91热爆

was launched five years ago this Wednesday; next Thursday it will be five years since the launch of ; and as we enter the sixth year, both programmes are doing well.

Let鈥檚 get the back patting out of the way: audiences for both were up last year, to new highs, so too were the measures for audience appreciation.

This Week can now keep well over a million people up and watching long past midnight in an age of gazillions of channels. Both programmes have won a number of national and international awards, which is rare for political programmes which have no special category in the luvvie and media firmaments. So happy birthday and well done to all who鈥檝e sailed in the good ships Daily Politics and This Week since first they floated.

A great deal has been constant for both programmes. Andrew Neil has presented throughout. Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo have remained the mainstays of This Week. The approach for both hasn鈥檛 altered, which is to concentrate on people not process, be brave and have fun. People still say they don鈥檛 really feel like 91热爆 programmes, and I still take that as a compliment.

But a great deal has changed too. We鈥檝e seen two Labour prime ministers, three Tory and four Lib Dem leaders. Several wars have come and gone; we鈥檝e survived the Hutton Report and general elections both real and imagined. The 91热爆 has thrown at us 鈥楳ake it Happen鈥�, 鈥榁alue for Money鈥�, 鈥楥reative Futures鈥� and now five more years of budget cuts.

When we first launched The Daily Politics I was convinced that a set involving green satin seats, pink cushions and a yellow lighting wash would make for an exciting and politically balanced look. The first review remarked on how Andrew Neil looked like the cherry on a particularly nasty knickerbocker glory.

We鈥檝e gone all staid since. Daisy Sampson, Andrew鈥檚 first co-anchor became Daisy McAndrew and left for ITN, to be replaced by Jenny Scott. Laura Kuenssberg is now a regular on the Six and Ten O鈥機lock News. Ed the Bookie has had his day. And the competition for the mug 鈥� the great Daily Politics mug 鈥� was suspended last year, though I hope it will return next week.

Not everything has gone right. When we first launched This Week, Michael and Diane were an emergency pair because Oona King had pulled out on us with a week to go.

My original plan had been to replace both Michael and Diane with another pair for the summer term, and to try yet another pair for the winter after that. We鈥檇 already signed Ann Widdecombe for the summer 鈥� but Michael and Diane proved so irresistible after the first run we didn鈥檛 use Ann as promised.

To this day this great media stalwart won鈥檛 appear on any of my programmes. The This Week election titles with Andrew in a feather boa miming to a satirized version of 鈥楽how me the Way to Amarillo鈥� wasn鈥檛 universally acclaimed. And the odd guest, like Shane McGowan from the Pogues, has provided endless hours of fun for the TV blooper programmes.

But both programmes have also provided some vintage moments: for The Daily Politics my personal favourite was Andrew鈥檚 scoop that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and his questioning of the party leaders during their election press conferences; for This Week it was last month鈥檚 Christmas special with Vince Cable and Alesha Dixon dancing the waltz together (which you can watch here). If you have some vintage moments of your own you can go to the programme websites and post your nominations.

As for the future, it鈥檚 steady as she goes; more of the same with a little less money. I know the programmes aren鈥檛 to everyone鈥檚 taste. Luckily the 91热爆 has a plurality of political programmes, something for everyone 鈥� while the competition now seems to have none. But this year, after five years, I鈥檓 beginning to worry whether the programmes are as cutting edge for politics as I once thought them to be - still as relevent and challenging 鈥� or whether after all this time they could benefit from a fresh eye, a new look, and a different approach. If you have a view, let鈥檚 hear it.

I wondered if we were broadcasting nonsense on The Daily Politics this morning. I woke to learn from the Guardian that police were investigating whether Lord Levy, the prime minister's fundraiser, had urged Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, to modify information that might have been of interest to Scotland Yard's cash for honours inquiry.

Was this not the story that for three days the 91热爆 had been referring to but not allowed to report? Could we not on the programme today at last put some bones and flesh on the story?

I then decided I couldn't. The 91热爆's senior legal and management teams had some very clear advice. Of course we could say that the Guardian had printed a story, but if we reported the content we would fall foul of the very strict injunction on the 91热爆. The advice was also not to connect the Guardian story with the 91热爆 story for fear of falling foul of the same injunction.

Unfortunately we couldn't explain the terms of our own injunctions. And it would be better not to report that the 91热爆 was, that morning, asking for our injunction to be lifted or varied.

So we said what I thought we could. James Landale told Andrew Neil on air that the Guardian had a jolly good story which it had printed, but that he couldn't tell us about. And then he told Andrew the 91热爆 had a separate jolly good story involving Ruth Turner and Lord Levy. And er... that was it, because of all the legal complications. Then James called the whole thing Kafkaesque. My hero.

There were two more turns of the knife. Had you been watching Sky News when James and Andrew were talking, you would have seen Sky merrily reporting the full details of the Guardian allegations, discussing them with all and sundry, and reporting the just released and robust denials from Lord Levy.

And to top it off, the injunction against the 91热爆 was lifted just as we came off air, allowing Nick Robinson suddenly to report in full his story from Friday on News 24... about 12 hours after the Guardian.

Had I got this completely wrong? Maybe. Did the viewers understand what on earth we were on about? I suspect not. So should we have mentioned the story on the programme at all, given the limitations? Debatable, but I thought so. Was it a great day for the programme? You decide. But hats off to the Guardian.

I鈥檓 not a tennis fan, nor do I support Scotland when it comes to sport, but I have to stand up for the schedulers on 91热爆2 who pulled The Daily Politics (and Working Lunch) yesterday to show the up and coming British tennis star Andy Murray try to defeat Raphael Nadal in the fourth round of the Australian Open.

I know many fans of the programmes were upset: First, because The Daily Politics was delayed with a promise to show it after the tennis; second, because it was then dropped when the match went to five sets over four hours. I was sorry too. We had the programme all ready to go, and then pre-recorded it when it became clear our guests couldn鈥檛 stay. It included a great interview by Andrew Neil with Phil Woolas, the minister for communities, about the above inflation increases to the council tax (though you can watch it by clicking here) . It also included a film about Edward Heath in our 鈥榝avourite post war prime minister鈥� (watch that here), followed by an impression of the great man by the founder of Yo Sushi, Simon Woodruffe who was our guest of the day (watch that here).

But the schedulers were right to pull us for the tennis. We draw an average audience on a Monday of a quarter of a million for the Daily Politics. At noon, the tennis had an average audience of nearly a million. And it turned into a very exciting match, with Murray taking Nadal 鈥� the undisputed number two in the world 鈥� all the way. By the end over a million and a half viewers were cheering for . We value sport at the 91热爆 as much as politics, and while we at the Daily Politics can get on every day a match like yesterday鈥檚 doesn鈥檛 come along very often. Do you agree?

Some of you have suggested that we and the schedulers could have come up with some more creative solution to allow both programmes to be scheduled somewhere on the 91热爆 鈥� one was to break into the tennis for half an hour; another was to offer it on the red button; a third to make use of the digital 91热爆3 and 91热爆4 during the day.

Again, what鈥檚 your view: the schedulers will be reading this too.

I鈥檝e had a lot of comments, for and against, about our 鈥� a new format we use around Prime Minister鈥檚 Questions on The Daily Politics every Wednesday. Jane wrote to us and said, 鈥�I no longer shout at my TV as I can now tell the politicians exactly what I think".

But then Manjit said (in response to my last blog entry)...

鈥�What I would love for Jamie Donald to do is to come onto this blog and justify why the 91热爆 continue to spend money on the Perception Panel and how much it exactly costs?鈥�

The Perception Panel is the world鈥檚 largest focus group. It can tell you straight away how people in Britain may be feeling about an issue or a politician. We run it every Wednesday, and to take part you must tune in just before Prime Minister鈥檚 Questions at noon, and ring the freephone number on the screen. You are asked some questions and then by pressing buttons on your phone you can register your positive and negative feelings about what you鈥檙e seeing and hearing on your TV. All those touches up and down the country are transformed 鈥� by a clever computer - into a continuous wave of approval and disapproval. After PMQs we show some of the highlights, with the moving graphic of the viewers鈥� reaction on top. You can see the results of last week on our website.

It costs about 拢1,000 each time we play. At the moment we pick up the full cost of the calls, and we鈥檝e set the limit on the number of people who can get through at 600 (and we get literally thousands trying to ring in, so it鈥檚 a case of first come first served). It鈥檚 not perfect. For example it鈥檚 sometimes difficult to distinguish between man and ball, sometimes the graphs are a little unclear (we鈥檙e working on it) and there鈥檚 a hint of the blunt Roman 'thumbs up thumbs down' about it.

But it is robust. That鈥檚 because we weight it. If you are a young Lib Dem voter in Liverpool (of whom we have not that many on the Daily Politics), our computer ensures your touch may be worth a little more than an older Tory man from the 91热爆 Counties, depending on the numbers of types of people who get through. It鈥檚 what the pollsters do all the time with their samples of public opinion, especially those who operate online rather than face to face. So while you may think it鈥檚 just a random sample of viewers to the programme (and so what value does it have beyond instant gratification and the pursuit of everything interactive) we see it as a fairly good snapshot of how Britain is reacting.

From it we鈥檝e already picked up the strength of feeling about the NHS, the shift in women鈥檚 votes towards David Cameron, and how Labour in the North has turned on Tony Blair. It also spotted David Cameron as the next Tory leader a year ago, but Frank Luntz got there on Newsnight a day before us.

I鈥檇 like to know what you think, whether you鈥檝e played the Perception Panel, seen it, or are reading about it for the first time.

On the Daily Politics we're launching a new series, and an interactive vote to determine .

Every Monday from now until Easter we鈥檒l showcase one of the ten post-war prime ministers, and ask viewers to give their judgement.

We鈥檝e decided to exclude Churchill from the list, for two reasons: it would be impossible to disentangle his wartime and post-war leaderships; and, , he鈥檇 probably win by a mile anyway.

So that leaves nine men and one woman: Clement , Anthony , Alec , Harold , Harold , Edward , James , Margaret , John and Tony . We have scripts, archive and celebrity champions for all of them bar poor old Eden - so if you鈥檙e interested in championing him let me know.

We鈥檙e doing it because it鈥檚 a good way of marking Blair鈥檚 place in modern British history as he prepared to bow out as prime minister. And it will set up some strong debates: Thatcher v Blair; Heath v Wilson; who was the worst as well as the greatest; and are we right to leave out Churchill... what do you think?

We started today with a curtain raiser film and a debate between William Hague, Tony Benn and the historian Andrew Roberts (which you can watch here). The first vote was cast by a viewer from France for Ted Heath.

Surprisingly, Hague, Benn and Roberts all agreed on their top two 鈥榞reatest鈥� - Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher - though they disagreed on the order. None were keen on Blair. And that鈥檚 how it stands in the popular vote as I write.

Anyone can vote anytime between now and Easter by visiting The Daily Politics website, and following the links. And as Today programme editor Ceri Thomas wrote in an earlier blog, even if you campaign for votes it won鈥檛 spoil the fun.

We've had nearly 200 complaints to our audience logs about our decision to switch away from live coverage of yesterday's speech by William Hague (watch it here) to the Conservative Party conference to instead interview Michael Howard. Here's a flavour of what's being said:

鈥� "Did Labour pay for this to happen?"
鈥� "Even Michael Howard in the studio said he would rather watch William Hague's speech."
鈥� "Have you lost your minds? He is such a brilliant speaker."

I'd like to tell you there was a good reason. But I haven't one. So here goes: it was a poor editorial decision, I accept the criticism and I apologise. We'll try to learn from this mistake which I believe was uncharacteristic of the coverage as a whole; and I hope that those of you who were upset can understand that - when under the pressure of doing extended live coverage in fixed time slots - we can all make the odd unintentional error.

But now that's off my chest, I don't want the error to overshadow what was some great conference coverage over the past three weeks, and I don't want the apology to suggest I'm not very pleased with the programmes overall. Why?.

Take : Three weeks ago I wrote about our recruiting them and my hopes for their impact on the attitudes of the young toward politics. Some rather rubbished the idea. Since then, they've interviewed the three men seeking to be prime minister, reported for The Daily Politics, led Newsround, been interviewed on a dozen regional news programmes, appeared on News at Ten, and featured on . Their contribution has been refreshing and insightful. And I know they've reached millions of viewers and listeners young and old.

Or take - an innovative way of allowing audiences to engage with key speeches by recording their reaction directly into their phones and downloading the information onto air. You can find out more about it on the programme website. It's the world's largest interactive focus group, and the technology deserves to be used more widely by programme makers in every genre.

And of course, we've covered and analysed quickly and well over a hundred stories and speeches from the conferences themselves. In this light, my opening 'sorry' hasn't been the hardest word.

One of the perils of being an editor is the brainstorm - that time when you know the ideas need refreshing, and you ask the team to come together to think up new ways of covering the same situations and stories.

You tell them - and you think you mean it - 鈥榯he crazier the better鈥�, 鈥榥othing is ruled out鈥�, 鈥榯hink laterally鈥�, and - most foolishly of all - 鈥榶ou can decide on the best ones and I promise we鈥檒l carry them through鈥�.

In the fashionable backwater that is political programmes we don鈥檛 have 鈥榳atering holes鈥� or 鈥榞reen hat, red hat鈥� games when we brainstorm: we toss them out over drinks, laugh about them and vote.

And so it is that political programmes will be taking a Little Andrew Neil and a Little Jenny Scott to the conferences this year, and I have to defend it as a brilliant idea.

Over 600 kids entered our competition - run with Newsround - to find a 鈥楲ittle Andrew and Little Jenny鈥�. Thirty have been shortlisted and interviewed by phone. And the winners are 12-year-old Christopher Duffy from Inverclyde, and 12-year-old Becky Philips from Devon. We鈥檒l take them to each conference for a day to report and interview leading politicians. And they鈥檒l start with Sir Menzies Campbell at the Liberal Democrats conference a week on Monday.

You may say it鈥檚 a straight rip off of Little Ant and Little Dec on ITV, and so neither original nor appropriate to serious political coverage. Fair enough. But for me there are at least two good reasons for doing this, apart from the fact that it鈥檚 different and fun.

Politics is no longer the draw it used to be. Viewing figures are falling. Fewer people are voting. And most alarmingly, the average age of those who say they鈥檙e interested in politics is rising sharply. Very few people under the age of 45 take our political processes and institutions seriously. So 600 young hopefuls is a fantastic return before we鈥檝e even started. And if it draws just a few more younger viewers to the conference coverage this autumn, and introduces the million and a half who watch Newsround every day to this annual political event, we鈥檒l have done a public service.

The other reason: Little Ant and Little Dec got to interview the prime minister, and put to him some very challenging questions. For four years, Mr Blair and Mr Brown have consistently refused to be interviewed for the 91热爆鈥檚 conference coverage, believing it doesn鈥檛 reach the people they want to speak to. Maybe now they鈥檒l change their minds.

鈥楽weets for my sweet, sugar for my honey...鈥�

Everyone at The Daily Politics is humming after hearing of George Bush and Tony Blair chatting informally at the G8 summit.

鈥榊eah, he is sweet鈥� says Bush at one point. 鈥楬e鈥檚 honey鈥�, Blair replies.

We don鈥檛 know who they鈥檙e talking about 鈥� is it President Assad of Syria 鈥� and we鈥檝e had a big argument in the office over whether Blair says 鈥榟e鈥檚 honey鈥� or in fact says 鈥榟e鈥檚 had it鈥�. Our reporter Giles Dilnot, no mean hand with a mike, is convinced only the later interpretation makes sense of the whole exchange. Click here to listen and make up your own mind.

Is 'Yo! Blair' a friendly greeting from Bush to an equal, or patronising and disrespectful? Our linguist 鈥� Dr. Colleen Cotter from the University of London and an American to boot 鈥� thought it was just what you鈥檇 expect of two old mates kicking back at a summit. Some of the British papers this morning are more sceptical.

And is 鈥榮hit鈥� a good way to sum up what鈥檚 happening in Lebanon? Bush uses it (though on air we bleeped it out) and our linguist thought it was exactly the kind of language you鈥檇 expect in private conversation between friends. Again the papers disagree, some believing it say more about the American president鈥檚 grasp of diplomacy than the Middle East.

And then there鈥檚 the sweater. Or should that be jumper. Nick Clegg, the great Liberal Democrat hope, thought Tony had made a classic fashion mistake by picking out knitwear for George when the weather is so hot here and in Texas. But in the office we reasoned that if an American billionaire give John Prescott cowboy boots and a Stetson then Burberry is the only riposte.

Open mike cock-ups are legendary, and make fantastic talking points. Remember calling half his cabinet 鈥榖astards鈥� when he thought the tape wasn鈥檛 rolling 鈥� or thinking he was too far away for reporters to hear him describing the 91热爆鈥檚 royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell as an awful man.

The Blair-Bush exchange tops them both in my view, because it will be picked over for weeks for meaning, and for clues about one of the most important relationships in the world.

Jamie Donald is editor of live political programmes

What goes through an editor's mind after his programme falls off air?

Today on The Daily Politics, Jenny Scott gave a "big board" presentation on the troubles in Gaza - the kind of item where to tell the story we run pictures, graphics and clips into a big screen in the studio with a presenter, standing in front, linking them all together live.

Suddenly, in the middle of it, a picture of a bearded man in a studio flashed up, followed by the 91热爆 Two caption saying there had been a break in transmission. We were back on air within two minutes; it was still a good show, and there weren鈥檛 loads of complaints; but there are two things I still think are worth talking about.

The first is about what went on in the studio. The problem was a straightforward bit of finger trouble: I won鈥檛 name names, but someone hit the wrong button in the gallery, was distracted by another problem and there we weren鈥檛. The production team were understandably upset 鈥� all that work and careful preparation wasted. There was much grumbling. But to his eternal credit, the un-named button man, immediately owned up and then sent an e-mail to the entire production team apologising to each of them. That was a great move. But it made me think...

We all make mistakes. It was unfortunate for him that this one was at the end of the production chain and immediately apparent to anyone watching. Mine are never so exposed, but might often be much more damaging. When I (or any of my producers) make a bad call on a story, miss a key fact, rubbish a reporter, or perhaps 鈥� whisper it gently, despite my devotion to the 91热爆 guidelines 鈥� let something untrue hit the air, the consequence is not there for all to see. But the effect is long-term, rarely addressed, and almost never the subject of an e-mail of apology to those affected.

The other thing worth talking about is the effect on the audience. Though it may not look like it, we spend a bit of time in meetings at The Daily Politics to find and produce the angles on the day's stories that are political and will move the narrative on. Today, before we were rudely interrupted, the big board would have laid before our audience some important facts; on the nature of the conflict in Gaza, and on the limits to British political influence there.

So the instant calculation when we went off air was this: to stop and reset everything so the argument could be followed by everyone once we returned to air 鈥� or to plough on with the big board regardless, unwatched, apologise once we came back on air and hope people picked up the gist anyway in the interviews that followed. I chose the latter course.

As I said we didn鈥檛 get many complaints, and I don鈥檛 think the viewing figures were affected. People either didn鈥檛 notice, haven鈥檛 written or rung yet, or were as engaged by the Auntie鈥檚 Bloomer unfolding in front of them as by the original story. So I鈥檓 inclined to think it was the right thing to do, and have told everyone we handled it brilliantly. But I鈥檓 still not sure. And it may prove to be another mistake which, unlike the one by my much appreciated technical colleague, will remain unnoticed and undiscussed. Perhaps I should apologise to him.

I鈥檓 sure we鈥檒l take some stick for doing this. There鈥檒l be those who think it鈥檚 not right to give Mark Oaten a platform, or take MPs away from their legislation and constituents. There will be others who think it's unseemly or a waste of the licence fee. Some of the bloggers out there already given us some feedback. Here鈥檚 a sample:

鈥� "That's just conjured images of green lycra that I just didn't need." ()
鈥� " [Mark Oaten] should be aware though that all this exercise will not get him his hair back."
()
鈥� "[You] can already sense the shudders from some party stalwarts who will feel that this kind of public spectacle (entertainment) on national TV won't do the party's image any good.
()
鈥� "Get a hat and suitable condiments ready." ()

As you鈥檇 expect, I鈥檓 a big fan of both the idea and the execution. Think Jamie Oliver and School Dinners. Think too about politics and engagement; about the issues facing ordinary people. Think seeing the mighty struggle, the powerful sweat, and those remote and gilded villagers of Westminster being put through a lot of pain and anguish. It鈥檚 all there.

As for my own pain and anguish 鈥� it鈥檚 pretty much over now. The heart rate is settling, the tremors are lessening and I wish I could say I feel better for it. Well maybe a little. You can catch the series 鈥� which we鈥檙e calling The Body Politics - every Monday for the next six weeks on The Daily Politics on 91热爆 Two at Noon. We鈥檙e also going to run little tasters on the days in between. There鈥檚 more background, and video of the Body Politics, on our .

I am not enjoying this form of exercise. Really 鈥� I鈥檓 not. My heart is pounding, I feel sick in the stomach, the sweat is beginning to prickle on my arms and shoulders, and my hands are trembling. It鈥檚 my very first blog posting.

But that鈥檚 nothing compared to the exercise that鈥檚 facing four members of the great and the good over the next six weeks. They鈥檙e going to be prodded and poked, measured and weighted, bullied and sweated. They鈥檙e going to tone up their bodies, lose pounds of fat (but hopefully none of their dignity), and try to eat and drink properly. All in a good cause.

The Daily Politics on 91热爆 Two is filming three MPs and a baroness as they take part in a diet and fitness regime to help themselves shape up, and lead the way in tackling the obesity crisis facing Britain. From Monday until the end of June the Daily Politics cameras will follow them as they get training instruction from the formidable Body Doctor, David Marshall at his London gym. And from what I鈥檝e seen so far, it鈥檚 looking great.

The highlights are the agonies of the MP, Mark Oaten. You remember him - home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, family man and would-be leader of the party, whose affairs with rent boys were exposed earlier this year.

Why鈥檚 he doing it? Well, there鈥檚 a relationship between absolution, pain and humiliation: think hair shirts, pilgrimages on one鈥檚 knees, and self-flagellation. So I think it鈥檚 an act of penitence. Others think it might just be cheap publicity as part of a hopeless attempt at a comeback. But this is what Mark himself told us: "Exercise is a way of cleansing the brain 鈥� it鈥檚 a mental health thing and I want to learn how to do that."

Whatever his reasons, he is suffering. He鈥檚 trying to give up chocolate. He鈥檚 got to limit and improve his eating and drinking. And his regime is a punishing one: an hour-and-a-half three times a week for six weeks. Each visit he鈥檒l do a 15-minute warm up, a 45-minute full body workout involving all the muscle groups, and a 30-minute cardiovascular session. At one point in his first session he 鈥� nearly 鈥� couldn鈥檛 take it. He was on his knees whimpering.

Although Mark has rather hijacked the attention surrounding the series 鈥� with a series of interviews to the media about how its all part of his comeback from hair loss 鈥� the films are actually about much more than him.

There鈥檚 Sailesh Vara, the fortysomething Tory MP from Cambridgeshire, who used to hold a black belt in a martial art in his youth, and who鈥檚 trying to recapture the glory days of his six pack and 30-inch waist. He wants his constituents, the Indian community and Conservatives everywhere to take up the health message.

With him is Meg Hillier, one of the new intake of Labour MPs, who鈥檚 37 and from Hackney. She鈥檚 well up for it, and her plan is to get rid of her "mummy tummy", and push the health message through to kids everywhere. Though she鈥檚 quite fit, she鈥檚 also finding it very tough.

Then there鈥檚 Susan Greenfield, the svelte barnoness with the big brain, leading scientist and member of countless academies, who at fiftysomething is the oldest of the group, but the one with the fewest pounds to shift. For her it鈥檚 about getting the more-than-middle-aged to understand how diet and activity can keep you feeling younger and healthier.

They鈥檙e all as interesting as Mark Oaten in their own ways.

But perhaps the real star is the Body Doctor himself 鈥� David Marshall, trainer to sports starts, celebrities like Ant and Dec, and now MPs. His very high tech gym in Chelsea is the base of all operations. And his approach puts the toughest chief whip and most acerbic Speaker to shame.

How's this for a manifesto pledge: 鈥楾he end product is the empowerment of the individual and their complete and utter belief and knowledge that they and not us have been the primary factor in their physical mental and emotional improvement." He鈥檚 devised the punishment, he鈥檚 a tartar, but he鈥檚 also very good.