On 7 September, councillors met in Leeds to debate the following motion, placed before them by Cllr Alan Lamb:

‘This Council understands and recognises the valuable role played by Trades Unions in ensuring effective industrial relations and reaffirms the principle of providing reasonable support to Trades Unions including time off for stewards for this purpose.

However, this council believes that given the current state of the public finances taxpayer subsidy of full time Trade Union officials should now be brought to an end. The £417,000 annual cost to taxpayers in Leeds for 15 full time convenors is now unjustifiable both in terms of the massive budget pressure faced by Leeds City Council and the programme of cuts to frontline services currently being undertaken by the Labour administration.

This Council also notes the wider context of the huge donations that Trade Unions are able to offer to the Labour Party.’

The motion was defeated by 56 votes to 31, with 4 abstentions. A total of 56 councillors had to declare an interest before this motion was debated, because they were either a member of a trade union or were married to a member. It was correct they should declare an interest, but should some of them have declared a prejudicial interest because they either work for a union or they received funding from unions for their election campaigns?

Campbell seems pessimistic about whether the press can be improved, and looks to the Leveson Inquiry to recommend changes. But like so many "above the line" figures whose main experience of blogging is Guido Fawkes, he does not understand the degree to which serious bloggers are beginning to fill the political vacuum.

Campbell thus does not believe Britain gets the media we deserve. ... [and] ... In the final analysis, this blog exists in its current form because of the failures of the media, about which we have been voluble.

There is just no comparison with the UK local papers, but I don't believe that the local paper here would get a readership in many English towns as it doesn't major on sport, celebrities and sleaze, but on accurate reporting of stories of import.

We get the press that we purchase

I wonder if Campbell detects a connection between his ruthless grip on news stories - with even "the Tory press", such as the Telegraph, cowed during his tenure - and the press's eventual embrace of the trivial. He spoonfed the lobby and the news journalists with stories. If you were instead critical of the government, you were frozen out by him and had no access at all and so found it very hard to get stories. Then your editor fired you (unless you were Trevor Kavanagh or Peter Oborne). Andrew Gilligan survived for a while but was pushed out eventually on a technicality – by Campbell. It was inevitable that the public would start to distrust political coverage ("I see tractor production is up again this year") and therefore drift ever more towards the trivial. Ultimately, Campbell was responsible for that.

Why don't you email the enquiry Dr North, and suggest yourself as someone willing to make this very point (that the net and citizen journalism is already filling the gaps)?

Leveson is calling Paul Staines and it would indeed be unfortunate if that is the only glimpse of blogging that the enquiry gets.

He is also, however, casting his net very broadly indeed, and asking anyone who gives testimony - even down to C-list actresses - about how they think the media and its regulation should evolve.

Worth a shot I think.

Richard has referred in the past to the feminisation society leading to its infantalisation. Referism will involve the majority growing up and taking an adult responsibility for ensuring that our politician are held to account. If that happens, then there will be a demand to be informed by real news.

To sum up, in his experience of over a decade dealing with the political media, he claims that exaggeration, embellishment and pure invention are endemic, and are tolerated and indeed encouraged by some editors and senior executives.

Despite what the UK press has become, he says, I believe in a free press as a cornerstone of a healthy, vibrant democracy. Newspapers must always poke around in the affairs of the rich and powerful. They help hold authority to account. They should always be difficult, challenging, suspicious of power. They must always take risks and push hard for the truth. They must be free to criticise, mock and expose… real serious investigative journalism such as is represented by Watergate and Thalidomide is actually under threat.