that when it comes to these difficult social issues, we're obsessed with measuring the quantity of inputs."
-"The long-term answer to anti-social behaviour is a pro-social society where we really do get to grips with the causes of crime."

The classic was the above phrase 'pro-social society' what exactly does that mean in plain English? I expected Cameron to give us his analysis of what the causes of crime were and what his proposed soultions were? Instead we got a film review for 'Kidulthood'. The only policy to come out of the whole speech was that he wants to give a greater role for the voluntary sector in tackling youth crime and disorder. Is this not what New Labour say at every opportunity?

It was a better effort than his 'general well being' speech which was just waffle.

Let's all become a 'Cameroodie'

"Even a thug - In a hoodie - Needs a hug."

DC's theory is pie in the sky and should stay there. It may be well intentioned but he should try living in a deprived community. The only way to describe these kids is what he argues they are not: feral. They are emotionally detached and express energy negatively. Taxpayers' money is continously thrown at creating projects to try and redirect their energy more positively; it does not work. Hugging them would be very unwise - you'd be stabbed by the blades and machetes hidden under their hoodies. I do not exaggerate. This behaviour is a result of too much reliance on our social security framework and not enough personal responsibility taken by parents. Both Labour and Tory governments have contributed to creating the problem. But it's not DC's fault he's way off the mark. From his comments, the world he lives in is a land far, far away from the real one.

I have to ask the question, why is the political editor of the 91Èȱ¬ trying to devalue what many would consider proper debate.

You may not think Camerons ideas are correct, but at least he is trying to have a debate about it.

What does the government try to do? Ridicule it rather than engage in debate.

What does the political editor of the 91Èȱ¬ encourage? Exactly the same.

If this isnt a perfect example of 91Èȱ¬ bias, I dont know what is.

Im sorry Nick, but this is not the behaviour one should expect from an editor.

The conservatives (both of them) seem to be very hurt at the fun wer're having at their expense.

They shouldn't worry at all, it is only a few days now until the Tory leadership makes an announcement to the world of thier EPP membership.

Then it will become much more serious.

Very serious indeed.

Gary

David Cameron - Hoodie Goodie

What could be simpler?

Hug a hoodie, but remember to check your pockets afterwards...

I'm sporting a black eye at the moment as a direct result of listening to Dave.

Don't do it! They don't seem to want to be hugged, I tried it and just got whacked.

It was Labourite Vernon Coaker, the 91Èȱ¬ Office Minister, who dubbed Cameron's speech "let's hug a hoodie".

Can I ask the 91Èȱ¬ and especially Nick Robinson (please don't delete this comment) why they have used Labour's spin tactic to call Cameron's speech with the phrase "hug a hoodie" in the headline of every article and bulletin mentioning Cameron's speech?
Why is the 91Èȱ¬ doing Labour's propaganda work for them?
Is the 91Èȱ¬ biased? I want to know, because I pay my license fee for an impartial and objective public broadcaster.

Cameron is slowly but surely getting the better of the Labour party.

They tried to mock his green agenda now Government ministers can't stop talking about carbon.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long before Gordon goes to the Ghetto and gets down with the kidz.

Yes, I agree with that the problem here is not so much 'Dave' as it is 'Nick'. I don't there's much bias...91Èȱ¬ hacks are so terrified of that they massively overanalyse for that one - but it's just a style of newsmaking.

Take, before we come onto 'Call me Nick' Robinson, 'Call me Nick' Assinder, and his stuff on PMQs. Just who is asking for Punch and Judy, and assuming that's what 'we' the 'public' want? Only him and the benighted hacks who have to follow Parliament. Fair enough, they want some juice to their day. But the public - I think, in so far as they care to follow PMQs - obviously likes a ding-dong when one is required, but most of the time is going to be rather taken by sensible discussion. All too boring for Assinder. Not so much party bias, as I say, as bias in favour of a certain set of assumptions about what news is and how it works.

I say - don't let's have faceless hacks but let's get the 'you really want the gore, don't you?' assumption banged to rights. We want vigour when it's needed (Iraq war, etc) but not when it's just what keeps the hacks awake.

As for 'Call me Nick' Robinson, I think his failing is to have imagined that the intimacy of this whole blog thing, with comments hot and close on the heels of copy, and the bonhomie-legacy of Andy Marr as top hack, imagines he can be 'inside' and 'outside' at the same time.

Interesting. Not possible I think. We truly don't want to know if you sleep naked. We are mildly amused, but more exasperated, by your attempts to mock any efforts of politicians. And those of us who read this for comment actually don't give much of a hoot about people's slogans and lymericks and whatnot. Isn't the News Online Magazine for that? (People who have time to write that stuff probably ought to be spending their time more constructively!)

As I say, it's about the style of newsmaking. If you have a boring job, 'Nick', skedaddle and do something else okay? But past a certain point 'naked sleeping' stories, and your personal invitations to trash politicians ... it raises the question, who on earth do you think you are?!

You're not as bad as Paxo, mind: snorting in derision at the whole universe. But that's another story.

Overall, though, it's quality stuff, and I think we should all be extremely grateful that while a certain culture of trying to make the news 'fun' has crept in, to the extent that hacks start to push for a certain tone in news reporting that becomes newsmaking, the inherent bias, willingness to disort and filter, general cheesy sloganising and lassitude to really discover stuff, lack of cojones to challenge politicians and indeed ridicule them, that characterises much other news media in other countries is pretty lacking in the UK. I wouldn't be surprised - which is why I write the darn thing - that 'Nick' actually reads this! Better than Fox News, even CNN, eh? And obviously, the nature of 'broadcasting' is chaotic and experimental in this Web 2.0, on-demand era. So 2.6 cheers to the 91Èȱ¬.

Can you try to keep the fun, 'I'm on your side' tone, Nick, without too much personal shtick ('I was sleeping naked!') and without the 'oh all politicians are losers, we know that! let's laugh along together!' shtick? You could really do something special. (Or you could make a major blunder and get fired. Your call.)

John

New Great Tasting Diet Tory, Dave Cameron; All the Spin of New Labour with non of the Policy.

I did raise the question about the fact that Sec State 4 def. didn't appear at the despatch box to answer questions

"I am just wondering about the absence of the Secretary of State for Defence from taking the emergency debate yesterday. Was this so that he wouldn't lie to parliament as all the interviews and the common reply is that "I have not seen" or "no specific request has been made to me" not "none to my department" or to my office etc. in response to more troops and helicopters to be sent to Afghanistan.

Am i just being too cynical I mean this is Labour the king of spin and teflon we are talking about.

The other point is the number of members in the coalition vacilates from interview to interview. The diplomat in Afghanistan on the Today programme said there were I think 64, the defence minister in the commons yesterday said 36 then 34 and SoS said 42??
-- sent to the daily politics show 4th july.

AFAIK the request would go via NATO as it is a NATO mission but the gov. would be aware.

This goes on top of when the 91Èȱ¬ decided to go with a story on G Glitter as an exclusive interview when all the other media were breaking the prescott affair. The fact was that it was an exclusive interview that could have been broadcast at anytime instead of two weeks before he was due to appear in court and when news of the prestcott affair was breaking.

While I'm on my hobby horse massive pay rises for the 91Èȱ¬ board " to attract the right people" - most of then if not all worked for the 91Èȱ¬ before their appointment ? they aren't going to give up their cushy numbers and pension rights to have to work for a living. I bet there are ten people in the 91Èȱ¬ for each of those positions that would be able to do the job.

Hello the tide is turning Nick, Labour is on the way down - you don't have to cosy up to them quite as much and your bias is offensive NOT FUNNY OR QUIRKY.

If you were even handed in your treatment towards ALL political parties then it m-i-g-h-t be amusing! Get a grip.