The BBC - like all UK broadcasters - have to be scrupulously even-handed in their coverage of political stories.  This becomes critical at election time when all the parties monitor the broadcasters' output by the second to ensure they each get their fair allocation. Unfortunately, the side effect of this is that the BBC's coverage is mind-numbingly dull. 

The purpose of this blog is to highlight interesting stories of the day.  But just for once we'll take the opportunity to highlight some of the very dull stories with which the BBC is littering the web.

For instance ''All to play for' ahead of polls' is a story that reiterates a Jack McConnell soundbite and manages to make it last 225 words.  They then pick out an impressively banal quote and highlight it as though it was a real pearl of wisdom that had dropped from his lips.  Unfortunately, the quote is "This is an election, it is about electing a government".  We could probably have worked that one out for ourselves without either McConnell or the BBC.

The Lib Dems don't fare much better.  "Scots Lib Dems focus on education", which canters through the Lib Dems' top 3 education policy is followed hot on the heels by "Lib Dems talk about child health" which says almost exactly the same thing..  Pity the poor Greens though who have to make do with the least thrilling headline of all: "Greens remind voters of key messages".

There is a tiny amount of comment, in the form of blogs, which does lift the level of debate a little, but the vast majority of their coverage seems to be re-printing party press releases.  The pieces are then so short that they all end up sounding alike.

This is not a problem only associated with the BBC's coverage on the web.  Most TV and radio election reports begin to sound depressingly alike from about five weeks into the election campaign.

Surely it doesn't have to be like this.  The national broadcaster must be able to find a better way to achieve its public service aims whilst maintaining the public's diminishing interest.

Also in today's news

• The FT covers the weekend's debates in the French Presidential election with Sarkozy looking out of the loop. ('Sarkozy complains of Royal-Bayrou 'deal'')

The Scotsman today has a real story on the elections in an interview with Nicol Stephen ("Lib Dem leader insists largest party has authority").  In it he says two things of particular interest. a) He would only negotiate a coalition with the largest party; and b) the top three Lib Dem policies in the negotiation would be more time in the school curriculum for physical exercise, a revolution in renewables and 100 new health centres dedicated to preventative health.

These comments will certainly be recalled shortly after next Thursday.  However, they might also prove relevant after the next General Election.  With a hung parliament more likely now than at any post-war UK election talk of coalitions is bound to be in the air.  Would Ming Campbell agree with Stephen's assertion that:

"The largest party, in my view, has the moral authority to seek to form a government, whether it's a minority or through coalition, and that's a simple, straightforward, obvious position."

And if Ming did, would he say so?

Also in today's news

• If you feel all the talk of elections is cheap and you yearn for some policy (and philosophical) substance, read Dominic Lawson's provocative "Prison works and it is neither cruel nor vengeful to say so" in The Independent.
• If, however, you revel in the cheap election talk there is more available on Scottish elections in this week's Economist ("Oil Slick");
• If you prefer to stick local click to "This vehicle is reversing", also in the Economist;
  
• If you continue to look across the channel for your election inspiration The Times serves up more Sergo vs Sarko in "Socialists fear risky strategy as Royal courts the Centre"
  
• If you are into American Primaries The Times serves up news from the Democrats at "Clinton edges ahead after first Democratic debate" and from the Republicans with the "America's imaginary Law and Order candidate." This covers the Fred Thomson candidacy which we blogged about last week.  It is also the best-written piece of the day:

"The excitement around Mr Thompson reveals not just a dissatisfaction with the available Republican contenders, but a much larger escapism on the part of voters, anxious to flee the present-day horrors of real-life Washington. Barack Obama, suddenly now becoming the leading Democratic contender, may not have acted in any movies but his message of hope and change offers the same idealised blank slate for Democrats disillusioned by their own tired and uninspiring leaders."

Also - we should note that last week we wrongly stated that Thompson wasn't Christian. This was incorrect and we're happy to clear that up long before Mr Thompson's lawyers get hold of us!

Every so often this blog takes a punt on what Gordon Brown's 'Bank of England' moment will be.  The theory runs that when Gordo becomes PM he will reveal an unexpected secret policy to define a significant amount of his premiereship - much like making giving control of interest rates to the Bank of England when he first became Chancellor.

Policy in Iraq must form part of this.  So news in The Guardian that Lord Ashdown and Sir Jeremy Greenstock are working with the Foreign Policy Centre on a new approach to Iraq ("Ashdown helps prepare Iraq strategy rethink for Brown") is interesting indeed.  The story suggests that the direct link with Brown is less assured than the headline would have you believe, but its findings will certainly be listened to with more interest by Gordo than George Bush gave to the American equivalent last year - James Baker's much ignored Iraq Study Group.

Generally however, policy discussion continues to play second fiddle to election news so elsewhere in the papers...

• The Spectator looks to Wales and the prospects of a Tory/Plaid coalition ("A Tory-Plaid pact")
• Also in The Spectator is a more general piece in which Fraser Nelson tours the country and talks to the voters ("New Labour's final collapse").  Whilst none of it is new there is a nice vignette about Tim Farron and the Lake District towards the end.
• Several papers cover the spat between the SNP and Labour over oil yesterday.  The Telegraph gives the simple "Brown warns SNP over oil demand", while the FT enter the debate a little more fully with "SNP welcomes spending analysis".  But as the spending analysis is their own then they're really only showing off!
• We covered the CommunicateResearch for the Independent yesterday - but should also have mentioned a Guardian ICM poll which put Labour on 30 (-1), Conservatives 37 (-4), Lib Dem 21(+3), Others 12.
• The French elections are still on-going, of course.  Bayrou announced a new party yesterday - The Democrats.  The aim seems to be to reach out to centre-left voters who see the the UMF as too centre-right.  Several papers ponder what Bayrou is going to say for the rest of the campaign.  He is staying neutral at the moment, but The Times' report  suggests he might yet do a deal with Royal ("Royal hopes raised as kingmaker burns bridges") The FT say much the same  in "Royal and Sarkozy rebuffed by Bayrou".
• Finally, Matthew Parris in The Times believes that John Major should step into Greg Dykes' shoes to run for Mayor of London ("From Major to Mayor")
  

It seems David Cameron only has to open his mouth these days for the press to gather round, pens in hand, like expectant children.

The Times brings us the "news" that:

"David Cameron has called for a revolution in personal responsibility to halt social decline and promised that a Conservative government would not treat people like children" (We will not treat you like children, says Crusader Cameron)

Cameron continues to treat us like adults by chastising society for its lack of responsibility. He goes on to attack the media for its endless depictions of "violence, aggression, sex, vulgarity and shallowness" - adding "and they'll jolly well have to sit in the corner and think about what they've done". Nick Clegg responds by accusing Cameron of "wittering on":

"Actions speak louder than words. Until David Cameron is prepared to put flesh on his soft-soap rhetoric about trusting communities it will be difficult to take him seriously"

Continuing in his quest to promote a more mature political discourse, Cameron can be found in the Telegraph urging us to "be nicer to each other":

"Swearing in public or being rude to shop workers should be as "unacceptable as racism", David Cameron said yesterday as he began a campaign to create a more civilised society." (Cameron: people must be nicer to each other)

In addition to this exclusive, the Telegraph yesterday also broke the story that this incivility is, obviously, Labour's fault (Cameron: Labour to blame for rude Britain). Says Mr Cameron:

"My worry is that after a decade of a Labour Government that said 'the state is always the answer, more government is always the answer', they actually created the irresponsible society."

using that age-old political defence "well they started it".

Maybe Cameron could do with taking some of his own advice - start treating people like adults, grown-ups who can take a bit of serious policy discussion - don't patronise people by sticking to childish political point-scoring and candyfloss catchphrases like "social responsibility". Otherwise I'll tell my mum.

Also in today's news:

• The Government underestimates the rise in poverty by 100,000 (Guardian)
• Labour slump to lowest poll rating since 1983: Conservatives up 1 on 36%, Labour down 4 on 27%, Lib Dems up 2 to 22% according to the notoriously accurate CommunicateResearch (Independent)
  

A pretty decisive result in the first round of the French elections. A whopping 84.5% turnout voted to put Ségo & Sarko - the candidates of the left and right respectively - through to the second round. The centrist candidate, Francois Bayrou, managed only 18%. While British parties are falling over themselves in the fight to occupy the centreground, has France opted for a more polarising election?

The Times certainly think so (Run-off for President turns into classic Right-Left duel), describing Mr Bayrou's result as:

"a blow for his attempt to forge a "third-way" revolution in French politics"

However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Bayrou still has a very important role to play in the election. Jonathan Fenby in the Guardian explains (Meeting in the Middle):

"It all hangs on whether the centrist voters who backed Bayrou in the first round will decide to vote against Sarkozy whatever their reservations about Royal"

Assuming that most of Le Pen's 11% of the vote goes to Sarkozy, it will be Bayrou's 18% that ultimately proves decisive. It seems the centreground is as important as ever in French politics.

Also in today's news:

• The Guardian is still interested in the Greg Dyke story - with columns by Dyke himself in yesterday's Observer (My Week) and David Cameron this morning (I was right about Dyke). Dyke also talks about the issue of the centreground:

"There are now three political parties battling over the centre ground and the ideological differences between them are small. The future debate in politics will not be about policy, but about delivery."

    David Cameron, in his column, defends his decision and goes on to emphasise the importance of risk-taking in politics. He also calls for "a more mature political debate" in Westminster - advice which Bruce Anderson in the Independent (Mr Cameron had a difficult week and now he turns to a reinvigorated Chancellor) could take on board as he describes Frank Dobson (perhaps accurately) as a "dunderhead".

The Daily Telegraph published a lot of dross earlier this week suggesting that David Miliband was poised to stand against Gordon Brown. ("The atmosphere around Miliband has changed", and "Browne has no future - unlike Miliband")

Today is seems to have realised that this was all rather over-heated.  As an act of contrition it publishes a piece by John Kampfner saying frankly that Miliband won't be looking for 45 Labour MPs to sign his nomination papers.  What better way to say mea culpa than to offer space to the editor of the New Statesman to tell readers what's actually going on? ("Miliband won't stand, so who will be next?").  Tellingly, he writes:

"Once all the assessments of Blair's 10-year reign are written, both Labour members, supporters and the broader public will be looking for a clean break. This was part of the reason for John Major's surprising general election victory in 1992. In those terms, Miliband would have provided the most telling alternative. But in clinging so desperately to the young Environment Secretary as their saviour from the torture of Brown, the ultras around Blair ruined Miliband's chances." John Kampfner - The Telegraph

"To run or not to run" in The Economist covers much of the same ground.

The Telegraph goes on today to have a stab at the London Mayor ("A capital chance to make a difference").  Perhaps wisely it decides not to make any predictions this time but begs for someone of "calibre" to come through.  Unfortunately it then ruins things by printing an article by John Redwood decrying the age of the celebrity candidate.  He writes:

"People used to become celebrities because they achieved great things. The media took a strong interest in their private lives once they had won Olympic gold, gained their Oscar, scored for their national team, achieved high political office or written a great novel.  Today, in the era of instant celebrity, you can become one by making a fool of yourself on television, and then being prepared to stoop ever lower in the pursuit of notoriety."

Some would counter that John Redwood is not best placed to make such observations.

Redwood would be little known unless he had repeatedly made a fool of himself on television.  Most people will mention his singing of the Welsh National Anthem, but there was also his high-profile affair with Nikki Page and most embarrassingly his 1995 leadership launch in-front of  Tony Marlow, Teresa Gorman, Teddy Taylor et al described by a Tory spin doctor of the time as a "swivel-eyed barmy army from ward 8 at Broadmoor".

Other election news

In Scotland:

• The Times has a new populous poll ("Lib Dems advance as Nationalist bandwagon runs out of steam"). Translated into seats the poll predicts the SNP with 46 (-4 from last month, +19 from 2003), Labour 42 (-1 from last month, -8 from 2003), Lib Dem 23 (+5 from last month, +6 from 2003), Tory 17 (no change from last month, -1 from 2003) and Others 1 (-16 from 2003).  However, how accurate those figures are - especially concerning 'Others' remains in doubt.
  
• The FT has an interesting new angle with "SNP woos Asian Scots as Labour falls from favour" 

In France:

• Generally uninspired coverage.  Newspapers struggle in the last few days of a campaign to print anything new.  The FT struggles valiantly with no less than four articles.  The best, "France's election of hope and fear" is unfortunately only available to subscribers.  Better to turn to the Blogs - particularly French Election 2007 which has an interesting take on Bayrou's last pitch.
  

In the English locals:

• In a companion piece to the FT's piece on the SNP (above), they suggest that "Muslim vote set to aid Lib Dems south of the border"
• Finally, a Lib Dem in Darlington is causing a storm for having signed the nomination papers of a BNP candidate - see The Guardian - "Lib Dem's BMP form 'mistake'".
  

The Scotsman today has excellent analysis of what is likely to happen in the local elections in Scotland ("Labour's 'Council Monopoly' about to crumble").  Spice is added to these elections as they are the first local elections in Scotland to be held under the STV form of proportional representation. The Scotsman quotes extensively from an Electoral Reform Society report about the likely impact of the new system on the 32 Scottish boroughs.

"According to calculations for the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) based on The Scotsman's March ICM poll, Labour would, under the single transferable vote (STV) system, control only Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

The major winner in party terms would be the SNP, which would retain Angus and take four new authorities - Clackmannanshire, Dundee, East Ayrshire, and Perth and Kinross." The Scotsman

Elsewhere in election coverage:

Most papers cover the bid by David Cameron to Ming Campbell yesterday over the issue of Greg Dyke as an independent candidate for London Mayor, supported by the Lib Dems and Tories.  The Independent seem to it pretty accurately in "Dyke rejects offer to run for Mayor of London against Livingstone" The Guardian have much the same take in "Dyke rebuffs Tory approach to run for Mayor of London" but the FT's angle plays up the bad consequences for Cameron describing it as "a humiliating setback" ("Cameron's hopes for Tory Mayor dashed") - whilst the Daily Mail suggests it was the Lib Dems who were all over the place ("'Timid' Ming blamed over failed Dyke-for Mayor plot")

Tony Travers has written an analysis of the parties' prospects in the locals in The Telegraph, ("Tories have everything to play for") There isn't much new here - but the fact that the media consensus is now that the Tories must reach more than the 39% they achieved last year is worth noting.

Finally, The Telegraph picks up on Le Pen's attack on Sarkozy's private life ("Le Pen hints at Sarkozy marriage problems") Nothing particularly unusual in campaigns getting dirty in the closing stages, but a strong finish from Le Pen might actually shore up left wing support around Royal.  All the polls under-estimated Le Pen support so much last time.  When he snuck into the final round the shock was palpable.  An electoral flutter with one of the many candidates to the left of Royal - or even with candidates in the centre - suddenly seems less appealing if Le Pen seems capable of pulling it off again.

Today's election news:

• The Papers in this final week of the French election are more interested with what's happening on the other side of the channel.  The Independent looks at the latest poll and suggests Sarkozy should be worried about slippage in the last few days. ("Sarkozy's lead erodes in final straight")
  
• The FT highlights Sarkozy's volatile style in "Sarkozy not afraid to frighten the French" - a theme also picked up in The Today Programme this morning.

• Simon Heffer in The Telegraph also investigates the first round of the French presidential election and decides that only Sarkozy or Bayrou can win ("Why France's fickle electorate may be revolting again")
• The Times has been talking to someone who suggests otherwise in "Why my Sego can win a brutal battle to become President - by Monsieur Royal".
• The Telegraph also takes a fair degree of interest in Scotland repeating the 'lets have the referendum now' line in "Is Salmond serious".  The paper also has a warning for Nicol Stephen in Alan Cochrane's political diary piece ("Nicol had better watch his back")
• The Guardian investigates the Lib Dems' Cheeky Chappy in an interview with Lembit Opik.  The last sentence is cruel but revealing!
• Finally, something unrelated to politics and elections.  Alice Miles has a revealing piece in The Times congratulating Kate Middleton (ex girlfriend of Prince William) for showing her class warrior roots by facing the press with a tennis racket.  The piece is fun enough, but her act of defiance would have been perhaps worthy of more comment had she had with her a football instead, or even a bunch of darts.
  

The issues involved with gun laws in the US are complex and frustrating, especially to a European audience who will shake their heads and tut at yet another massacre of innocent lives and ask why Americans fail to understand the common sense link between enacting stricter gun laws and reducing such atrocities.

For Americans, however, gun ownership is a deeply emotive issue, entwined with the cornerstones of their existence. Firearms ensured the population’s independence, conquered the western frontier and continues to ensure liberty against external threats. They also provide protection from any potential tyrannical governments and, perhaps most importantly, from each other.    

In terms of political allegiances, there is a reasonably clear divide between the pro-gun control Democrats and the pro-gun Republicans. However, due to the weaker political party system in the US, the over-riding priority for each individual politician of a risk adverse nature (and which one isn’t), is to ensure their own survival through vote maximisation. The course of action they take depends upon support in their jurisdiction, but for the vast majority, regardless of personal beliefs, the only option is: avoid waking the NRA beast.

Fortune magazine puts the NRA as no.1 of the US’s most powerful lobbying groups, its has a membership of 4.3million, all of which are contacted when anything threatening to gun ownership occurs; with the NRA’s enthusiastic own-brand spin on the situation. This, combined with a frenetic grassroots activist movement and a well funded, thoroughly professional and influential lobbying arm in Washington makes it formidable to any opposing politician or organisation, such as the CSGV (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence).

Two of the few politicians that have successfully stood firm supporting gun control are; Representative Nancy Pelosi and Representative John Conyers. Both, unsurprisingly, are Democrats and both represent areas that are strongholds of anti-gun sentiment, San Francisco and Detroit. As a consequence of their positions, both Pelosi and Conyers are openly displayed on the NRA’s website as targets to be removed from office. Other politicians, with less supportive constituencies can not afford such strong stances, with the NRA boasting that it has backed “thousands of candidates running in state legislative races and achieved an 86% success rate in those elections”.

The American public is bombarded by the pro-gun lobby, crying foul at any hint of gun control legislation as the first step on the slippery slope to government tyranny. It isolates and suffocates its opposition whilst supporting its own people, it appeals to the strong sense of liberty and patriotism that the US was founded on, it uses crime statistics to prove that guns stop crime rather than cause it; it claims that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, and that “if we criminalise guns then only criminals will have guns”. But most importantly of all, it has got the population believing that it was the founding fathers intention to give every citizen the right to have all the guns they want, and not just the State militias as it actually states. Besides which, what relevance does such a dated amendment have in the modern society of an established independent democracy?

Are massacres such as Virginia Tec the price of liberty?

If one believes the threats that the NRA focuses on as being tangible or its interpretation of the Second Amendment, then yes. I am more inclined to believe that tyranny is not biding its time, waiting for the population to be disarmed before pouncing. Perhaps tyranny is already here, in the shape of unelected bodies scaremongering the public and threatening elected officials who wish to lift the threat of gun violence from the schools, universities and workplaces across the US.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is best summed up in a picture. The bluer the map gets, the better the chance of another Virginia Tec.

Also in the news;

Blair faces final days as polls plunge to new low

First of all, lets just be clear, CentreForum hasn't proposed the age limit on buying alcohol be raised by 3 years.  Nor, when you read the fine print of the story in The Independent ("Raise drinking age to 21, says think tank") does IPPR necessarily.  However, the idea has been put forward in their latest journal as a way to tackle the health and social problems associated with under-age drinking.

The idea was roundly dismissed in our office as I suspect it will be by most other readers.  But the author, Jasper Gerrard, is not unknown to liberal circles.  Indeed, he regularly bashes Labour's authoritarianism over issues such as the DNA database.

So why is an otherwise sound man putting forward this barmy idea?

The Independent reports him as saying:

"By raising the age threshold it is at least possible that those in their early and mid teens will not see drink as something they will soon be allowed to do so therefore they might as well start doing it surreptitiously now. Instead they might come to see it as it should be: forbidden."

Quite why they will see it like that, when their peers can glug away at much younger ages, is unclear.  IPPR make you pay to read their publications.  Maybe someone with an IPPR account can read the article here and let the rest of us know what can be possessing him.

In today's election news

The Independent Leader on the French elections - "A listless nation, an uncertain electorate"

Its report, "France searches for its saviour" has the cleverly crafted:

"The hungry M. Sarkozy scares people, even on the right. The dilettante Mme Royal disappoints people, even on the left. The likeable M. Bayrou fails to galvanise people, even in the centre." The Independent

The Guardian goes to Wales with "After eight years in power, Labour fears a rainbow alliance of Tory blue and Plaid" a piece that could have been written from Labour's press office - with its central theme of 'if you don't vote Labour, you'll let the Tories in" - for example:

"Labour is worried that so much of the election spotlight has been on Scotland, where the Scottish National party may do well, that few people realise the Tories have a decent chance of becoming the second-biggest party in Wales - and finding a way back into national government. " The Guardian

The Guardian also covers the latest environmental thinking from the Lib Dems  - "Lib Dems plan carbon saving kits for homes"

Finally The Guardian also has Peter Preston on the SNP "Have your referendum".  It's rather OTT especially at the start, but it improves after the first paragraph!

With elections in France, Scotland, Wales, English Councils, and much ongoing speculation about the American primaries (still just under a year away) the papers are awash with election stories.

In the deluge of coverage it is often difficult to tell who breaks genuine new stories and who is merely repeating yesterday's news under the heading of review.

Today's offerings seem long on review with the best being the Economist.  They sum up recent goings-on in the Scottish ("Upheaval in the north") Welsh ("A rumbling in the valleys") French ("The race for the Elysee") and American primary elections ("The comeback Grandpa?" and "Mitt the moneymaker"). Its main leader ("Frances Chance") also concentrates on the French elections (unsurprisingly, their backing Sarkozy)

The rest of the coverage is generally more of the same with the slight changes of emphasis - The Telegraph picks up on the delicate pas de deux that the SNP and the Scottish Lib Dems are conducting through the media about potential coalition deals whilst they try and concentrate on their own campaigns ("Salmond hints at deal with the Lib Dems")

The Guardian look at the SNP's platform ("SNP rattles Labour with tax cut pledges") whilst The Independent looks across the Atlantic and points at problems in McCain's camp ("McCain sacks staff as support for rival soars")

Interestingly, The Economist thinks McCain is doing rather well, whilst the Independent seems to fancy the chances of actor-turned-senator Fred Thompson.

I suspect The Independent is more on the money on this one.  Thompson has the backing of "values voters" that twice divorced Rudy Giuliani will struggle with (even though Thompson's own religious beliefs are unclear).

Popular culture in America has enjoyed a series of strong TV Presidents including Bartlett (Martin Sheen), Palmer (Denis Haysburt) and  Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis).  Fred Thompson's appearences in The Hunt for Red October, In the line of fire and Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) can only do him good.

CentreForum's latest pamphlet , 'The surest route: early years education and life chances' was published today and attracted the attention of Alexandra Frean in The Times under the title 'Unemployed mothers need free childcare 'for welfare of children'

The report is premised on the growing body of evidence from around the world that a preschool education helps boost children's intellectual and social development.

The report quotes Julian Astle, the author:

The Government’s obsession with using childcare subsidies to boost employment, rather than to promote child development, has resulted in children from nonworking families being given less financial support than all other families... The result is that access to childcare remains a key issue for the very group of children who most need — and would most benefit from — a high-quality preschool education”

The hard copy of the report is being sent to all CentreForum subscribers and a pdf can be found on the CentreForum website.

Also in today's news

Theres lots of campaign coverage for election junkies today.  Also several budding entries for our ever popular 'longest headline of the week' competition:

• The FT covers the local elections 'Labour faces wipe-out in south with fewest councillors for 35 years' - no great shocks but a useful canter through what's happening in England in May. Similar coverage is available in The Independent in a piece entitled 'Cameron's test is to secure Tory votes 'north of Watford''.
  
• James Blitz, also in the FT, has a slightly different take, suggesting that a bad local election performance, though inevitable for Labour, may be good news for Gordon Brown 'Brown may get boost from 'Super Thursday''
• The Times is one of the few papers today (or this week) to cover the elections in Wales, in particular drawing attention to 'a steady, if unspectacular, recovery in Conservative support that predates David Cameron' in 'Blair visits traditional heartland as voters turn to the Tories'
• The Times also has a look at the Lib Dems' manifesto launch in Edinburgh and find Nicol Stephen wanting 'One bright future dims in the cold light of morning.
• Finally they say that the Lib Dems have given the firmest indication yet that they would not be interested in an Independence referendum with the SNP in 'Scottish Lib Dems rule out Nationalist power deal'.  The Guardian has a similar take in 'Lib Dem blow to SNP hopes of referendum on home rule'
  

Nearly all the papers cover the launch of the UKIP local election manifesto yesterday. The Guardian is typical - "UKIP trebles candidates for local elections".

That report is one of the few that also covers UKIP's policy review. At the launch, UKIP leader, Nigel Farage sought to present his party as “a libertarian band of bureaucracy-busters that would slash council tax, put power back in the hands of local leaders and give people more control over their lives." The Guardian

In part, this is about Farage’s attempt to shed UKIP 's image as that of a single issue party.  However, the party’s constitution, website and the majority of its policies serve only to strengthen its single-issue credentials.  The constitution is quite clear:

"The principal aim of the Party is that the United Kingdom (" UK ") shall again be governed by laws made to suit its own needs by its own Parliament, which must be directly and solely accountable to the electorate of the UK ." UKIP Constitution

Perhaps Farage, like Cameron and Blair before him, will seek a 'Clause 4 moment' of his own to convince us that he really does want to break with the single issue past.  Whether he could carry his party with him is another matter, not least because, by developing a 'full range of domestic and foreign policies' UKIP will look dangerously like the thing it is campaigning against: all the other parties.

All journo's love eye-catching headlines.  But pity the poor journalist who crafts a well-written and insightful piece only to see it topped by some crude eye grabbing slogan that has little to do what the article says.

That scenario is very much what appears to have happened in The Telegraph today.

Alan Cochrane has written the best piece that I've seen this week about potential deals following the elections in Scotland in May. The piece does the usual hand-holding for those not aware that there is a devolved parliament north of the border, but manages to get more in depth than most run-of-the-mill coverage.  In particular:

"Any Labour politician, or Tory for that matter, at Westminster interested in the possibilities of future coalition deals in the Commons could do worse than to study the experience of the eight years of Lab/Lib Dem coalitions in Edinburgh. There, not to put too fine a point on it, the Lib Dems have taken all of whatever credit there has been and none of the blame for the doings of Scotland's administrations." Alan Cochrane, The Telegraph

Unfortunately, the nuances were somewhat lost on today's sub editor who attached the rather dumb headline -  "Will the Lib Dems sell out the Union?".

Despite its title, the report wisely concludes that the Lib Dems are unlikely to compromise on the future of the union.  Cochrane doesn't allude to the most basic reason - the fact that the Lib Dems in Westminster rely on Scottish seats for nearly a fifth of their representation.

The piece actually concludes that is is a variety of smaller parties that are far more likely to "sell out the union" - including a Senior Citizen's Party no doubt hoping to repeat the success of  a similar outfit in Israel's elections last year.

Anyway, the Lib Dems must be doing something right.  As Cochrane points out:

"Labour anger at the piggy-backing tendencies of their coalition colleagues has been exacerbated as the latest polls show a steady rise in support for the Lib Dems."

Also in today's news

• The BBC Scottish coverage has come alive recently - there is a particularly useful guide to an issues poll that the broadcaster has commissioned here.
  

Warrington, Woking and Hull are three great cities that the Lib Dems may take over in May, according to Lib Dem strategists quoted in The Independent today ("Lib Dems emphasise environment and crime") Also added to the list are South Shropshire and Guildford.

However, it is the political fortunes north of the border that continue to attract most attention.  Labour launched their Scottish campaign yesterday ("Blair and Brown attack SNP economics" in the FT and "Thirty days to save devolution from SNP" in The Telegraph). As many point out - there are distinct echoes of a previous electoral strategy here ("30 days to save the NHS!", anyone?). The obvious problem with this strategy is that the NHS attracts rather more loyalty than devolution is ever likely to.

Weak messages like this mean that Labour are in trouble. Also the self-fulfilling prophecies of an SNP triumph are repeated every week in every paper now.  Today we have , and "Labour in fear as Scots are urged to grasp thistle of independence" (not a bad story but its not a contender for this week's "Snappiest Headline" prize") 

The Lib Dem line on all this was put by Nicol Stephen on this morning's Today Programme.

All this concentration on our own elections means that our eye has been taken off the French presidential election ball.  Political Betting.com covered the latest movements in the polls and the betting markets yesterday.  ("Where's the betting value in the French election?"

Finally, wherever you're campaigning, be glad you're not a Tory in Portsmouth.  Porstmouth is also subject to local elections in May. Not only do Tory canvassers have to deal with the indignity of Boris Johnson saying that your town is full of drugs, obesity and under-achievement;  you then have a press spokesperson backing him up with "Boris speaking his mind, in only the way Boris can, is preferable any day to Labour and Lib Dem politicians who try to cover up the truth."

Or was it? After yesterday's initial scandal-mongering, some semblance of rationality seems to have return to most of the broadsheets. Least surprisingly, Polly Toynbee rails valiantly against the right-wing press (The Tory tactic is simple - get low down and dirty), accusing them of whipping up a scandal in order to serve the Tories' electoral interests:

"The Tory tactic is simple: demolish what they see as Labour's great asset - Gordon Brown's record and character. Fairly or not, Tony Blair's character has been shot to pieces on the streets of Iraq, in the White House rose garden, in holiday villas, his wife's lecture tours and in cash for honours, even if charges are never brought. Brown offers a marked contrast in style and content."

In the Independent, Steve Richards (Gordon Brown's main worry should be that this non-story has run with such ferocity), not for the first time, offers a cool-headed and unsensationalist analysis:

"The current row is over nothing in the sense that nothing of significance has surfaced in recent days. In the 1997 Budget, Brown scrapped the tax credits on payments of dividends to pension funds. This was known at the time and caused a fuss in the immediate aftermath."

Of course civil servants warned of the consequences of a cut in pensions tax relief - that is what they do. Treasury officials are there to advise of the effects of a change in policy, but it is up to the minister to make the final decision. The fact that he took the decision despite some potentially negative consequences is barely worthy of column inches.

Even in the Times, who originally "broke" the story, there is a sensible reaction from David Aaronovitch (I'm afraid Brown's not as black as he's painted), who considers Brown's biggest mistake to be the lack of discosure, rather than the actual policy. Indeed, he argues, the revenue earned by abolishing the tax relief may actually have done some good. Addressing an elderly reader, he claims:

"this five billion a year, I don’t think he spent it all on wars and speed cameras. A lot of it will have helped, in the early days, to reduce government borrowing. Some may have contributed, say, to the radically reduced orthopaedic waiting times now enjoyed (if that’s the word) by your generation. Maybe someone you know got a hip? Is it also conceivable that the money helped to fund the reduction in corporation tax, thus assisting in the creation of jobs."

However, judging by the comments to this piece, few Times readers would agree with his analysis.

I mentioned at the beginning that "most" broadsheets have offered some semblance of rationality. With tiresome predictability, the Telegraph continues to rouse rabbles in its own inimitable way (The plot thickens over pensions fiasco). Without a hint of hyperbole, it claims:

"This Government has been responsible for a number of bad policy judgments, but Gordon Brown's decision to change the rules for tax relief on pension funds is in another league from most of its administrative or political mistakes. It is no exaggeration to say that it has ruined the lives of many people who had every reason to believe that the pensions to which they had been contributing throughout their productive years would provide them with security in their retirement. Removing £5 billion a year from the value of funded pensions must have seemed at the time to be the perfect stealth tax: no one would notice (until much later) that their private or occupational scheme would no longer provide them with the income they needed to survive in the last years of their lives."

My biggest quibble with this is the suggestion that removing tax relief on pensions is a policy mistake that surpasses any other. That it will have more disastrous consequences than, oh, say, the war in Iraq, growing income inequality, the complexities of the tax credit scheme, the loss of civil liberties etc. is simply preposterous. The Labour government has made far worse policy mistakes during the last 10 years - could we not focus on those instead please?

Also in today's news:

• The Independent publishes its "poll of polls" that shows the Tories opening up an 8 point gap ahead of Labour. The Lib Dems are unchanged on 18%. Cameron only needs another small advance to deny Labour the option of forming a pact with the Lib Dems to retain power (Independent).
  
• The Guardian reveals that the RAF has considered the use of "suicide flights" to combat terrorism (Guardian).