Politicans & Footballers: How long should a sex scandal haunt you on google?

One of the brilliant things about the predictive searches on Google is that it lets you know what other people are searching for and which are the most popular searches. It has also thrown up, for me, a big question in the last few days - google can be a great record of your successes but also a permenant reminder of your failures. If you make a slip up - no matter of what proportion it doesn't only damage your career at that moment but can follow you around. Currently, as far as I know, there are only references to "conservative" and "Norwich" for me. But imagine if you were caught in a scandal; how long would that ghost you on Google? And do different people suffer in different ways and for different lengths of time?

Take for example a young man called Ben Alnwick; the goalkeeper in City's 4-0 win in the Carling Cup this week. Having heard of Alnwick from his time with Spurs I googled him to see his form. Aside from his footballing career, predictive google gave me 7 alternative searches about him - all referring to a sex scandal that we was involved in 3 years ago when he was 19 years old. He was filmed having sex with a lady alongside 2 of his team-mates and 3 years on he still pays the price on google. If you google Alnwick thats what you know about him.

So out of interest I turn to Steve Norris; former Tory Minister and erstwhile candidate for Mayor of London. Mr Norris was one the people who typified "Tory sleaze". Norris apparently kept 5 mistresses secret from his wife for some time - a very busy man! Google Mr Norris and ... you guessed it, not a word of this comes up! If you google Norris he gets away with no references.

So what are the differences between Norris - a high profile sex scandal - and Alnwick - a low profile one - where Alnwick is still there and Norris isn't? Could it be what they have achieved after the sex scandal is over? Alnwick is still playing football, not a lot to report, whilst Norris has gone on to be one of the most high profile Tories and their first candidate in the London Mayoralties.

OK, so let's take a politican who fell from grace and never recovered. Somebody who has done virtually or actually nothing since leaving office. Take, Ron Davies. Labour's Welsh Secreary was forced to quit in 1998 after a "moment of madness" on Clapham Common. Let's predictive google Ron Davies then, of whom we have heard nothing since then. Well, there is one reference to just "resignation" and one to "badger" but nothing to otherwise suggest what he was involved in. If you google Davies you have to click on to find his sex scandal.

So maybe its to do with the time period; Alnwick's case was quite recent so let's look at more and less recent cases. Every google predictive on (Lord) Cecil Parkinson is about his sex scandal and love child - and that happened 20 years ago. For Boris Johnson, his sex scandal is not mentioned at all.

Could it be be about political seniority? Former Prime Minister John Major's affair has a single reference, as does Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescotts. Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook gets away with it completely. Unlikely to be about that then.

What about the more bizarre caes? Well, LibDem MP Mark Oaten's has 4 predictive references and 3 of them are about his incidents with Rent Boys. So maybe.

Either way, footballer Alnwick has a right to be a bit miffed if his minor case ghosts him on Google longer than the more serious sex scandals by politicans. However I suppose that the predictive google works on how popular certain search phrases are - so the public set what is notworthy and what isn't. Mayne Norris & Cook have been "forgiven" in the eyes of the public whereas Oaten hasn't? Certainly people who google Oaten seem to care more about the scandal than his other political works. Or maybe ALnwick is just more interesting?

This issues continues to puzzle me - and I suppose it will carry on doing so - about why people google what they do. A combination of factors, not least public curiosity about the cases must lead this one.

But predictive google continues to give me hours of fun even if it isn't always fair on people. For example who on earth is googling "Charles Clarke Diet"?

The 1997 General Election

I am ashamed to say that I have had the BBC Parliament replay of the 1997 election result on as background noise for most of the day. Well, 14 hours of it, actually. And in between council work, school marking, playing with Emily and feeding Olivia I have caught up on the results from 10 years ago. This was my first election where not only could I vote (and, yes, I voted for Uxbridge's Tory candidate Sir Michael Shersby) but also the first where I showed an interest in campaigning. I remember sitting at home, as an 18 year old, wondering what ever happened to the goold old days.

I look back now and think how totally unexpected that landslide was. After voting, I spent polling day in Hayes & Harlington where the Tories were defending a 56 vote majority (yes, fifty six). That seat went Labour by 13,000 votes (Leadership challenger John McDonnell won it) whilst my own seat of Uxbridge was only just held by 748 votes. Phew! If only I had known, I might have been a few miles north!

A few things have made me think today. First of all, how little has changed with the BBC coverage (Paxo, Dimbleby exactly the same!) but how dated it all looks. The hairstyles, the clothes and the standard of political debate. The Tories spoke in English, rather than soundbite, which was refreshing.

The second thing was knowing the outcomes - knowing what happened to people. Knowing how few of Labour's warm words were to delivered upon.

I wonder how those people jumping up at down at the Royal Albert Hall to repeated versions of "Things Can Only Get Better" feel now?

Surprisingly I felt the Tories took their pounded with good grace and humour. Watching Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, Education Secretary Gillian Shepherd and Trade Secretary Iain Laing being open and honest with interviwers felt good ... "I'm not in government," said Portillo to Paxo, "so the good thing is I don't have to answer questions like that!" Most Tories thought that our length of time in office was the big factor behind the 14% swing against us. How simple it seemed then, and how different now.

Interesting that Dimbleby picked out Hague for leader on the night - and how little interest was played in Clarke, Lilley and Shepherd (all of whom stood).

But most of all, I got the warm sense of somebody who was right all along. I knew, even at aged 18, that this government would turn into the mess it is today. As all those people cheered out John Major, they really thought Blair would save the nation. When they look at the NHS, schools, crime, immigration, levels of tax or pensions I wonder what they think now?

How wrong they were. But why did the nation have to go through 10 years of Blairism to find out? Easy - because we, as a party, drove them to it. We are to blame and we must never drive people into voting Labour again. Cameron, take note.