The situation surrounding Prime Minister David Cameron and the will-he-won't-he with the TV election debates is fairly amusing from the outside, but it provides a huge insight into how politicians actually view the press.
Chicken Dave, Cowardly Cameron those are two phrases that I have typed and uttered repeatedly to describe our out esteemed PM since this television debate farce began. The truth though is that I have never considered his avoidance tactics to be driven by a fear of going toe to toe in a debate with Ed Miliband.
It's annoying when that sort of thinking applies to people. The fact that something as complex as a human being can be boiled down to their accent or their football team is a shame. But the deeper problem is that it happens to issues, too.
How can public service broadcasters possibly be accused, in the words of Lord Grade, of "grossly inflated and misguided ideas of their own importance" if they dare to suggest that the PM does not actually have a veto over how they go about their business?
50% of us will be diagnosed with cancer during our lifetime so we all have a vested interest in how cancer patients are being treated now and in the future.
I have met David Cameron and I liked him. That in itself is strange as I have a natural dislike of politicians mainly due to the way they speak. Mr Cameron however came across well and I believed every word he said. I also truly believe he meant every word of them.
Perhaps the damage Blair did to the Labour Party is irreparable, but to the blue streak running through it this is an invitation to either get out of politics or switch allegiances. I don't like coalition governments and I don't like you. We need a real, leftist Labour Party again.
Politics is a game and we the British people are losing.
In 2008, while sitting in opposition at the House of Commons, Tory leader David Cameron goaded then prime minister Gordon Brown about an unwillingness to agree to pre-election television debates.
Downing Street has finally come clean over the TV debates. They've admitted that David Cameron only ever had one target audience: his backbenchers. And everyone else including Joe Public and the media can just go swivel. No way is he getting out of bed for them because he's scared.
All those years in Downing Street may have cramped David Cameron's style. Maybe that's why he's shying away from a decent TV debate head-to-head with Ed Miliband. It's the prime minister's hands that reveal a secret he wouldn't want voters in the 2015 general election to know about: that five years in the job is starting to get to him.
Cameron clearly thinks that he will come out of the debates worse off. This is probably a fair assumption. However, it is only contributing to a wider problem. Successful televised debates are more likely to engage young voters - something which the Tories don't seem to want to do.
For now the Green party are an obvious choice for students wanting change. Fears of climate change and the scrapping of tuition fees, social welfare policies, high representation of women and LGBT candidates are all reasons why.
More than two years ago David Cameron promised, at Prime Minister's Questions, to require the energy companies, by law, to put all customers on the cheapest tariff. Quite an undertaking, you might think. Yet research I've published today has revealed that despite 17 solemn promises, 75% of households are still not on their supplier's cheapest tariff. Or, to put it another way, three out of four households are being routinely overcharged by their energy supplier. And not just by a little bit, they're being overcharged a lot.
In my view, the EU would be a better place, if the plethora of its policies were not defined as an outcome of the everlasting conflicts between a humanitarian but unrealistic France and a productive but austere Germany, but if they were rather set by a pragmatist Britain. This outcome might as well be the best choice possible for Europe's -and Britain's- future.
The way our transport system works, with an apparently acceptable amount of death and injury, has to stop. We need serious investment in change. £10 per head per annum on cycling is a drop in the ocean. We need much more than that if we are to turn the juggernaut around and let our cities and cycling thrive.