Has politics become too dirty?

With the announcement of a general election on 5 May, there are fears that the campaign could be more personalised than ever before.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has already urged political leaders not to engage in the politics of fear during their campaigns.

Former prime minister, John Major and former chancellor Norman Lamont have claimed that they were victims of "whispering voices" following allegations over the delayed release of papers on 1992's "Black Wednesday".

Will these tactics win votes? Or has modern politics become too dirty? Is there a danger that more voters could be alienated from the political system?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

The view that politics has become dirty is very much influenced by the media. The majority of politicians distaste bickering or "political point scoring."
Sebastian Hobot, Barry

Politics has always been dirty! I cannot believe how cheeky they are to each other and I certainly don't let my children watch them on TV. They need to grow up!
Patricia, Thurso

I am 70 years of age and I am heartily sick of the brand of politics we have to endure, it's little more than a personality cult with so-called 'celebs' trying to convince us they can run the country. Sorry if I sound cynical, but let's face it, its all about power and money!
Margaret, Essex

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time, this has been said before and its still rings true today
Brian, Neath, Wales

The trouble with UK politicians is anyone who wants to be a politician is exactly the type who should not be a politician. What have we done to deserve to the characters that represent our country? As an Englishman I feel like a doormat.
Chris, Stockport

Become too dirty? Are you kidding? We're a long way from rotten boroughs, open ballots and gangs putting pressure on voters we're in a relative paradise! We can all hope they act like gentlemen, but when lives and livelihoods are at stake, I'm not surprised it sometimes gets personal.
Ed, London

When a lot of the electorate engage in childish and immature insults like "racist", "homophobe" and "bigot" when faced with dissenting opinion, it is no wonder that politicians pander to them by adopting the same tactics.
Anon, UK

It's all become a big game and filthier now than ever before. Perhaps they would ALL finally get the message if none of us cast a vote – what bigger protest than that? And surely not even Blair could ignore us then!
Dee, UK

Day after day the media throws mud – with impunity – at politicians and (quite wrongly, in my view) their families. Mud sticks. That's why they do it. So politicians do it too. And it works. Maybe if the media cleaned its act up that would be a help?
Bob Richardson, Welwyn

Bob Richardson suggests that it would help if the media cleaned up its act. He is undoubtedly correct. Unfortunately, apart from the BBC and a small number of other sources, the media is financed by people whose aim is to use it to elect politicians who will serve their purposes.
J Westerman, Leeds. UK

I am so sick of public schoolboy jeering and pathetic 'my party's better than your party' electioneering. The politicians of this country think the electorate are stupid and can't see past their spin and fear mongering as well as complete opportunism to what is popular in the tabloid papers. Lets now have some intelligent debate on issues that really are important in this country and listening to the people who actually live here would be nice as well.
Cat, Cambridge UK

Politics has not become too dirty, it always has been!
Roger Berrisford, London, England

Here we go again with more spin and snide remarks coming from the Labour camp. They may well be rattled with the opinion polls showing the margin reducing, but their dirty politics campaign is a disgrace. They must have very short memories – was it not Labour who attacked the Tories for their sleaze and spin leading up to their first election win? It's about time that this type of campaigning stopped and all candidates began to show a little more respect for the electorate and their opponents rather than acting like school yard bullies.
C Preece, Tamworth, UK

I think the real rot set in during the latter stages of the long Tory government years and Labour's quest for power. A kind of fanaticism set in. Everything the Tories did was wrong. Every little weakness was cleverly exploited. "Fat cats" were appearing everywhere. All of this culminated in a party political broadcast that for its entire duration accused John Major of lying: "You lied, Mr Major" (because of tax rises during an economic depression). I think that the politicians that indulged in such tactics are now "reaping what they have sown". It's about time.
Terry, London, UK

My wife has an old book published in the late 1700's. One story tells of the young reporter that asked a very wealthy land owner why he wished to go into politics. "Well young man", he replied, "I'm going in to serve the greatest number". "What's that?" asked the reporter. Pointing to his chest he said, "Number one." Nothing has changed in over 200 years.
Allan, Canada

In dumb Britain, personality is now the only facet parties use to try and win votes as there is no real policy divide between the big parties. No serious political debate takes place as fewer and fewer voters are engaged while more and more people are obsessed with Jordan.
Jerry No, North London

Surely the duty of people in positions in power, both politicians and the media, is to offer an example to everyone else. In the past Britain was respected for 'doing the right thing'. It's time politicians and those who report on their activities stopped acting like naughty children and started setting a good example, especially to the younger generation who are always being denigrated for aping their elders and supposedly betters. I shall vote for a party which offers policies and refrains from name-calling. And I shall use pester power to hold them to their manifesto if they don't deliver.
Carol, Barrow on Humber, UK

We have the kind of politics we deserve. The problem is that the truth is almost always unpalatable. If we get politicians who lie, it is because we don't vote for those who tell us the unpleasant truth. Instead we always fall for those who con us by telling us what we want to hear and promising a simple quick fix!
Jenny Day, Saltash UK

I'm only in my teens and I still realise that a lot of politicians see elections as an excuse to name call etc. Most of the time I just want to see what there going to do for my family and education not name-calling. So yes, I think that politics is starting to become very aggressive and dirty.
Tara, Harrow, London

Politics has always been a dirty business, you can't move without it being recorded by someone. I feel sorry for anyone who chooses such a career. Voters are already alienated from the political system in regards once in power the party stops listening to the opinions of voters.
Kevin Humphreys, Liverpool England

I will not be influenced by any claims or counter-claims from any party or party member. It is almost impossible for the 'voter' to determine truth from lies. Politicians no longer seek the good of the country and its citizens, they are there, only for their own good. If a bit of dirty politics preserves their existence then they will indulge. It is no longer about service, it's about power.
John Bartlett, Wootton Bassett – Wilts

Politics has always been a "dirty business" Labour have just taken it to new heights. They do not want to retain power for the benefit of us the people, they do not care about us. They want power for themselves, to change the political landscape from a strong proud independent nation to a state controlled nation where they have all the power and the middle classes, who pay the bills, will be squeezed out of existence. It is time to stand up and fight for our country, kick Labour out now and restore democracy and common sense once and for all.
Mike, Hove , England

When the BBC and other media stop promoting a two party system and give a lot more air time to other political parties, perhaps then the level of debate will improve.
Clive, Glos

Lets face it, it doesn't matter if either Blair or Howard gets in, we'll still be governed by Europe and America.
Phil, Orpington, Kent

No, politics hasn't become too dirty. It is politicians who are the problem. Blair came to power promising whiter than white and an end to Tory sleaze. Look what has happened since.
Graham, Stockton

I want to know about policies not about personalities. I sometimes think politicians behave worse than children when it comes to name-calling etc. If some of them were in my class they would be told to follow the 'golden rules' of behaviour, which most of them clearly aren't! We are after all voting for people who are responsible for the running of our country not for a gang of yobs! Mud-slinging, name calling and doing the other side down won't win my vote. I want to know what they are going to do for the country. We don't have to follow in the footsteps of Americans!
Liz Cable, Tidworth, Hants

Yes it is a complete switch-off. The TV and radio news has been banned in our house until May 6th.
Karl, London

Yesterday I saw a poster for the Conservatives: 'How would you feel if a bloke on early release attacked your daughter'. A disgrace – burglars, car thieves and many others get early release after paying their debt to society. Please can we ask the all parties to talk politics? I am sure the electorate as a whole would appreciate it.
Andy Stafford No, Reading

Politicians generally live in a cocoon have no understanding or empathy of what a lot of people have to deal with every day. It suits them of course. Has politics become too dirty? – no: the politicians have!
Lynn, Herts UK

In a democracy the people get exactly what they ask for – the majority of the people in this country get bored by involved policy description. They instead choose to buy papers that focus on gossip and mud-slinging. The politicians then resort to this to try and reach these people. All they do is respond to public demand – this is our fault. If you don't like it change it, stand yourself, just stop whinging!
Mark, London, UK

Yes! Instead of attacking each other, they should each present their positive visions for the UK to us, the voters.
David, London, England

It's not politics that has become dirty but the politicians that have made it that way with their behaviour and spin.
S Folwell, Market Drayton, Shropshire

All I want from politicians in the coming election is downright honesty and the courage to stand for their own principles. No forecasting what other parties will do, but fight an educated campaign on what they know they can achieve. We are sick and tired of being looked down on with contempt, and treated as illiterates.
Pat Buckman, Whitby, N.Yorks

Why is everyone so apparently amazed? Politics, by its very nature and definition, always has been, is and always will be dirty. If you wish not to be immersed in that mire of filth, corruption and guilt by association then there is only one answer: don't vote. I have not done so for the last 13 years when I became aware that I was (as a willing voter) a foolish pawn voting in a one party state packaged and sold to the sheep under the illusion of democracy.
Max, UK

Ever since there have been politicians they have used personal attacks and underhand tactics to further their causes. It's idiots like us who keep voting for them who let them get away with it. Use your vote for a party that focuses on what they can do for your community and not what the other parties can't do. If you find one, please let me know! It's no wonder there are low turn-outs and voter apathy.
Paul, Glasgow, Scotland

The real dirty secret of politics is that our votes don't actually matter.
Anon, UK

As someone for whom this year is the first election that I can participate in due to turning 18, I feel strongly about voting but do not feel that we are truly listened to. Surely the example set by the MPs in the House of Commons acting like school children with no sense of fair debate or manners, sets a bad precedent for the country and gets in the way of them doing their job. I obviously naively assumed that they are there to run the best country they can according to our wishes. So, yes, politics has become too dirty and needs to be put back on track.
CS, Corsham, England

Are they really surprised that the number of people voting is falling? It's not apathy, it's sheer disgust at the behaviour of the people who claim to represent us.
Kate C

Negative campaigning has always been a feature of politics. However, this has to be tempered with positive campaigning. Unfortunately, at the moment the former appears more often than the latter. Voters (particularly new voters) will be put off if politics appears to be a bunch of middle-class white men slagging each other off.
Stephanie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Anyone who thinks dirty politics is a new phenomenon should read Machiavelli's "The Prince", or perhaps "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". Modern day electioneering is tame by comparison.
MMH, Stafford, UK

Personalities is all they have left to argue about. The Tories and Labour use the rhetoric and have the same policies on crime, immigration, the economy, the health service etc. If they didn't resort to personalised campaigning they would have to admit that Britain has a democracy whose electoral system prevents choice.
Joe, Brussels

My parents are politicians. They have given up time and effort over many, many years. They have endured verbal and physical abuse, but have served their community to the best of their abilities and made a real practical difference to many peoples' lives. Yet according to some here, they are liars and deceivers and would not deserve spitting on if they were on fire. You'd better watch out or one day you might actually get the politicians you so blithely and insultingly assume you already have.
Katherine, London, UK

British politics used to be about a true clash of ideologies and classes in which there was a clear difference of policy and a real choice. Now with the fall of Socialism as a real possibility and improved living standards on the most part, the main parties push for the same policies but with slightly different packaging (e.g. 'more police,' 'controlled immigration') and it is now the media which controls many people's attitudes, depending on how much dirt can be exposed on either side. This country needs a new party!
Ben, Horsham, West Sussex

It's simply a fact that politics is a dirty game, and always has been. The most casual glance at the history books tells us that. But, at the present time, and due to the propaganda of mass media (which includes news coverage) it has become simply infantile. I am ashamed by what passes for political debate in the House of Commons. The perception is that most politicians of whatever primary colour you choose are simply looking after their own interests.
JC, Worcester, England

Politics has always been dirty but people are now more aware of it. Democracy is still better than a dictatorship but we now have to do something to prevent its erosion as civil rights become threatened. Hostile media coverage of personalities is another sign of the creeping, negative Americanisation of the system.
M. Farrell, Rome, Italy

Politics is not more dirty – we are just allowed to see it more. What I have learned so far is that Labour and Conservative are as nasty and underhand as each other, and the other parties are too ineffectual to make any difference. I hope the Monster Raving Loonies are posting a candidate in my area, or I'll have no-one to vote for!
Mo C, UK

Sadly, politics is no longer about convincing the voters that your party is the best for Britain – it's about convincing voters that the other parties are worse. We live in an era where policies are reduced to soundbites and intelligent debate is virtually non-existent. And each party is as guilty as the rest.
M, Edinburgh, Scotland

Voters get the politicians they deserve. With many people's interests now being reality TV and celebrity watching people want scandal, gossip and spicy stories, and this seems to be what the politicians are giving them
Tim, Birmingham, UK

We don't get the government we deserve at all; the majority of the people in the country do not vote for the winning party. Is it any wonder then that the majority feel disenfranchised and dispossessed, no matter who wins?
LJS, Stockport, UK

I don't think its any dirtier than at any point before, its just I don't agree with a single policy offered by either of the main parties, so I feel utterly uninvolved. Whoever wins, I will lose and live in country where I'm charged taxes, given poor public services, misinformed and told what I should think.
Dave, London

Politicians should be concentrating on the policies – what they are and spell them out clearly so that there can be no question about what they stand for. If they spent their time and money doing that, there would be no ambiguity about who stands for what. I am fed up with hearing about sleaze – I couldn't care less about their private lives. All of that is irrelevant.
Keely, Kent

Has modern politics become too dirty? Are you kidding!? This kind of thing has been going on for hundreds of years. It's the exception when politicians run a campaign with integrity and honour. Unfortunately being "dirty" is a part of human nature when one person wants something others also want.
Tom, NY USA

To all the people who want 'None of the above' boxes and those who won't vote, if you don't vote for a party you want you will most certainly get a party you don't want. I get the feeling a new party is on the horizon.
Jim, UK

I ceased to vote many years ago in both national, local and euro elections. I simply do not believe one word that falls from the mouths of politicians that is meant for consumption by the general public. I refuse to give these people any credibility at all by voting for them. Year in year out I watch as politics gets dirtier and dirtier focusing on personalities and not the issues that affect the nation. I doubt whether I will ever vote again and whenever an election comes around we always try to go away on holiday for the two or so weeks of hell that is the election of our masters.
Karl, London

It already looks as though Labour is prepared to do and say anything to stop the Tories getting in. Disgraceful.
Andy H, Cheshire, England

Sadly it is going the way of American politics and nothing is dirtier then them.
Tony, UK

Surely dirty tricks and amusing antics are all part of the fun. I love election time. It is so great
Michael, Birmingham

I wonder if those people who are calling for ballot papers to include a 'none of the above' option have seriously considered the consequences of 'none of the above' actually winning. As dirty and corrupt as modern politics seems to be I still prefer it to complete anarchy.
Steve Dowdy, London UK

It might be dirty but its fun to watch. Let's be honest, its become dirty because the politicians can't find any issues to give us hope and digging up dirt, like terrorism and immigration, is all part of using the fear of the masses to gain support.
Adam, Stoke, England

They can call each other names all they want, and we will vote based on who tells lies and who tells the truth. So that's the two main parties out then.
Justin Rowles, Southampton, UK

I think we need a Five Year Plan to clean up politics – let's chuck – oh, I don't know – £100m at the problem..?
David, London, UK

No, it's all become far too cosy, with the main parties basically agreeing with each other's policies. If government was more open to public scrutiny, there would not be so much dirt to dig!
Frank, Bristol, UK

Those who believe politics 'have become dirtier' believe in a mythical Golden Age when politicians were gentlemen who merely disagreed and summers were hotter. Politics – for which read the holding and exercise of real power – always has been and always will be dirty. Perhaps the only possible change in the latter half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries is that the maturing of advertising techniques mean that political spinners have more tools with which to practise their black arts, and that the ever-savvier voter has also become ever more cynical. It's as much a matter of perception.
Patrick, Cornwall

Politics is a dirty game the world over. Voters are generally not so gullible and they see through the machinations of politicians. Politicians should realise that once they stand for political office they will be scrutinized and all their dirty linen will be in the public glare. Even if they are 'clean', dirt will be dished out in an attempt to sully their reputation. However when voters realise a political party is using dirty tactics to secure votes they will ultimately turn away in droves. Power corrupts and dirty tactics are so widespread: we can only hope these intelligent, worldly-wise politicians will not stoop so low!
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

Dirty? It seems the whole thing is driven by apathy and an avoidance of issues that might be politically incorrect to raise!
Cameron, UK

Politics appears to be about personalities rather than policies. This all adds up to a smokescreen that obfuscates the reality – the reality that political power is influenced by lobbyists and corporate interests and not the electorate. The only people who benefit are the political class who win no matter what the outcome of any election.
Dino, Poole, UK

One thing I really hate is negative election campaigns. If any party believes that it can the only way it can win an election is by attacking the opposition and neglecting their own policies doesn't deserve to win but sadly, their all doing it. I shall vote, but I don't know which way.
Dave, Newcastle, UK

Please can we have on the ballot paper the list of candidates, plus "none of the above" This would mean that, for the first time ever, all electors will have the opportunity give their truthful opinion of the candidates?
Stephen Brooks, York, England

We get the political system we deserve; if these tactics didn't work the politicians wouldn't use them. The public falls for this rather than putting any thought into policies, so it's the tool that is used.
Chris, UK

Sadly yes. It seems as though both main parties – fearful that their policies and track records alone may not be enough to convince the electorate – adopt such tactics to scrape every vote they can. Conservative complaints of personal attacks in campaigning smack of hypocrisy. Blair's honesty and integrity have long been compromised, so we can't expect any better of Labour either. It seems that both accept that the cynical electorate vote for the party they dislike least.
James Thresher, London, UK

Politics has always been a dirty game for most of the participants. The weapons used are the only thing that has changed. We know have 24 hour news agencies that leak things more quickly and paparazzi who stalk their prey mercilessly. It's more immediate and in your face but it has always been a nasty game.
Fiona, Leeds, UK

I blame the media – particularly the popular press – for propagating the idea that "all politicians are liars" and reducing the debate to the lowest common denominator. I think that most politician, of whatever colour, begin with the best intentions, but are corrupted by the very media that are so keen to condemn them. Some newspapers in the UK are so slanted it's ridiculous. I'm not proposing that all the press become some sort of organ for the State. However, the distortion of public debate that such biased editorial angles cause does no favours to the British public. I emigrated from N Zealand to the UK 5 years ago and have seen a vast improvement in Britain since I arrived. But if you read the papers you'd think that before 1997 the UK was a utopia. To pretend that all politicians are liars and corrupt is disingenuous at the best and dangerous at the worst.
C, London/ex New Zealand

Please can we have on the ballot paper the list of candidates, plus "None of the above" so that, for the first time ever, ALL electors can be allowed give their truthful opinion of the candidates?
Anon, UK

Ironically, politics is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago. It's only since the war that British politics cleaned up its act. Read Hansard some time – the old records are hilarious, in a horrifying kind of way. Of course, nostalgia is easier than looking clear-eyed at history. That we are angry at dirty politics is not an indicator of declining standards, but of raised expectations, which can only be a good thing. Those genuinely upset might consider actual political involvement – from keeping abreast of what their MPs do and keeping in touch with them, to becoming involved in local and national party politics. If you don't want to be part of the problem, be part of the solution.
Kaz, Briton in NJ, USA

If politics has become too dirty, it is only because there are no policies. The Red Party and the Blue Party are virtually identical, with the same policies dictated from the same places, so to try and attract voter interest they descend to soap opera.
Simon Richardson, London, UK

This week's spiteful little argument regarding immigration is yet another in a long line of destructive exchanges between Labour and Conservative, while the Lib Dems heckle from the sidelines. Mr Blair, Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy, could you please for the sake of the country and the rest of the world, grow up and stand up like the educated and intelligent men you are and give us some genuine leadership instead of your version of break time in the playground.
Alasdair Carie, Newport Pagnell, UK

I don't think "dirty" is the right word – these seem more appropriate: Discredited, dishonest, untrustworthy, suspicious. I have great difficulty in finding any politician of any party I can believe. I will not be able to vote at the next election – there simply isn't anyone worthy to elect.
Karl Mabert, Beckenham, England

When was politics clean?
Chris Klein, Chandlers Ford, UK

Please, Britain, spare yourselves the spectacle of a US-style election campaign. We were asked to choose last year between two candidates whose only election message was that the other guy was an idiot/liar. Hardly the way to select a world leader and it's about time that the candidates got this message.
John Mycroft, Asheville, USA

Personally, I don't mind who my politicians sleep with, which drugs they've taken or who they've bad mouthed. I just want a politician who does what he or she promises. Unfortunately politics is not about how to run a country (that's for the economists and civil servants to get on with) it's a popularity contest and it doesn't seem to matter how they win.
Anonymous

The problem is that politics has been taken over by professional politicians. In previous times, people went into politics as a vocation once they had achieved success in their lives. Nowadays it is treated as a career option for megalomaniac failures who have never lived or worked in the real world. As such they are totally out of touch with what needs to be done and hence their only option is to slag each other off rather than suggest ways to make the UK a better place.
Simon, London

As an alienated voter, I feel that certain incumbents have habitually broken promises to make the country better and failed in their duty to listen to the public voice. For that reason only I look forward to the day when "None of the above" appears on a ballot slip.
Paul, Colchester

I am a reasonably intelligent person but I can't find the heart to get too overheated about the coming election because, try as I might, the politicians all seem more concerned with slagging each other off and spinning than in getting down to the nitty-gritty. On TV and radio debate programmes they come across as a bunch of squabbling toddlers who aren't interested in what their voters think. I fear that this coming election will have a really low turn out because they've lost all credibility due to their constant bickering.
Sass, Somerset

The only way to find out if the electorate trust any party is to have an abstain (or "none of the above") box on our ballot papers. Of course, getting them to the polling station in the first place is yet another issue.
Ashley Hinton, Didcot, Oxfordshire

Too dirty, no. Too dumbed down, definitely YES! The issues facing our country are complex, and cannot easily be explained or answered in the 30 seconds that our soundbite culture demands. Add to this the seeming inability of large parts of the electorate to perform any sort of critical yet open minded analysis of any political manifesto or policy statement, and one comes to the conclusion that democracy is wasted on the electorate of this country.
John, England

Of course modern politics has become dirty. All the political parties are effectively identical, the only edge they can gain is by rubbishing someone else's name. In reality there is little or no reason to vote for any of them. I would like to see a party that has some guts and realistic ideas, not the usual stop-gaps.
Jon, UK

Politics, by its very nature, is "dirty". A politician's whole purpose in life is to get elected. They spend the next years of their life, not in the service of those that elected them, but in an attempt to be re-elected. They will say and do just about anything to gain power. Once they have power, their only concern is how they can retain it. There are "good people" in politics, people that stand for a cause, not just for elections. However, they will never reach the higher seats of power.. so we are left with the corrupt and inept.
Jane Higgins, Reading, UK

I think the average voter feels so totally disenfranchised from all the leading parties right now, that a dirty tricks campaign will have very little effect. I cannot look to any one party any more that even vaguely represents my personal views, and I am certainly not either extremely left or right in my beliefs. The continual onslaught of the politically correct brigade, and the people who believe that although unelected, that they have the right to impose their views on government, has actually resulted in a political system that cannot make any real decisions anymore. An elected government should be allowed to run the country without having to justify every single action to the people who don't agree with it. After five years, we have the option to change them if they haven't performed well. Between elections, they should be left to get on with it. Then I might know who to vote for, not before.
Richard Dixon, Herts, UK

These days, voting is like trying to pick the best of a bad bunch. People lose interest in politics because no-one really believes any of the parties are going to make a difference, they are far too busy bickering over minute details of each other's proposals to really give any thought to the working person.
Beck, Cardiff, Wales

Politics has always been this dirty. What has changed is that our politicians lack the heart, courage and ambition to deal with long-term, complex answers to long-term complex problems in this country. Look at the ability, integrity and sense of purpose possessed by our post-war politicians, and compare them with that we have now. It mattered not that these politicians were constantly sniping at each other in the background, as they had the substance to ensure there was plenty to remain foregrounded.
Mark, London, UK

This country becomes more 'Americanised' by the day and the forthcoming elections are just another example. The Kerry v Bush campaigns centred more on slagging each other off and trying to discredit rather than telling the country exactly what their policies were going to be and how they planned to follow them through. The same appears to be happening here. It's time the political parties woke up to themselves and realised that smear campaigns only result in fewer people going out to vote.
Kiltie, Staffs, UK

Tory says don't vote Labour. Labour says don't vote Tory. People are convinced by both, and don't vote for either. They are all much of a muchness anyway.
Jeffrey Lake, London, UK

The fact was confirmed by recent elections in USA and Ukraine. The background of elections in the year 2005 is clearly not what politics in a democracy used or meant to be. Having said that, politics have always been dirty, from the days of the mighty Roman Empire till today. The difference is the number of people affected by political decisions and their consequences.
Harry Papadopoulos, Athens, Greece

Yes, it has become too dirty and all the parties are equally to blame. There is a tremendous apathy in respect of anything political, comments of "well what did you expect from that lot" and "there's no such thing as an honest politician" are quite common place. It's virtually impossible to get a straight answer – which means you must commit yourself – from any of today's politicians. I didn't agree with a lot of what Maggie Thatcher did but you have to admit you always knew where you stood with her, no spin and straight answers. If you want to win votes return to those values.
Terry, Epsom, Surrey, England

Too dirty? Compared to other elections around the world, ours are positively clean! Just a pity that doesn't mean they'll tell either the truth or all of it. I for one don't trust a word any politician says any more.
Ian P, Birmingham, UK

Politics is no longer about issues that matter. Any voting system has an element that is, at root, a popularity contest but modern elections are little more than glorified episodes of Big Brother. Sadly, given the ignorance of most people when it comes to political points and important issues, this 'dirty politics' may be the only way to get our apathetic public to vote.
Jim, Birmingham

I always think that if politicians spend their time talking about what their opposite numbers are doing wrong, then they can't have much to say about what they themselves might be doing right.
Susie, Nottingham, UK

I would like the parties, especially the one in power, to tell me why I should vote for them – i.e., how they will solve the problems that this country faces. I am not interested in negative propaganda telling me why I had better not vote for the others. That just indicates they are running scared.
Ian, UK

Politics has always been, and will ever continue to be, a dirty game. Politicians now complaining about being criticised should be more honest in their dealings, then they need never fear an inquiry. As for Cherie Blair, if she goes around posing as a person of power, rather than just the wife of an elected politician, then she should expect the same treatment.
Chris, UK

India-Pakistan cricket – too hard a Test?

For leading Indian sports writer, Rohit Brijnath, who begins here a series of columns for BBC News Online, distrust between India and Pakistan is too deep to be bridged by Test matches.

Let India tour Pakistan next month but let's remember, this is never just cricket. And that's a bloody shame.

The more romantic among us are moved to measure it with the Ashes. It is an artless comparison.

The numbers themselves tell us something is askew.

India and Pakistan have played each other 47 times – India five wins, Pakistan nine wins, 33 draws, the latter statistic perhaps reflecting the excessive, and unfortunate, caution with which the contests are approached.

England and Australia, just from 1948 onwards, have contested more than 150 Tests.

I guess hate keeps getting in our way.

Australia versus England brings with it a certain baggage, but mostly it is sport, ball versus bat.

Jocular taunts are hurled, national characteristics mocked, but there is only an edge of malice.

When India play Pakistan, it is about war paint, drumbeats – an alarming jingoism.

It may bring out the best in our teams but often the worst in us.

Stupidity

Already there is news of a TV network dubbing this encounter the "LOC series".

Apparently they mean Lions of Cricket [rather than the Line of Control that separates divided Kashmir] but it suggests stupidity has no finishing line.

Let us go and compete in Karachi and Lahore, but let us be clear on this much: Whoever says sport heals wounds has been reading too much Hans Christian Andersen.

The Olympics, for instance, always begin with speeches on world peace but it is laughable.

The two Koreas may have marched together at the Games, but the hostilities endure.

I'm certainly no cynic, but sport as symbolism has limited value.

The distrust between India and Pakistan is too deep to be bridged by a cricket match.

Let us not expect men in white flannels to do what politicians for years have been unable to.

Their strength is cover drives not diplomacy, and it is foolish to invest cricket with more importance than it deserves.

Let us watch Shoaib Akhtar thunder in to bowl at Sachin Tendulkar (the only present Indian player to have played a Test there), but do not be fooled.

The players are not too thrilled about the tour. Families in India read about assassination attempts on President Pervez Musharraf and anxiety predictably follows.

"How safe is it? What's the situation there?" the players are asking.

Cocooned

Once, no Indian cricket team touring Pakistan would have been touched.

Any group, fundamentalist or otherwise, who picked on them would have been ostracised.

But there is no logic to terrorism, no reason to suicide bombers except the creation of chaos.

The world has changed and even cricketers, who profess not to read newspapers, have heard about that.

The team, so it is strongly rumoured, has written to Jagmohan Dalmiya, head of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, asking for three to four weeks rest before the tour to Pakistan.

The players ask that the Tests not be played back-to-back and express their concerns over security.

There is talk that the team will be provided prime minister-style security and unquestionably the Pakistanis will ensure the Indians are well looked after and that their hospitality is hard to match.

But if the players are cocooned in their rooms, prevented from walking the streets or interacting with the public, shadowed by grim machine-gun-toting policemen from hotel to ground, is that the atmosphere cricket should be played in?

Even for those who view this as less cricket and more a peace mission must ask themselves: What good is it if ambassadors are forced to live on room service?

Reasonable people want nations with so much in common to end their enmity.

They want the killings in Kashmir to stop. They want the nuclear muscle-flexing to end.

But cricket cannot fix this.

If we can remember that, let's go ahead with this tour.

A wonderfully generous Madras crowd stood in 1999 to applaud the victorious Pakistanis and it was a moment of sweetness to last forever.

For that day it was just about cricket. That's the way it should be.

To read Rohit Brijnath's future columns, bookmark bbcnews.com/southasia

Here is a selection of comments about this article.

We see the same pattern every time. India announces a tour or series against Pakistan raising the expectations of everyone on both sides. Then as regular as clockwork, shortly before the cricket is due to begin they pull out citing the Kashmir as an excuse or in this case security. One wonders why they announce the games in the first place. Why should they have security concerns in Pakistan? Has anything ever happened to them there? Pakistan went to India despite death threats from Hindu fundamentalists who also dug up the pitches, whats happened to discourage the Indians? The thought of facing Shoaib and Sami in a test match? Its clear to see that the Pakistanis have the attitude of 'anywhere, any time and any place'. If this was matched by the Indians maybe we'd get some good cricket.
Ahmad, England

Let India tour Pakistan next month but let's remember, this is never just cricket. But Mr Rohit, no way that's a bloody shame.
Yousuf Anwar , pakistan

I do not think that it will be safe for Indian cricketers to play cricket in Pakistan. Either way they wii face problems if they win or Loose
Ramnik Ganatra, UK

Whilst I have to agree with Mr Brijnath's article, as a UK citizen of Pakistani origin who has travelled 5 times recently to India on business, I have to sadly say that people in India suffer from too much one-sided disinformation and thus have a far more hostile and negative view of Pakistan, than the other way around. It is therefore not surprising where the feeble retisence shown by India's players comes from. I have often said that it would indeed be an education for most Indians to visit Pakistan – not just for cosmetic hospitality, but to learn to think big, act big and widen your horizons. So let that education begin with India's visit to Pakistan – and let those in both countries remember that it is after all, only cricket: there are surely more important things in life, otherwise one's life is truly sad! Religous zealots and vested interests on both sides of the border, please also take note.
Shaukat Sadullah, England

I think this sereis will be the best one in the game of cricket. Not only Shoaib vs Tendulker but also thousands of fans on across the border in India and Pakistan. But we have to patient and to see the cricket as game not a war.
Tausif Khan, Pakistan

I agree with the spirit of the article. It is not positive/ negative, but mature. In fact I would prefer the Pakistani team coming to India which is a much safer place. So let the tour to Pakistan be cancelled and the series be conducted in India.
John, India

Hello there Mr. Rohit! I went through your column, it was very interesting and realistic in views. I got the feeling that you looked more to the darker side of the picture, while one should always see that the glass of water is half filled. At the end of day there is something to excite about for more than a billion masses of subcontinent after four five years. We should not lose the oppotunity that can bring harmony between the two… Let the Islamabad & New Delhi governments play their own chess. Which is the favarite game on both sides people love to watch? – Cricket between men in Green & Blue. Lets hope for a lot of cheers, laughters, OOoowws, AAaahhs, yeeeaahhhs. Ilyas Khan Peshawar
Ilyas Khan, Pakistan

Why such kind of articles are written which haven't any facts? When Pakistan went to Indian tour, none of our columnists ever wrote anything about the security things, even Bal Thackeray threat many times. The thing only as a mad viewer of cricket I know is that they should play cricket. Don't play politics and don't play with the emotions of people. I hope Indians will get best possible hospitality on this tour. I am hopeful
Ali Shazad, Pakistan

Nicely written but sounds too much underconfidence. Let the two great teams face, let the public have entertainment, let some hearts beats run faster, let the momentum going. Of course, unless humanity and sense of reasoning fails to prevail at both side of LOC, no attempt to bring the seperated cousins together will be futile. But, attempts should be made to thaw the frozen relationship, and what would be better than the game of cricket which dominates the emotion of the subcontinent. Thanks KK
Dr. Krishna Kaphle, Nepal/Taiwan

I think you have completely shown the wrong picture in this article. I agree with the facts that its like a comic scene when TV channels give the series names like LOC etc. However I think you have to start somewhere. This will definitely bring respect amongst us Pakistanis for Indians because they would've kept trust in us. I think as far as the series goes it will be a cracker. Talking about the security of the players, well let me tell you one thing mates, us Pakistani are humans as well and I don't think anyone would harm a sportmen, espcecially Indians whom you might not know Pakistani people respect a lot. I think they would be safe to go anywhere within the city and I can gurantee they will be loaded with people for their autographs and tips. I think it will be a great sucess. I'm greatful to the BCCI president for this marvelous tour. Kind Regards
Rehan, Pakistan

I agree with the author that this crater of hatred is pretty hard to fill but we have to start from somewhere. Moreover, do not rely completely on the politicians for the peace process to take place. More interaction between people of both countries will make us realize that after all we are afterall same in all aspect of our lives. But at least we will be able to watch the most exciting contest between ball and bat.
Ashutosh Pandey, India

Pakistan and India's cricket teams get along best on and off the field. I really believe that a minority is keeping the hatred alive. Deep down inside, the majority of Indians and Pakistanis know that friendship is inevitable. Inshallah.
Mansur Janjua, Jelhum, Punjab, Pakistan

Give me a break man. Stop crying. the tour is on. nothings gonna happen to anyone. what is gonna happen is that india will get beat. so dont make excuses from now. wait and see. we beat you in your home country, and we'll do the same back in pk.
jahiz barlas, usa

This is very good that india is playing against the pakistan
Mohan R kamble, india

They say that cab drivers know how to run the country best. I could say the same for someone who has been asked to write about cricket. Its a real shame that everything Indian is drawn within a Pakistani frame of reference. If you've been given the opportunity to write about cricket. Stick to cricket! Treat sport as sport. Yes, I agree that tensions override some exchanges, but maybe if we paid less attention to the borders, we could get over the obsession and hopefully someday have a cricket team that has Pakistani bowlers and Indian batsmen.
Abhishek Dahiya, UK

Mr. Brijnath is absolutely right to say that distrust between India and Pakistan is too deep to be bridged by Test matches. It is also true that the public mood in Pakistan is not very India-friendly, and the security situation is also not very reassuring. However, in the best sub-continental tradition, Mr Brijnath, while recalling the generous applause received by the Pakistanis at Madras in 1999, conveniently forgets Bal Thakrey's thugs who dug up the pitch at Bombay to prevent an India-Pak match, not to mention the last test match played between the two sides in Calcutta, which had to be completed in an empty stadium after serious crowd trouble. For any hope of rooting out the distrust existing between us, people like Mr. Brijnath will have to take the initiative in breaking this strong tradition of self-righteousness that prevails at all levels on both sides.
M Jamaluddin, Qatar

I am sorry i do not agree with Rohit Brijnath's article or the spirit it was written in.It seems to be the writing of one who has no hope and has probably never entertained any either. I am from Pakistan and i agree at least with the sentiment, nay the prayer that hostilities end between the two countries and peace prevails, because it is not the people who want war, but the war mongers who benifit from war. the common people hardly ever want war, unless it is forced upon them, unless their country is invaded and they are forced to fight. It is the politician's and the people who sell weapons who profit from war and who want war. Let us send a message to these people that their control is coming to an end, their war-mongering is coming to an end and their money making out of the misery of humanity is coming to an end. Let this cricket tour be the first step to peace which the people of both countries crave. It is not the politicians who will stop the war, it is the people, and sports can be used to heal and show solidarity. i do not want sports to mingle with politics and thus i am happy that the tour is going ahead despite people who want war or write thinly veiled articles professing gloom. Let sports not be effected by politics or war mongering, and let sports heal all the wounds that politics cannot
Shafqat Ayaz, UK

I find Rohit's remarks, about hatred and mistrust between the peoples of India and Pakistan, quite interesting. Why not think in terms of the Indian team being a delegation of embassadors who are there to promote better relations. It will also give the Pakistani crowds an opportunity to think peace, because that is what the two countries are stiving to achieve, in which case there will be a lot of conversions from negative to positive thinking, I HOPE.
Zahir, UK

Indo- Pak cricket is marred by the politics specially the Kashmir dispute, even being a Kashmiri I am fed up with it. I hope in the near future an acceptable solution is found so that cricket can be freed from politics.
Amaad, UK

Well, it was India which politicised the game. Political differences aside, cricket is a game not a political tool to blackmail any country. Let the politicians and diplomats handle the peace negotiations and let players play the game – unless of course, if you don't want peace in the region!
Ozair Khan, USA

Cricket will certainly help bringing people of both countries toghether. it is most popular game in sub continent and both countries have some great players. in 1978 cricket ties were restored after 17 years and series in pakistan was highly successful.this time indian are coming after more than 10 years.
Abdul Jabbar, Dallas USA

I couldn't agree more with you on this subject. Your are right on money.
Mohammad Ismail, Pakistani American

Dear Rohit, Who told you that polititions want peace?? And who told you that BCCI wants some "pure cricket" out of this tour? The unfortunate fact is that polititions in both the contries want war, and board wants money!!! It's as simple as that. -nilesh
Nilesh, India

A very well written article, a balanced one indeed!
Syed F Imtiaz, Canada

Mr. Brijnath, the days of old are over; we are in a new age and if you can't understand that with your skeptism and negativity then whatever credentials you have that proved for some reason worthy of BBC then BBC is in fault for paying attention to your chirpings.
Rafay Siddiqui, USA

Nice article Rohit, but I sense a hint of negativity throughout the article. True, cricket may not be the end all solution for India and Pakistan's woeful relationship, but it is a great start for patchwork to take place. Growth can only take place once trust has been established, and a senior Indian visiting Pakistan goes a long way in building the ground work. Our cricketers(India and Pakistan's) are leading the way, now we as a people must follow suit.
Caesar, India

An India Pakistan fixture is always more than just a game of cricket. If Pakistan could tour India despite pitch invasion threats from radical Hindu groups and if India can plan an extended tour of Pakistan despite major security concerns about their individual safety, that shows sportsmen would do for their countries what their politicians often wouldn't: to make sacrifices. No wonder sports always supersedes politics and that's how it should be everytime we hear or talk about another India Pakistan game.
Hasan Faruq, Bangladesh

New Zealand played in Pakistan, it was a wonderful series, no security problems, I don't get why India keeps trying to deface Pakistan… let us remember it was in India that the Pakistani team was attacked in 1996, it was in India that extremist Hindus sabatoged the grounds, not in Pakistan.
John MaCvoy, NewZealand

Rohit Brijnath's article – even if realistic – is far too pessimistic. What is needed at this time is for journalists and the media to project greater hope, greater optimism, and greater confidence that the India-Pakistan relationship is on the mend. We need a chorus of hope, and not a shrill of fear.
Venkat Narayan,

It always helps advertisers to hype an event beyond reasonable proportions, fact is, a lot of money is at stake here, not just from brand names who want to capitalize on such a rare and important game, but also the bookies. I had read recently about how a match between India and Australia was worth at least a few hundred crores rupees, a conservative estimate would be 44 million USD. Thus, one can conclude that the Indo-Pak encounter could be worth at least double that rate. Both the cricketing boards, especially the PCB, have too much to loose if this game does not move forward.
Tanmay Kudyadi, India

This seems to come from a guy who has already given up hope for an Indian victory on Pakistan soil. I dont see nay harm even if the series is considered as LOC. I am all for the indians to have some rest before they go to Pakistan. The last excuse we all want is fatigue. Let the competition begin and let cricket prevail.
Tauseef Aalam, Scotland

Click here to return

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published.

Mystery of murdered tribal journalist

The murder of a Pakistani journalist who reported on the alleged killing of an al-Qaeda suspect highlights the dangers for the media in the tribal areas.

The body of Hayatullah Khan, himself a tribesman, was found last Friday in North Waziristan, more than six months after he was abducted by unknown persons.

His family blame the security forces in the tribal areas for his murder.

The authorities have consistently denied allegations that the security forces had anything to do with Mr Khan's kidnapping or killing, and the government has ordered a judicial inquiry.

Meanwhile, journalists in major Pakistani cities have held protest demonstrations against the murder.

The case underlines the immense pressure journalists in the tribal areas are under and the effect this is having on the media's relations with the government.

'Recognised' kidnappers

Hayatullah Khan was kidnapped near the town of Mir Ali in December last year.

His family said at the time he had been taken by the security forces, who were furious at his "independent reporting".

Mr Khan went missing after reporting that al-Qaeda suspect Abu Hamza Rabia had been killed in a US air strike – and not in an accidental explosion while making a bomb, as claimed by Pakistani authorities.

Mr Khan's younger brother, Ehsanullah, recently spoke to the BBC News website in detail about his brother's disappearance.

Ehsanullah says that Hayatullah clearly recognised his kidnappers when his car was stopped as he was nearing home in December last year.

"He told his guards and tribesmen who were in the car with him not to resist those people," says Ehsanullah.

"He said he would soon be back."

Hayatullah belonged to the influential Daur tribe of North Waziristan.

A massive manhunt was launched by his tribesmen but, according to Ehsanullah, they did not find anything that could convince them that Hayatullah had been taken by the Taleban or any other militant group based in the area.

"The security forces changed their statement at least three times," he says.

"They first said he owed someone money and had been kidnapped by some debt enforcer.

"A few weeks later, they said he may have been taken by the Americans because his wife was supposedly very close friends with Abu Hamza Rabia's wife.

"Still later, they told us that he had probably been taken by the Taleban."

'US detention'

In the meantime, Ehsanullah had made contact with various media bodies, including the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Pressure from these organisations forced the Pakistani government to order an inquiry into his disappearance.

The inquiry was entrusted to the Joint Staff Headquarters of the Pakistan army.

It reported in March this year that Hayatullah was not taken by the security forces.

The inquiry report suggested that he had most probably been taken by the Taleban somewhere in Afghanistan.

Mr Khan's family rejected the inquiry report, arguing that the Taleban are not known for taking prisoners.

"They either release their captives or kill them usually within a couple of days," says Ehsanullah.

"The fact that months went by without any of us hearing from him means he was in the custody of the authorities."

Ehsanullah Khan compared his brother's situation to one of his earlier disappearances.

About two years before his kidnapping, Hayatullah was arrested by the Americans in Afghanistan.

Suspected of being a Taleban ally, he was interrogated at the Bagram airbase for almost two months.

"He managed to convince the Americans that he was nothing more than a journalist and they released him," says Ehsanullah.

He showed the BBC News website the hood and the handcuffs they had used on Hayatullah and which he had brought back as souvenirs.

'I warned him'

Speaking to the BBC after Hayatullah's body had been recovered, his widow, Mehrunnisa, said her husband had fallen victim to a conspiracy hatched by the Pakistani security forces.

"He got 20 phone calls from intelligence officers on 2 December 2005," Ms Mehrunnisa said.

"I know those officers. They wanted Hayatullah to report that Abu Hamza Rabia had been killed by an American missile.

"I warned him that they were trying to trap him but he did not listen to me."

The family says that they have little faith in the judicial inquiry as the "government knew all along where he was and who had taken him".

Ehsanullah Khan says he was told by the local authorities that he would hear about his brother between 15 and 20 June.

"I thought they had decided to release him and we were planning to welcome him back," Ehsanullah says.

"Little did we know that we would be told, again by an army major, where to collect his body from."

Journalists protesting against the murder say it is not just a matter of the government's failure to protect journalists reporting from the tribal areas under extremely hazardous circumstances.

"In this case, the government stands as the prime accused," says Mazhar Abbas, secretary general of Pakistan's largest journalist union.

"Unless it can pinpoint and arrest Hayatullah's murderers, it may be impossible for the government to shake off the allegations of being guilty of killing a journalist."

Wales head of digital TV league

More people in Wales have taken up digital television than in any other part of the UK, according to research by communications watchdog Ofcom.

It found 72% of Welsh homes with digital TV, against 65% across the UK.

The research also highlighted the differences between digital TV watching habits in Wales and the UK generally.

In the UK overall, none of the top 10 programmes contained sport, whereas in Wales, four of the 10 were sport-related, and all about rugby.

The report also confirmed that Wales continues to have among the lowest home internet usage in the UK.

One of the factors behind this could be that fewer homes in Wales have landline telephones than in other areas.

The Welsh are far more likely, at 13% compared to an average 8%, to rely on mobile phones as their only means of making and receiving calls.

But people in Wales primarily use the phones for emergency calls, and are more likely to use pre-paid mobiles.

Wales has the lowest mobile network coverage, with 79.8% of the country covered by all four networks, although 99.8% of the population can access at least one.

The report, The Communications Market: Nations and Regions, examined availability, take-up and usage of the internet, telecoms and broadcasting services. It sampled 4,426 adults across the UK, of whom 292 were from Wales.

Although digital TV take-up is high in Wales, the report noted that usage is mainly driven by higher than average satellite services.

Also, the proportion of homes receiving digital terrestrial television (DTT) via platforms such as Freeview is much lower than the UK average – 57% compared to 73%.

With the switchover from analogue TV to digital in Wales scheduled for September 2009, there have been fears some viewers will be left behind.

However, Ofcom Wales director Rhodri Williams said the body set up to manage the switch, Digital UK, had the responsibility to ensure nobody would be unable to receive digital.

Media literacy

"Everybody in Wales will have access to digital TV after switchover. Nobody who gets a quality picture at the moment is going to lose it," he said.

The report noted that up to 204 relay transmitters in Wales needed to be converted to carry the DTT signal before switchover happened.

Although 59% of households in Wales have a personal computer, only 49% have internet access, and of that number, 54% use a broadband connection.

One aspect of the research focused on "media literacy". Welsh people were found to be less aware of internet issues and less internet literate than people in other parts of the country.

They were also more trusting of the medium, and more likely to give out personal information such as bank, credit card and mobile phone details.

Sue Balsom, the Ofcom content board's member for Wales, said knowledge of and access to communications services such as the internet were vital.

"If people don't know there is content there, and they can't find it, that raises huge citizenship questions," she said.

Sadler death ‘ruled accidental’

A verdict of accidental death has been recorded at an inquest into the death of Holby City actress Laura Sadler.

No relatives or media attended the hearing at West London Coroner's Court on 27 August.

Sadler died four days after falling from the balcony of her boyfriend George Calil's flat in Holland Park, west London.

Police have said Mr Calil will not face any charges.

A spokesman for Hammersmith and Fulham Council, speaking on behalf of the coroner's office, said written evidence from Mr Calil given to the coroner included details that the couple had been drinking shortly before the accident.

They had consumed "a lot of vodka and wine" and Ms Sadler had been up watching the sun rise at 0600 when the accident happened on 14 June.

She had fallen from the balcony of the flat, suffering severe facial injuries and massive head injuries.

A verdict of accidental death was recorded by deputy coroner Elizabeth Pygott.

The council spokesman said evidence given at an earlier inquest hearing on 23 June – also not attended by any press – included a toxicology report. This showed that there were derivatives of cocaine and traces of diazepam and a large amount of alcohol in Ms Sadler's body.

The spokesman said there was no suggestion that the hearings had been held "in secret" as some reports had suggested.

In the second instance, the coroner's officer on duty had simply forgotten to alert journalists.

"Because the parents wanted it (dealt with) quickly and sensitively, and there were no witnesses, it was possible to slip this one in," he said.

The Home Office, which licences coroners' courts, said under policy guidance the local media was normally informed about inquests "where possible".

A spokesman said this was not a legal requirement but an informal arrangement in the spirit of media relations.

No comment

However, one news agency which covers the court, Fleetline News Service, said it regularly contacted the court but was not informed the hearing was on the list.

When contacted by BBC News Online, West London Coroner's Court in Fulham referred calls to the local council.

No comment was forthcoming from Ms Sadler's agent or the BBC.

Ms Sadler's farewell TV appearance as nurse Sandy Harper was watched by millions of fans on Tuesday.

Teflon’s sticky situation

It's on saucepans, clothing, even buildings, but now Teflon – the famed non-stick chemical – is at the centre of a slippery controversy about cancer and birth defects.

Since its invention in the 1930s, amateur and professional cooks alike will acknowledge their debt of gratitude to Teflon. Over the years, the non-stick coating on pots and pans has helped turn out countless perfect fried eggs and cheese soufflés.

But for how much longer? Environmentalists have called for the withdrawal of a chemical which is a key ingredient in the manufacture of Teflon because of growing health fears.

Perfluorooctanoic Acid, PFOA for short, is a synthetic chemical used in the manufacture of advanced plastics including Teflon.

Today, all new man-made chemicals must undergo rigorous testing to be marketed in Europe. But PFOA is one of 100,000 or so chemicals which avoided the test because they were invented before 1981.

Teflon was invented in the 1930s by DuPont, the US firm which uses it today to make non-stick cookware, and also markets it as a coating for clothes and carpets.

The company recently agreed to an out-of-court settlement to a class action lawsuit brought by around 50,000 residents who lived near its West Virginia plant.

The residents, who lived along the Ohio river south of Parkersburg, West Virginia, claimed the company had contaminated local water supplies with PFOA, which they alleged was linked to birth defects and other health hazards.

Among the plaintiffs was Bucky Bailey, who was born with a single nostril and a deformed face. His mother fell pregnant with him while working at DuPont's Parkersburg plant.

DuPont eventually agreed to pay $50m in cash to the plaintiffs, plus $22m in legal costs. The company also agreed to spend $10m on special water treatment facilities to filter out PFOA.

But, crucially, DuPont did not accept liability and maintained PFOA did not pose any danger to the public.

Water tests

"We want to make very clear that settling this lawsuit in no way implies any admission of liability on DuPont's part," says DuPont lawyer Stacey J Mobley.

At the same time, DuPont is facing another multi-million dollar lawsuit from the US environmental watchdog for allegedly failing to disclose the results of secret water tests in 1984.

It faces being fined $27,000 for every day since 1984.

Now, environmental campaigners on both sides of the Atlantic want to ban the controversial chemical.

"PFOA accumulates in the body and in the environment and studies on animals suggest a link to birth defects. We are very concerned about it," says Karine Pellaumail, from Friends of the Earth.

Dr Tim Kropp, a toxicologist working for the Environmental Working Group in the US says tests carried out by the US firm 3M suggested high doses of PFOA led to various forms of cancer in rats.

"DuPont have some brilliant scientists and I don't believe that they couldn't find an alternative if they put their minds to it," says Dr Kropp.

'Respond with compassion'

But DuPont disagrees. "There is no evidence that PFOA is harmful," says its director of media relations, Clifton Webb. "We are very confident that there are no health effects associated with the public's exposure to PFOA at the levels we have seen."

But, he accepts that, in high enough doses, PFOA could be carcinogenic to animals.

As for those who had suffered birth defects, such as Bucky Bailey, he says the firm would "respond with compassion and concern, but they are not related to exposure to PFOA".

According to 3M's tests, PFOA was present in five parts per billion in the bloodstream, says Mr Webb.

Workers exposed to it were likely to have a level "thousands of times higher", he concedes, but there was no evidence it was doing them harm.

As for substitutes, the company has identified around 100 possible alternatives to PFOA – which is used as a processing aid in Teflon – but none could produce the sufficient "quantity or quality" required. Cost, he says, is not an issue.

Last year the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched an investigation into the chemical's effects, a study which is being watched by the British government.

It acknowledges "considerable scientific uncertainties" on the issue but says there is no reason anyone should stop using Teflon products.

But the EPA is expected to submit a more comprehensive risk analysis next month.

Last year the British government called for a related chemical, perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS), to be withdrawn. It followed 3M's decision to abolish the chemical from its well-known Scotchgard products after health concerns were raised.

"PFOA is related to it but nowhere near as much research has been done into it and we are awaiting the outcome of the EPA's research," says a spokesman for Defra.

Others are seeking a more restrained response. Professor Scott Mabury, head of environmental chemistry at the University of Toronto, says a ban on PFOA would be "Draconian" and the answer was to go back to the factory and make sure residual levels of the polluting chemicals were removed in the production process.

"It's an engineering problem," he says. "It's not impossible."

Reality TV works on Israel’s image

An Israeli TV station is to start broadcasting a novel kind of reality show this week in a quest for a new media-friendly Israeli face to present a more positive image of the country abroad.

The Ambassador show pits 14 young Israelis against one another in tasks designed to test their skills at selling Israel's image.

But even before its first broadcast, the series has caused controversy.

The deterioration of Israel's world image was underlined by a recent leaked Foreign Ministry warning that the country could find itself treated as a pariah state in a few years' time.

Innovative solution

A reality TV show may not seem the most obvious answer to the problem, but that is where the new, high-profile series The Ambassador comes in.

The winner will become the ultimate Israeli ambassador, travelling the world to burnish Israel's image.

The contestants were drawn from several thousand applicants who answered an advertisement in the Israeli press for a job in media relations in New York.

The final 14 were picked from a variety of backgrounds, including a settler family, Ethiopian Jewish immigrants and a strict religious family.

In an ad for the show, they are seen posing confidently against the backdrop of Capitol Hill in Washington.

They are among the most "talented, intelligent and motivated" people in Israel, according to the show's publicity.

Each week, they will be set a different task in a different country to test their ability to present Israel in a positive light.

One week, they argue Israel's case at Cambridge University; another, they are in Paris trying to sell holidays to Israel on the Champs Elysees.

A third task is to make a one-minute commercial advertising the delights of Israel to be aired on MTV.

One contestant is eliminated each week by a three-person panel made up of a former secret service chief, an ex-army spokesman and a leading political correspondent.

Controversy

The producers originally wanted Israel's foreign ministry involved, but it withdrew, citing a conflict of interest with its own diplomatic training scheme.

Now, a US-based group called Israel At Heart is providing the final reward – an all-expenses paid year based in New York as a high-profile media director and spokesperson.

Israel At Heart is run by a New York businessman, Joey Low, who came up with the idea of sending presentable, articulate young Israelis around the world to put the country's case after watching an Israeli government spokesman stumble and make little impact on an American news show three years ago.

Israel At Heart has despatched several hundred such "ambassadors" around the world in the past couple of years.

But Joey Low's latest initiative has brought him into conflict with Israeli officialdom.

His criticism of professional Israeli spokespeople in the trailer for the Channel Two show has provoked an angry response from the Foreign Ministry.

In Israel's biggest-selling newspaper, Yediot Aharanot, a Foreign Ministry official condemned his remarks as outrageous, instantly creating an aura of controversy around the show before it has even started.