Open Letter to All My Female Friends

Dear all,

This morning's Today programme on Radio 4 has just said that the Foreign Secretary being in a room with another man was a 'lapse of judgement' for a straight politician. Therefore and henceforth I shall have to make some adjustments to the way I live to avoid making a similar 'lapse' seeing as I am an openly gay politician this will affect my female friends and acquaintances.

To Caron, you had better not get ill again. I know during your recent illness I spent many hours coming to see you and sometimes turning up while you were still in your pyjamas. But if the press were to get hold of such information it would be dynamite and a serious lapse of judgement in their opinion. Therefore in future this will have to stop, even if you are on death's bed all meeting you will he have to be clothed in outdoor wear and you will have to wheeled or trolleyed, if necessary, to a public venue. If other's catch the pubonic plague as a result that is a price that will have to be paid.

Also Caron and Elspeth Finlay I know that you have often driven me into the back and beyonds to dump me on some strange street with loads of leaflets. However, in future I may have to insist on a male driver as the exit of a campaign headquarters in the sole company of a woman and not returning for hours, with the same driver, and then looking exhausted might be similarly misconstrued.

Dear Helen Duffett and Meg and others I do love the direct message conversations that we have on Twitter. But I think we are going to have to stop them which means the juicy stuff like planning the BOTY's, or bloggers at conference or just talking about hot men on TV will just have to be done in the open.

As for my dear cousin Rachel, we are going to have to keep using the Lab/Lib Dem supporting cousin epithet on all our tweets to each other using up some of the valuable 140 characters. If only your mother had been born male and we shared the same surname, that would have made things easier.

Addendum paragraph As for Pam Tilson I clearly cannot be seen walking to or from a sporting arena in your company, tongues would wag. So that rules out my accompanying you to the Oval to watch the Glens play at any time*.

So sadly I shall have to make the required changes I cannot afford to have my character besmirched by keeping too close attention and proximity to members of the opposite sex. Guido and the MSM may well think I am slipping or defecting to a heterosexual lifestyle and that can never do.

Yours with regret,

Stephen Glenn

Further addendum I have just had assurances from the PSNI that Dubarrys, Kremlin or any other gay venue I may choose to enter will be swept of fag hags, lesbians and casual female hangers on. A security lock down will then be installed around the venue until 10 minutes after my departure. Drag Queen's are requested to turn up and depart in male apparel and sans make up, changing facilities will be provided at the discretion of the licensee inside the venue.

After all it wouldn't been right for me to be snapped by the press leaving such a place with a woman or faux-woman in shot. Think of the scandal the headlines writers would come up with.

* Actually that works out well for this Bangor fan.

Getting Ready With The Sunscreen

I'm following the example of Jeff and shamefully borrowing one of his phrases in return, in about 24 hours I fully expect to be 'applying the sunscreen' and start to pre-moderate comments on this blog. Watch this space to find out the reason why.

This will only be the second time in the almost five years I've been blogging that I have pre-moderated comments on this blog. The last time ran from 26th to 30th September 2005 (I'll let you google for yourself what might possibly have been going on then). It is not a decision that I am taking lightly but in light of Jeff's situation over the weekend I feel that in the next day it will be wisest choice for me at least in the short term.

I fully believe in free speech and will probably continue to allow most comments through the filter. However, I do realise that over the next couple of months I will not be online as much as I would like to be to keep an eye on what is being posted and may not be an situation to allow comments as quickly as some of my readers may hope.

As I said the recent events that overtook Jeff while he was enjoying the Spanish Sun (lucky sod) are just the latest reason why I am considering this action. Jeff is one of the most gracious and understanding of the Nat bloggers out there. He is most certainly not someone for whom the derogatory Cyber-Nat moniker should ever be applied. He engages with the opposition and is willing to let any PPC have a guest post on his blog (sadly no non-SNP PPC has 'yet' taken up his offer). He like me has always, until recently, allowed a free flowing comments policy. Indeed it was no surprise to read the comments of support for him from across the political divide in the bogosphere. It was though to see a journalist apparently refuse to accept his apology in the full sense in which it was offered.

Unlike the Main Stream Media bloggers tend to be a solitary experience. As someone who used to help moderate part of the BBC website I know that the press has teams of people looking out for comments that may offend, some ISPs are flagged up as potentially hazardous, some just turn up and get flagged by other readers. When you write an article for a paper or for the BBC you really do put it to bed. It goes online and you do not have to keep up to date with the comments that are going on under it in its online state.

When you are a blogger however, you want to interact with those that take an interest. That isn't always instantaneous in our online world. You have to do things, like work, sleep or even just turn off your computer and do something else instead.

So while a media outlet can take instantaneous action against a derogatory comment a blogger may not be able to do so. However, if it is pointed out to them that something has happened and they take the quickest action that they can an apologise for doing so that should be accepted. It is after all only good netiquette. There are times that maybe a blogger should be proactive and realise that they are not going to be available to check several times a day what is going on and set up pre-moderation, but that can sometimes ruin the blog for their loyal readers. Also to be honest I had to call work from Bournemouth last September and get somebody to turn on my out of office on my work email. We forget things sometimes.

But before the media jump down the blogger's throats let them not forget that they have occasion scoured the blogs and from my personal experience:

• Quoted half a sentence out of context (a post about Charles Kennedy during the Dunfermline and West Fife by election)
• Stolen an idea for a diary section (Angela Constance letter on behalf of Jim Devine sending up Nicola Sturgeon's letter)
• Taken only the end of an interview (my Tavish Scott piece from conference again out of the context it was meant)

In all but the first I wasn't even credited for the idea, and all of the above where not in a tabloid, but the one paper Scotland on Sunday.

Yesterday I happened to log on the the BBC just as the news of Ashok Kumar's death hit the breaking news, in the end I had a tribute up and online before the BBC or the Guardian. It's not a competition I doubt the several hundred hits I got in the first couple of hours of that news breaking are anything like the traffic they and other mainstream sites got. Although I did have over 10 hits from the Houses of Parliament before there was any other source except the local paper carrying the news.

That was pure fate, as sometimes unfortunately is what somebody decides to post in your comments section. Sometimes it is off topic, sometimes it is defamatory and sometimes it all happens when you are enjoying some off line time. That is the risk that sometimes us bloggers who wish to defend free speech take. It is one I'm not likely to be taken at least until May 7th.

I apologise in advance for the inconvenience.

Press Self Regulation Fails Time to Disband the PPC

Earlier today Mark Thompson wrote what is the point of the Press Complaints Commission in light of their ruling on Jan Moir and her Stephen Gately piece which lack cajones? Well now his view and mine are both being backed up by Peter Tatchell he says:

"The Press Complaints Commission should be disbanded. By failing to uphold its own standards and enforce its own Code of Practice, the PCC has demonstrated that it is unwilling, unable and unfit to regulate newspapers. We need a new press regulator with principles and teeth.

"Jan Moir's commentary on the death of Stephen Gately was factually inaccurate on two points. His death was not unnatural or lonely, yet the PCC has rejected a complaint concerning this inaccuracy by Stephen's civil partner, Andrew Cowles."

As I argued earlier the case for homophobia was the hardest of the three main clauses that the PCC may have had to judge on. Surely the timing of the article showed a lack of sensitivity to those close to the singer, the PPC merely said that the timing was "in questionable taste". But surely the factual accuracy should have been upheld more than anything else.

The PCC acknowledged that Jan Moir mentioned the coroners reports, that right the one that said he died of natural causes, to be precise Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome (SADS). The whole push of her article was to use unfounded, homophobic stereotypes to prove that is was "not natural".

Of course as Millennium Elephant points out the PCC is paid from by the people it regulates. Why? We have independent bodies to regulate almost everything else. This decision to even ignore the blatant things like accuracy in the face of opinion writing shows what a failure the self regulation of the press, by the press is. It really only serves to help the press.

As Dave Page wrote on today's Lib Dem Voice:

"Had Moir’s comments been made in the average workplace to a colleague who had complained, would she have been let off the hook?"

I think we all know what we hope the answer to that question would be. So in one workplace where such comments only affect a few to another where it clearly affects 25,000 who bothered to speak up, yet no action is taken.

As the PCC clearly have no cajones, there is nothing to really cut off apart from their ability to pass judgement on their own. Let's set up an independent body, with some clear standards (the current ones work for starters but could do with strengthening and broadening in some areas). Today they failed, show them the door and get somebody in that will actually do the job that is required.

READ ALSO: Of course not all Grauniad opinion is of hte abolish variety. Jonathan Heawood poses the opposite stand point. Of course I still say freedom of speech is one thing but being allowed to propagate deliberate falsehood, even in an opinion piece, is quite another.

Now Carter-Ruck Hush Up is Forging the Parliamentary Agenda #carterruck #trafigura

You have got to hand it to Carter-Ruck, they are failing miserably to work for their current and future clients (should they get any) benefit.

Earlier this week they fought they would throw their hand in to hush the Guardian up about them publishing a Parliamentary Question relating to their clients Trafigura dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast. While they temporally silenced the mainstream media the blogosphere and Twitterverse jumped in.

Of course the next matter was the issue of the Bill of Rights in 1688. The freedom enshrined in that for Parliament to be reported in the press and the Lib Dem's Paul Burstow called for a debate on the freedom of reporting Parliament even before Carter-Ruck backed down initially. I'm glad to see that on Wednesday the Speaker John Bercow has scheduled a debate over the issue of super-injunctions and their attempt to keep the discussion of the law makers in Parliament out of the papers. He said:

"Debate in the house in such situations is governed by the sub judice rules which leaves the chair [the Speaker] with discretion to allow reference to cases within limits determined by the chair," he said. "I have exercised that discretion and a debate will take place on 21 October at 2.30pm on the 'effects of English libel law on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings'."

Even on Thursday of last week Carter-Ruck were still trying to get Parliament to keep schtum when partner in the firm Alan Tucker wrote to the Speaker, every MP and Lord on Thursday saying he believed a parliamentary debate should not go ahead because the case concerning the existing injunction was "sub judice". The following day his firms injunction was lifted.

Paul Farrelly the MP whose question caused the ructions last week said:

"Carter-Ruck have got a real nerve. Firstly they tried and failed to suppress news that they had obtained a gagging order against the Guardian. Then they tried to ask the Speaker to gag parliament itself. This affair has shown us that privileges protecting press freedom are sometimes only as strong as their assertion. The Speaker and parliament must stand up to people like Carter-Ruck who aggressively try to encroach on these freedoms."

On Wednesday it is the time for the House to do just that. Stand up and tighten the rights of the free press, yeah even if it allows the Daily Fail to print the words that come out of Jan Moir's keyboard. It is time to make that stance to stop law firms showing contempt of Parliament and trying to determine what can be discussed and therefore reported from within.

Parliament are the peoples' representatives not some big law firm, if they take an interest in the minutiae of something there is probably a reason. Sadly Carter-Ruck appear not to have learnt their lesson so it is right for Parliament to stress its authority and the right of the press to report back to the people of their proceedings.

Even the PCC are Making Jan Moir a Special Case

Of course Jan Moir's article would have to be published on a day I was exceedingly busy then out having a good time. Indeed by the time I got home this evening the article appears to have been pulled from the Daily Fail website and the Press Complaints Commission (PPC) actually on their page about making a complaint saying, 'if you want to make a complaint about Jan Moir's article click here'. Apparently their website was down earlier so this may be to avoid too much overload on one server.

If you really want to read the full contents Cardiff Blogger has the full sorry piece with his commentary here.

I read it and logged a complaint with the PCC under three of their clauses. Accuracy, Intrusion into grief or shock and Discrimination. As the last of this has been widely covered elsewhere in the blogosphere I'm going to blog about the later.

Jan Moir writes:

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

Well I'm sorry they do. At only a few years older I thought I may have been facing something like that. My case was even more bizarre, I'd just left the gym, I may not have been in the peak of fitness but I still was pretty fit, but I experienced my first diagnosed cardiac episode, although I may have been having them for 20 years before. So yes I may very well have been one such person, so I question you accuracy.

When I was 16, one of our school friends did go to sleep and never wake up the day before our second Maths O'Level paper. So the whole school knew and the was there together to hear the news. The whole year was in shock at after the first hour when people could leave the hall, over half of my year did. Those of us who stayed couldn't settle for a good five minutes. At my 10 year reunion we marked the passing of 5 of our year, that is out of 200 or so pupils, as well as the one above 3 others were of natural causes. We had only just started to turn 28 never mind 33. Jan Moir must really have led a charmed life if she has never encountered someone young who has just passed away in their sleep.

As for her total disregard of the official cause of death, well as others have covered that heavily as well what more need I say. Her insinuations that there is something dark and sinister behind everything would mean many gay men should never again offer a bed or sofa for the night to a friend who has missed their last train, or can't be bothered waiting for the long queue at the taxi rank*. But then it appears that Ms Moir doesn't think that a member of Boyzone could be overflowing with the milk of human kindness, let alone the rest of the gay community.

The intrusion into grief and shock is maybe the hardest of the three clauses to apply. In the code it states:

5 Intrusion into grief or shock

i) In cases involving personal grief and shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.

Now of course, Ms Moir seems to correlate the tragic death of Stephen Gately with the death of Kevin McGee the former partner of Matt Lucas. So maybe she does think it was a suicide despite all evidence to the contrary. So she does manage to avoid using excessive detail about the method used, firstly as there wasn't any, but more to the point she just makes it up.

The more solid ground of course it point about publication being handled sensitively. There is no way on this earth that this piece in the Daily Fail this morning cold possibly have been considered sensitive. To also publish on the eve of the funeral on the day that the body is returned to Ireland merely heightens the crassness of the piece as well as the timing.

Stuart Sharpe told me there was no point me blogging about this as I was heading out. Then when I got back that there was nothing new under the sun to add. I'm not sure if I have gotten a new take on this ridiculous woman's poisoned pen piece, but it certainly is mine and avoided too much of the obvious.

* You have been warned if you see the two of us out over the next few weekends lads. No can do, Ms Moir might get the wrong idea, the canasta game is just not going to happen.

Epic Fail by Carter-Ruck #carterruck #trafigura

As I reported earlier Carter-Ruck had an injunction to prevent this question:

61 N Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Which was already in the public domain being reported in the Guardian. Under a barrage of Tweets using the #trafigura and #carterruck hashtags the lawyers have backed down. Not before many more thousands of people learn just what Trafigura were trying to hid. The D-Notice gagging the Guardian was lifted before the paper could get this raised in court.

The fight is not over though Lib Dem MPs were seeking an emergency debate of the Bill of Rights sovereignty over the reporting of matters in the Houses of Parliament, this I feel should still go ahead. You can sign the petition on the Number 10 Website here.

When Parliamentary Reporting is Gagged in the 21st Century #Trafigura #CarterRuck #fail

People don't normally pay much attention to written questions in the House of Commons to the Secretary of State for Justice. But when one has been fielded, after 60 others, in this the first week of the new session and the Guardian is gagged from reporting that text people are likely to sit up and notice.

Bloggers from across the political blogosphere have rallied to the issue and the Twitterverse has lit up to many uses of the #Trafigura and #CarterRuck hashtags. So suddenly instead of solicitors Carter-Ruck trying to bury the fact that their client's actions are being questioned has actually highlighted the news to masses of people who would probably never have heard or read about it normally.

As many before me have pointed out the question from Paul Farrelly MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme is being gagged despite the 1688 Bill of Rights. One which provisions is "Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".

So obviously the lawyers are merely trying in vain to prevent the reporting of events in the House of Commons, thing is they cannot impeach the answer being published in Hansard. I expect that to be the most widely reported, or directed to answer in the history of the Parliamentary record being online.

Why McWhirter is Wrong Seeing Pirates Everywhere on the Online Superhighway

You'd half expect us all to heave to and fly the skull and crossbones on our masthead looking at some of the comments from the MSM since the weekend about us bloggers. Will, Yousuf, Jeff, Malc and Alex Massie have already pointed out some misguided and sloppy generalisations in Iain McWhirter's piece in yesterday's Herald. The fact that I feel the need to add my voice should be one way of showing just how wrong he is when he says, "New frontier of the blog hijacked for ugly politics". Simply looking at the diverstiy of the opinion raised against his turn of phrase makes that self evident.

That diversity across Scottish blogosphere of those who have taken up keyboard in agreement against McWhirter will show him one thing. One bad apple, no matter how large, does not ruin the orchard. Like Will I've been around this blogging lark for many years, but Yousuf, Jeff, Malc et al have also caught one fundamental of the medium that Derek Draper and LabourList have failed to recognise, the blogopshere is a community. As Will put it " I can squabble with Caron on matters of policy one minute, then compare notes with her about Strictly Come Dancing the next?". Just like me and Jeff, or whoever, can dispute policy from different view points or from the same depending just what is the subject of the day and now he's on Twitter we may well settle down to an evening exchanging views on the sport or TV just like me and Malc.

A wee while ago I was having a very public spat with Iain Dale online about his use of language in a particular situation. While at the same time behind the scenes when we both realised enough was enough a friendly agreement was being hatched, to try and tune down the voice of others that was overtaking the dispute. The political blogopshere does indeed tend to have it's own sort of Privy Council terms at times.

Scottish Roundup is a prime example of this. There is a site where the various political hues in Scotland work together to round up the best of the political blogs on a weekly basis. The usual suspects aren't always being nominated by the usual suspects either. I have often nominated the counterpoint to the Lib Dem story of the week, sometimes breaking a new blog in the process, because it is about balance. I had to write up the week that Nicol Stephen resigned as leader, (bad) luck of the draw, I didn't shirk from including pieces that criticised him from elsewhere.

It's not all ugly in the world of political blogs and as the others have also pointed out it isn't all poorly written or badly analysed. It is only when someone refuses to engage with the rest of the blogosphere, wants to set up almost overnight a beacon and try and control its use that things can become ugly. This is what the McBride/Draper scenario attempted to achieve by foul and ugly means.

As for ugliness on the Internet perhaps Mr McWhirter is loathe to venture further away than the comments pages on the online editions of the MSM. Admittedly this is an ugly place where vitriol, sheer volume and anonymity can shield commenters from direct challenge. Debate is spurious at times and acid tongued often, it regularly roams far and wide from the subject matter at hand and often leads to insult trading from across the political divide. While this can occur in the Blogosphere is somehow seems to be better managed as the writer of the piece takes a direct concern in the comments posted, will answer back, and if needs must challenge an individual who is lowering the tone or taking things too far.

The blogopshere is far more hands on and the writer can decide just how nasty or clean they want to make and keep it. Once a bloggers baby is released to the Interweb is is more cared for by its parent than most pieces written by journalists in the MSM. Largely they tend to keep track on what is being said, both on their own blogs and on comments they post elsewhere. If anything the interconnectiveness and interaction on the blogopshere is more direct, more personal and more well Web 2.0 really than the 'dead wood press'.

Of course there are exceptions to that generalisation about the MSM journalists, just as the blogs McWhirter picks up are the exception rather than the rule, but Mr McWhirter would appear to not be one of them, yet.

Worth Their Weight in Gold

I burst out laughing at the very well worded first question of the Times, the Week News Quiz this morning:

If bankers are worth their weight in gold - and assuming that each weighed
15 stone - how many could you buy with this weeks £200,000,000,000 bank
bailout.
a) 4,500 - the remaining staff of Northern Rock
b) 25,000 - the global staff of Lehman Brothers before its collapse
c) 100,000 - the UK staff of RBS

Whoever composed such a question has a dry wit and is a worthy quiz compiler.

BTW the answer is c

Local Income Tax and the Scotsman

I'm surprised to be honest that the Scotsman can only find gripes from 25 people about LIT. As any Tax system that you'd want to introduce is far from perfect and what we must strive for is the best possible, fairest and most comprehensively inclusive system that we can. Some of the Nats Jeff and Richard Thompson have given some pretty clear rebuttal on most of the points so I'll not haver on to much. Some I don't agree with 100% and I may get around to some of them later, but by and large many of the gripes can be applied to more or less any change in the tax system, a few are specific to LIT but are things that can be ironed out if looked at properly.

However, Jeff makes one claringly obvious Nat mistake by dismissing article 9 of European charter of local self-government too glibbly. Councils have the right to raise the large part of their own finances, therefore the Scottish plan for LIT is not all fine and dandy. The EU covers all manner of styles and divisions of Government Federal systems to countries like Luxembourg small enough to have all government controlled at one level. But each branch, level etc have their own responsibilities for the money they collect at whatever level but only two National and the local level are presumed to have direct responsibility in every nation.

The Nats are currently proposing a local authority tax raising power. They are centralising one of the fundamental powers of you local authorities. If even Sarah Palin can claim to have power of the budget of 7000 inhabitants of Wallisa surely you local councillors have the same right, whether they are Lib Dems, Tory, Labour, Nats or whomever. They have to spend to meet local requirements and Holyrood is not going to be able to know the minutiae of every plan, need or emergency that may arise when the rate needs to be set for the forthcoming year. And yeah if the council get it wrong you can vote them out, not everyone in Scotland can do the same for the Finance or Local Government minister at Holyrood.

Grauniad Fnuks Up

Stephen Tall obviously is more high up the blogging food chain that I. As Martin Wainwright the Guardian journalist has sent him a email regarding the quote yesterday that David Davis said us Lib Dems had funked it.

Just to alert you asap to the fact that the quote attributed to David Davis by me about the LIb Dems 'funking it' was my fault - putting you in with Labour in a rush - and we are running a correction. Sorry, age and haste. The Correct quote is on the Guardian audio material on the website. The draft correction I’ve just sent reads:

In a piece on the Haltemprice and Howden by-election published on July 9, we wrongly quoted the Conservative candidate David Davis as saying that the Liberal Democrats had 'funked' the poll. He has always made it clear that he is grateful for the Liberal Democrats' support for his views on the 42 day detention and related civil liberties issues. The mistake was made in transcription of the related audio report which carried his actual comments, and we apologise for that.

Sadly it means that in this electronic age the Grauniad is still as prone to errors as in the days they could blame it on the typesetter. But apologies to Mr Davis was writing this yesterday.

Wake Up Scotsman!

The following Scotsman headline obviously grabbed my attention this morning.

Inside Holyrood: Lib Dems go down the unpredictable route

Obviously I was wondering what on earth has happened now. Imagine my shock when basically the unpredictable route of the headline was very predictable. It starting out by talking about the fact that the election of our new leader will be one member one vote by STV. Hello Hamish Macdonell, every leadership election, every committee, every candidate selection, indeed every election to any position within the Liberal Democrats has always been by STV and one eligible member/rep one vote. It's the reason the word Democrat is in the party's name.

Does giving the power of selection make the election any less predictable. Well to the gentlemen of the press certainly. It's easy for them to gauge the opinions of the MSPs and MPs of Scotland. They may also be able to get a feeling from the Lib Dem councillors in Scotland. But they'll not be wholly able to gauge the opinion of the various party members many of whom are very private individuals to be able to predict just how the first round of voting may turn out.

Yes we clearly are at a crossroads as a party. The first declared candidate, Mike Rumbles, has clearly declared intentions to make a major shift not on fundamental policy, as that too is decided by the party, but in how we might interact in today's Scottish Parliament. The party hasn't been asked the question of a referendum on independence at any level since devolution came into play. The decisions made last May were made at the top.

So this could well become the party's referendum on a referendum, it may well be the most clearly defined difference between candidates. After all fundamentally we all adhere to the fact that our policies are shaped and voted on democratically at conference and we all uphold the decision of the majority. Therefore the real differentiation at leadership level is how those policies are conveyed and presented to the people of Scotland.

Losing Your Friends in the Press

The Torygraph have this morning are carrying the news about Bob 'Three Jobs' Neill's difficulties regarding the acualite on his nomination form for the Bromley a Chiselhurst by-Election. If the Tory press is printed this Mr Neill must be wondering what where his friends are.

Confuddled Journalism

You have to feel sorry for Scotsman political correspondent Gerri Pevi. He wrote today that he finds the Liberal Democrat's three candidate leadership election AV voting system complicated.

Maybe he would do well to look at the Electoral Reform Society explanations of the various systems or he may just find himself out of a job before Scotland as a whole goes to the polls again. Failing that he may have to seek alternative employment within the paper.

Sadly he won’t be able to move into sports journalism, if he can’t get this election betting will be beyond him. As for scoring in cricket or rugby or football’s offside rule, well he has no hope there. Cooking might be seen as a soft option however, he’d have to work out measures in either American or European measures. At least he might be able to be a restaurant correspondent unless he had to work out his own bill for claiming expenses from The Scotsman.

On second thoughts maybe Mr Pevi is merely trying to add to the doubts of the system that his paymasters possess. They do not want to see fair elections and a fair electoral system, that is until they provide more representation for their Tory cronies.

Dear David Cameron

Next to that letter on the leaflet that the PM quoted at you this week is a statement from Adrian Graves, that one and only 'prominent' Liberal Democrat your party are claiming to have snagged since Charles Kennedy stood down as leader. He says:

The arrival of David Cameron at the helm of the Conservative Party has precipitated a fundamental shift in both the direction and political atmoshere within the (Conservative) Party. As a result politics is suddenly dynamic and interesting again. Importantly, this new phenomenon offers - arguably for the first time since 1997 - the only potentially acheivable opportunity for 'regime change' at the next general election.

Now I know we have mocked Mr Graves in the past but it looks like he may be prophetic after all. Politics this morning is now suddenly dynamic and interesting. The arrival of David Cameron has had an effect a slight drop in their vote and the realisation of people that voting for the Conservatives is confusing at best as nobody knows what they stand for, a bit like the media branded the Lib Dems in the early days.

Now this phenomenon does offer the only potentially acheivable opportunity for regime change at the next general election, that is to vote Liberal Democrat. After the month that we have had in the media to win on a 18% swing can only show that we have the right policies for the people of Britain and that when we can present those to the people they respond. The potential for regime change in Westminster is there and it lies in the hands of hte next leader of the Liberal Democrats.

My Day in the Media Scrum

As you may have seen there was quite a lot of media attention in Dunfermeline and West Fife, especially as Charles Kennedy was back on the campaign trail, along quite a large number of Liberal Democrat MPs and activists.

Well I was there. In fact as I was leaving the campaign HQ Willie Rennie's agent handed me the campaign camera and asked to me to get as many pictures as I could. Now normally this would not be too big an ask, however, when I turned up in the centre of Dunfermline and saw the number of press assembled I knew I was going to be tough. We gathered waiting for Charles and Willie to appear, both the press and the party faithful anxious waiting to get going. After a false alarm when Danny Alexander MP and Jim Wallace MSP caused a media rush in the wrong direction the car eventually arrived.

My first few shots were more miss than hit and included a brilliant snap of the Mark and Spencer’s signage, some Lib Dem balloons and the tops of some super signs. I had to think like a photojournalist to get the right shots. So I started to look for vantage points and kept hopping ahead of the throng in the hope of being in the right spot. Sure enough I started to get better taking pictures of mikes, other cameras and the back of super signs or journalists head.

I was starting to share the camaraderie of the press pack snappers trying to get their shots. I also had one advantage I could shout at the odd Lib Dem to twist or lower a corex super sign to allow a good shot. Charles and Willie eventually made it to the other end of the street stopping at a charity shop, a bakers and the tourist information office. Along the way they stopped for several interviews and even met some brave souls who were prepared to enter the media scrum to say a few words to Charles and Willie.

Oh, I did get some pictures that were usable at the end of the day, but now I know why the press just keep snapping away.