as well, we couldn't go on like Hello and welcome to Daily Politics on Friday.

Four politicians have been charged under the theft Act for false accounting.

Gordon Brown has flown to Northern Ireland to throw his support behind a deal on police and justice powers which was agreed by the DUP last night.

We will look at whether Stormont has been brought back from the brink?

Ducking and diving.

As the party's desperately tried to avoid controversy, we will be asking if they are short-changing us by not having enough concrete policies.

And we will be visiting a constituency in this show that does not have an MP.

Has anyone noticed?

We are without a voice, a representative and without our main champion.

And we need one.

On another big day of political news on Friday, I would explain how last week's story became this week's number one.

Top of the To complement the top of the political Pops, we have got numbers one and two in the run-down of Before you start fighting, I will lead you to work out who is number one.

Kier Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, has announced four politicians have been charged under the theft Act for false accounting.

Labour's David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine and the Conservatives Lord Hanningfield.

He said there was insufficient evidence to lay charges in a 5th case.

A 6th is being considered.

The three Labour MPs have refuted charges.

Both of you, we're not going to talk about those at the Civic cases, because of legal restrictions.

-- specific cases.

In general, what impact will this have on the general election?

It will whip up what is called the anti- politics vote.

They are all crooks.

It's quite a strong feeling in Britain for the parliament is hugely unpopular when you compare it to other European parliaments of the the problem parties face is to get people to vote.

If you go to tape -- if you vote for Labour, Conservative, you have got a champion.

What a lot of people think, politicians are run it for themselves, anything they do, or they do is watch dodgy videos.

This will reinforce a huge cynicism but it's something bigger than that.

Something the minority parties begin to.

The idea they're all Which party will suffer the most?

Some people say it could be Labour because they have the most MPs.

Will Labour grassroots say, we expect more of our MPs, perhaps because of the standard and the ideology and background of the Labour Party?

Yes, and the fact it is three Labour MPs and the Tory, who is a peer, is not exactly a household name.

I would have thought that would have more of an impact on the Labour Party.

It is the very fact this has ended up with charges and the CPS, it does mean that a whole expenses scandal really has gone to quite an extreme.

One thing we can talk about is that it looks like, Keir Starmer was saying, the people being charged would like to claim parliamentary privilege under glorious Revolution and all that, 1688.

He says that is going to be tested in court.

Finally on this point, the Commons that were made by so Paul Kennedy that undermined much of what Sir Thomas Legg did, what effect has that had?

He did put for this point that you can't just punish them all the same brush and many of them abided by the rules, the system wasn't right.

Does this have any choice at this stage?

Paul Kennedy is the toast of Westminster at the moment.

You cannot apply retrospective laws.

That is one MPs are desperately wanted to get out.

I do think the average person will agree that if they didn't know they were breaking rules in the first place, it is rough to expect them to be prosecuted now.

Stormont is also having its fair share of drama.

After 10 days of negotiations, the DUP last night announced it will accept the deal with Sinn Fein over the devolution of policing and justice powers.

This morning, Gordon Brown and the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, right that the assembly to discuss the deal and to thank all parties.

Peter Robinson, who has only just returned to his role as First Minister, hailed the agreement as a considerable step forward.

This is a good day for Northern Ireland.

The agreement we have reached secures the progress that we have made in recent years and keeps Northern Ireland moving forward to a better future.

No future generation would for give us for squandering the piece that has been so long fought for.

Today's agreement is the surest sign that there will be no going back to the past.

I believe that we have taken a considerable step to secure the prize of a stable and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Nick Watt, bearing in mind how long these negotiations have taken, I think somebody said it would only be a matter of hours, it is amazing to hear how optimistic they are.

It was not just Peter Robinson, but Martin McGuinness as well talking about how impressed he was and the language of respecting everyone's mandate.

Is it going to hold?

have to be careful about whether anything in Northern Ireland will hold.

Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness have had a testy relationship.

There was great chemistry between them.

Martin McGuinness was cracking a joke.

The Good Friday agreement was signed in April, 1998.

We are now at the final step where it is full devolution are more powers.

That is an extraordinary moment.

This peace process started in April, 1993, when Gerry Adams went to meet John Hume at his house in Derry to bring rashness and Republicans together.

That is a long time ago and we are finally together.

So it is a great day, but you have to be cautious.

We cannot say it is a completely done deal and everything will be fine for ever, but let's just save it for today.

You chartered that journey very eloquently.

What about grass roots Unionists, the communities themselves?

They say they have them on board.

Do you think that is the case?

There are 36 members of the DUP in the assembly and we are told 141 sure about this.

In 1998, you had the referendum.

The vast majority of people voted for it but only just a majority of Unionists voted for it.

As it was difficult to keep power sharing together, the Unionists clearly slipped away.

Peter Robinson believes he does have a majority of Unionist support.

But they do need convincing.

There is this new party to the right of the DUP called the traditional Unionist voice.

They are saying they should not be sharing power with Sinn Fein.

Peter Robinson is always going to have to look and look after that flank.

Fraser Nelson, suppose one of the developments was the talks, were the talks that the Tories have had with the Unionists.

You have to think about the smaller parties.

How are they go in to be brought on board?

And the Tories were criticised for Medellin in Unionist politics.

What is your view?

-- criticised for meddling.

Conservatives are very keen to say they are not just an English party.

The Austin Younis did not turn up to this thing.

It is a bit of a surprise because David Cameron is very much in favour of it.

-- the Ulster Unionists did not turn up.

Will it have an impact?

We need to be careful about criticising the Tories because let's not forget that the SDLP members take the Labour whip.

Sir Reg Empey was not that the talks.

This does raise the question for David Cameron, when you go to Northern Ireland if you are Prime Minister, are you going to act as prime minister of the UK as an impartial referee, or you going to be a leader of a party went on their historic day when the agreement was finalised, Your leader did not turn up?

Politicians are already scrapping away.

The trick over the next few weeks will be to defuse any potentially explosive policy rows.

This week, Labour backed down after none of them -- after the Pope criticised Harriet Harman's Equality Bill.

Many in Gordon Brown's own party are against the alternative vote plan.

The Liberal Democrats water down their proposed mansion tax after they realise it could backfire in leafy marginals.

David Cameron's proposal about the deficit has been watered down.

The Conservative leader also appeared to backtrack on tax breaks for married couples, upsetting money on the right of his party.

Does all this ducking and diving in the parties are short-selling voters by not having a clear ideology?

Because Peter Matthew Taylor, who was Tony Blair's chief adviser on political strategy.

How much ideology was there involved in that 1997 election as far as Tony Blair and the Labour party was concerned?

Was it not more about presenting an alternative to the Tories rather than having a strong ideology of his own?

Elections are rules -- or was about this change versus more of the same.

There was a clear feeling in Britain in 1995, six, seven that people wanted that shift.

If you remember, Labour had those three little slogans which court where the public was in terms of its direction of change.

People felt the Conservatives were old- fashioned, weakened not really supporting ordinary families.

they did not give away a lot in terms of policy.

That's not true but that is a particular quality of where Labour was.

They had 13 years to develop a policy, 18 years.

There was minimum wage, devolution.

Tony had to get rid of some of the stuff was -- that wasn't particularly effective.

If you look at the problem the Conservatives have got, there is partly a policy issue, which goes back to the fact David Cameron is not as secure as he needs to be to make exactly the policies he wants to win the election.

The right of his party still won't let him let go of some policies.

The Conservatives do not have this core message.

What is their equivalent of the Labour slogans?

They had compassionate conservatism and the changing brand of the Conservative Party.

But the fight with the party that David Cameron has successfully achieved, has that happened too early?

To some extent, Tony Blair was to have in those big arguments slightly closer to the election.

Has that been a problem for David Cameron?

think if you look at 1997 and 1992, and this is the big question we face now.

Is this 92 or 97?

In many ways, this looks more like 1992.

The advantage Labour had, because John Smith had a huge lead in the polls before Tony Blair came to power, was that the Conservatives were falling apart.

What ever Labour's problems, they don't have anything like those divisions and are still hungry to stay in power.

There have been a number of clues.

He cannot say Labour are united party.

The one area this is more like 97 and 92 is precisely leadership.

But if you take the leadership issue out of it, where people are now, where Labour and Conservatives are, it is closer to 92 than 97.

But his ideology, real political ideology dead?

The differences went in the Thatcher era.

I don't think it is true.

It is clear where the Conservatives want to go.

If I was in charge of concern to strategy, I would have his say, the house is on fire because of Labour's failures.

We have to throw water on it and that is all we can do.

There will not be a great deal of difference if the Conservatives take over.

But then we have a certain directions we want to take the country in.

Opinion polls show that where the Conservatives want to go is broadly whether people want.

They have got to tied up in what they are going to do when they first take power.

This suggests they are willing to take risks when actually what people overwhelmingly what now is stability.

Fraser Nelson, is that still a problem?

The concern tits are under pressure to come up with what they are going to do.

Is it fair?

Is it right that David Cameron and the then so be party should be forced into a corner to try and explain in detail what they are going to do, particularly on the economy?

Not necessary detail, but people do one direction.

He has given direction, hasn't he?

Readers of the News of the World one change but they have seen Labour's ideas fail and they would like to see another set of ideas.

It is difficult to discern that right now.

I think the Tories are taking too many tactical considerations, adopting that Labour policies like the 50p tax.

It is beginning to look rather more like a change of personnel rather than government.

Had they not also felt it is important because of the economic situation to react to some extent?

To be ideologically committed to Cutts faster and deeper is perhaps not the right way to go even if that is what they would like to go -- do.

Whoever wins the election will have to cut very deep.

The Labour says it will cut by 10%, the Tories probably more.

You have to come up with the right the cabinet.

Cuts is about passing power from government to the people.

He has talked about smaller government.

uses phrases like swingeing cuts.

That is Labour's language.

It is used to caricature the Conservatives.

They should come up with their own vocabulary and a clear idea of what people -- of what they stand for.

The economy has given Gordon Brown a chance to paint himself as having led globally, rightly or wrongly, and also in terms of this narrative about cutting not now because it will strangle the recovery.

But in the end, he hasn't got any ideas either about what he is going to do, has he?

He said he would have ideas associated with John Maynard Keynes.

What ideology is there but Gordon I think ideology is over but there's not a difference between the two parties.

There are going to be serious differences.

If you read the Guardian this morning, you will see an article about Douglas Alexander, a straight up and down defence of the fact that we need a state, not just in terms of the economic argument, but as a benign force.

Conservatives believe very strongly that, whilst the state has its purpose, it squeezes out endeavour.

It increases social dependency.

There is a real shift their.

The public is more inclined to the Conservative view at the moment but they have failed to articulate this.

Why?

It is not the sexiest message to get across, arguments about the state.

How do you make it so?

Because it's difficult at Westminster to work out what people are thinking outside.

They have been focusing on the middle ground between parties rather than the common ground they have with the public.

The public see government or wasting money.

The expenses scandal is a sign of what the people regard…

Cameron is them was based on Blairism.

It was all about being careful.

Tony Blair was about surviving in a benign economic environment.

Cameron took over in a benign economic environment.

He has had to change.

I think the Conservatives' problem is it is all tactics and no strategy.

Under Labour's is and, in that sense?

Knee-jerk reactions from Gordon Brown but it's the same sort of thing.

I think Labour has got itself back on track partly because the Conservatives have left so many open doors for them.

They have given Labour a sense of purpose which they did not have a few months ago, actually.

The problem is, you need a message to say, people want stability, they want to get back on their fate -- feet.

The Conservatives have failed to explain that.

In a way which is appealing.

And, anyway, if they can't get their act together soon, this election will be up for grabs.

Thank you very much for joining us.

Our MPs have come in for a bit of a kicking recently.

But can you imagine life without them?

Stop smiling.

Politicians argue that they work tirelessly for their local communities, but when a constituency doesn't have an MP, does anyone notice?

In North West Leicestershire, David Taylor, who was a popular backbencher, sadly died last Boxing Day.

He won't be replaced until the General Election or a by-election.

Adam's been to investigate.

This East Midlands constituency is famous for its coal mining history.

Its MP, David Taylor, died just after Christmas.

The Labour Party say it's too soon after David Taylor's funeral to decide whether or not to hold the by-election which means voters will have to wait until the general election expected at the start of May, which means this area will not have had an MP for five months.

That is too long for Steve, who was fighting proposals for a new opencast coal mine in his backyard.

David Taylor's office is closing down in the very near future.

We are without a voice.

A representative.

Without our main champion.

And we need one.

This town does not look like its grip of campaign fever.

A by-election would cost more than \xC2\xA3100,000, so is there any point having won with a general election round the corner?

There is going to be general action soon, but that's not stopping us campaigning on local issues.

An active every day in the constituency talking to local people and doing the best that we can to stick up for their views.

The Tory man, a potato magnet, says Labour are stalling because they are scared of getting mashed.

It's inconvenient for the Government to have a by-election.

They are worried they might lose the seat and, let's face it, Gordon Brown has a pathological fear of an election.

The worry for the Lib Dems is that this vacuum could help the BNP who have a seat on a district council.

Their pitch to the public is very much a kind of siege mentality.

The local population is ignored by the Government and this type of thing.

The Government cannot make any decision about by-elections, it plays again directly into the BNP.

This colliery has been turned into a museum.

They'll be on track to be the biggest party in a hung parliament, Labour.

People here just have to put top -- put up with the minor inconvenience of not having an MP for a while.

And if you want more details on who we know is standing for the North West Leicestershire seat so far, you can go to our website.

Fraser, on this issue of timing, is it right that a seat like that can be left hanging into the general election, five months?

I don't think so.

I think there should be guidelines.

It's important we have it.

The same for the Speaker, actually.

They seem to get on well without them, but these guys are important to stop it is a bit manipulative, isn't it?

We will have a by-election quickly if it suits us, and we won't now because it's difficult for a general lection.

You should have fixed-term parliament, five years, and you should not allow the Prime Minister to choose when he can call a by- election.

It should be after a decent interval to pay respect to the MP who died, and then it should happen.

By-elections are usually used as a way of punishing the incumbents, but are they affected - - reflected a general election?

one cared about Glasgow East but you suddenly notice the poverty you don't notice beforehand.

It is so dangerous for governments.

It would be dreadful, dreadful thing to have a by-election just before a general election.

And it won't happen, of course, before the general election.

Time now for Giles to give us this week's Top of the Political Pops.

A technical point this week because we calculate a Top Of The Pops on a number of people who click on the website.

Last week, Tony Blair gave evidence to the Chillcott inquiry at 9:30am.

We calculated this on a Friday morning so there was not time for him to be in this week's poll.

That's why last week's story is this week's runaway winner at number one with over 2 million hits.

The Chillcott inquiry has secured five top five places and two number ones.

This is top of the Pops.

Welcome once again to Top Of The Pops.

At five: A cracking secret bursts out from under the Iron Lady's yoke.

It seems whilst she was Number Ten- bound, it's a miracle she wasn't egg bound eating 28 a week in a slimming bid.

History's noted the effects of her Premiership.

But is mercifully free of the effects of such a diet.

Except to say she saved a fortune in blow drying her hair and that's why the window's open.

At four: But Government says our forces will now operate within international coalitions.

Sensible policies in cash-strapped times say ministers, salting the wounds of retired generals who think tomorrow's soldiers will be forced to charge naked armed with plastic forks, supported by sailors on rafts, and a squadron of chickens carrying fireworks.

At three: When Tory met Sally.

A glass of wine and, hey presto, Mrs Bercow.

Now her hubby's Speaker she'd like a Twitterer to shut up, as one EyespyMP keeps telling everyone where she goes.

"Please stop, I'm not an MP I only live here.

And it's "not very nice".

This was the spat, which ironically rhymes with what David Cameron branded Twitterers.

At two: MPs demand to get Lego over after an expensive scandal when they screwed to the taxpayer.

They are keen to draw a line under it all and Sir Thomas's report ordering a payback was it.

Some MPs called his work illogical.

Should have fitted right in it then.

Its number one on top of the Pops.

At number one, Blair meets the Chilcotts.

Slicker than a well oiled weasel, he told them he was right, he'd do it again, and why not have a go at Iran as well?

He denied a deal with Bush, and said WMD and regime change were linked.

It seems clear regime change WAS a WMD, that's Dubya Made Decision.

Lesson: If people think you're lying through your teeth, just grin and Blair it.

Yes, very good.

Sally Bercow's argument with Twitter followers has highlighted the Twitter profile called EyeSpy MP.

On the site anyone can publish any sightings of MPs, although there's no way of verifying their accuracy.

Entries include: "Dawn Primarolo gossiping over coffee on the Terry scandal".

Or how about "Andrew Lansley visibly irritated by long lunch queues at Portcullis House".

Not to mention one or two more controversial comments that we'd get into trouble for putting on air.

One or two journalists have also been unfavourably mentioned, but is this an invasion of privacy?

think it's a wonderful example of the internet bringing new levels of transparency and openness.

Until they are seen you lunching a high sores politician who could be a source.

I always go to dodgy places.

It not like Facebook.

There are people who are blocked.

There is some sort of system having to sign up.

It's an amazing a running commentary of everything.

Some MPs think it is the police officers.

Really?

It is literally, "so and so is sitting in portcullis House".

Isn't that a bit frightening?

Sally Bercow was not an MP.

She has got nothing to hide,…

Everything you Does it mean no more bad behaviour in Parliament?

Less of it, and more private.

The is absurd system of the parliamentary lobby when you're meant to have ended the lobby is mad.

Journalists can always discuss who you have seen at lunch.

Information only shared by journalist can now be accessed by everyone and that can only be a good thing.

The lobby briefings are on the record but you're not allowed to name them.

Just the Prime Minister's spokesman.

Do you think that sort of thing might come to an end as well?

There is an impression it's a masonic club.

It's not.

Just end of the perception it is this close the gentleman's club, when it's not.

Remember when you heard it first.

We will watch out for you on Twitter.

That's all for this week.

But I'll be back with Andrew on Monday for more Daily Politics at midday.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with what has become the most- repeated political catchphrase of the past month.

And not just by David Cameron's Conservatives.

It's possible we might not have an