A difference of view at the EADT

A HEALTHY democracy needs political parties. But it also needs newspapers whose pages are open to all shades of opinion and are big enough to withstand different thoughts from within their own organisation.

Thus on page 10 today in the EADT I wrote with regard to the cash for peerages scandal: "My solution won't be popular. The first action needed is to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 100% directly-elected senate - that gets over the need to nominate anyone. We should cap the amount parties spend on campaigning in all elections and then fund 80% through state aid, the balance to be met by transparent loans and donations."

But turn to the leader comment on page 18 and you will read about state funding: "Let's make clear, now, our view about that: It simply must not happen. Giving politicians even more of our hard earned money would be like leaving an alcoholic in charge of an off-license."

Oops: Dines at odds with the EADT's editorial line.

But that shows the strength of a newspaper, and the EADT in particular.

Journalists have different opinions and are free to express them. I am allowed to say what I want, as long as it is not sediuous. Long may it continue!

[:)]