Many thanks to you for reading it.

The BBC has decided to create a new look for all blogging correspondents.

From this week you will be able to read my thoughts on regional politics here.

Out of interest, one of my most read stories was Peter Mandelson's interview with Gordon Burns about "Bigotgate".

Lord Mandelson might be disappointed to know he was beaten to the top spot by the postings on the Election Court and Phil Woolas' dramatic exit from the Commons.

And this blog must now follow a similar route.

How much are students going to end up paying for a university education?

The government is increasing the amount to £6,000 a year from next year. It is allowing institutions to charge a maximum of £9,000 in exceptional cases.

But it's becoming increasingly clear that if universities get their way, the maximum fee will be far from the exception.

So far we know Liverpool, Manchester, Lancaster and Liverpool John Moores University are all planning to charge the full £9,000.

This week I spoke to Professor Michael Brown, the Vice Chancellor of John Moores University, who was quite frank about the position.

"If we charge £6,000, we lose £26m. Can't do it," he said.

So, I asked him, did that mean no university would be able to charge that fee?

"If they do, I don't think they'll be around for very long. And they'd be a very different institution in a few years time," he replied.

Several universities are no doubt still deciding how much to charge, others are simply refusing to say.

We know that Cumbria University is applying to the Office for Fair Access, OFFA.

It would only need to do that if it wanted to charge more than £6,000, but how much more is not known.

The government is significantly reducing the amount it's spending on undergraduate education which means the financial burden is shifting onto students.

Universities say they cannot maintain quality without increasing fees.

But the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Mike Storey, and the Conservative MP for Warrington South, David Mowat, told the North West Politics Show that universities could manage with £6,000.

"If you actually do the sums, and I sit on a university council, you find the sums do add up," responded Lord Storey.

But Professor Brown thinks the government has got it wrong: "I didn't do the government's sums. You'll have to ask the government how they did their sums.

"They presumably took some advice from somewhere."

It seems likely that some courses, possibly even some institutions, will close as students think long and hard before committing so much money to their education.

By then Michael Brown will have gone. He's retiring as Vice Chancellor later this year.

Is it time to consider cutting the number of councillors across the North West?

Back in 2008 Sam Hurst was elected as a Conservative to Bury Council, becoming one of the youngest elected politicians in the country.

Having experienced local government, he is now campaigning to reduce the number of councillors across the region by a third.

How many councillors do you think there are in Greater Manchester?

Cllr Hurst says the total is 644 and reckons his plan would save about £2m.

It is an idea being taken seriously in Oldham.

There the Liberal Democrat run council is proposing a reduction in the number from 60 to 40.

But Labour, hoping to take control of the council in May, opposes it. They argue that fewer councillors would increase the democratic gap between politicians and voters.

I actually met quite a few people in Oldham who were quite supportive of reducing the number.

It would still leave people with two councillors per ward.

The other week I met Lord Adonis who was trying to generate enthusiasm for an elected mayor of Liverpool.

When I asked him what could be done to improve the quality of local councillors, he suggested this approach.

He believes fewer councillors, with more to do, could attract a higher calibre of candidate.

I know there are plenty of excellent councillors but there are plenty of weak ones too.

I also meet a lot of people who could make great local representatives but do not see the point.

The government says this is a matter for individual councils to decide.

But even if Oldham council passes the motion, it could not proceed until there has been a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

And that's not an organisation which makes overnight decisions.

Could cities like Liverpool get an elected Mayor?

The former Labour cabinet minister, Lord Adonis, was in Liverpool this week, drumming up support for directly elected mayors.

He is now director of the Institute for Government and believes the city would be better run with a highly visible figure.

You can read about his visit here.

It's a debate we've had before but now there is more reason to take notice.

Whether people want it or not, they are going to be given the choice in a referendum.

Labour introduced directly elected mayors and the first outside London were created in 2002.

But the idea never really caught on and Labour seemed to cool on the idea.

In the North West, referendums to change the system were held in Bury and Crewe & Nantwich but failed.

Labour appeared to cool on the idea but the coalition is injecting fresh impetus.

The leaders of the 12 largest cities in England - including Liverpool and Manchester - will become so-called "shadow mayors" in May.

A year later, during which I would be amazed if voters noticed any difference, there will be referendums to confirm or reject the change.

Ministers hope that voters will have got used to the idea and think they may as well keep it.

But they are battling apathy.

Former BBC journalist Liam Fogarty has run a campaign to force a referendum in Liverpool on precisely this subject.

He needed 5% of the city's population to sign a petition but simply could not muster the numbers.

Nevertheless Mr Fogarty remains convinced of the benefits.

He points out that in typical local elections in Liverpool, three out of four people don't vote. He believes that if people were instead voting for a high profile individual, they would be magnetised towards the ballot box.

Reinvigorating local politics is certainly a prize worth fighting for.

But would a directly elected mayor make much difference?

Labour's Joe Anderson who runs Liverpool does not think so. He points out that it's not clear what extra powers would be available.

He is not convinced he would be able to get anything more done that he cannot do already.

And Professor Jon Tonge, head of politics at Liverpool University, believes it would have made much more sense to have established an executive Mayor for all of Merseyside, or indeed Greater Manchester.

He thinks that would have given the city regions greater strategic grip.

But the Conservatives dislike anything that smacks of regionalism so that leaves us with city mayors.

And Lord Adonis remains an enthusiast. He thinks an elected mayor would give Liverpool greater punch on the national and international stage.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Blackpool has joined the chorus of councils in poorer, urban areas who insist the cuts to local government are unfair and deeper than the government portrays.

But there's a big difference with Blackpool... it is a Conservative council. Its warnings are more difficult to dismiss.

The government insists the maximum cut to any council is 8.9%.

But that's because ministers have changed the way it's calculated.

Blackpool insists its real cut is 16% or £27m. Seven hundred jobs will go, 400 could be compulsory.

What's particularly painful is the way the government is cutting area based grants which support poorer areas.

The Tory Leader of Blackpool Council, Peter Callow, says he doesn't think the government has got its sums right or understands the position the town is in.

Cllr Callow has already spoken to the Prime Minister and is taking a delegation to speak to the Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles.

"I'm hoping any reasonable person would hear my plea and where I'm coming from," he said.

But the government has already taken a tough line on local government spending and there's nothing yet to suggest it will change that.

And Paul Maynard, the Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has a different perspective:

"I understand the challenge the council is facing. But you need to look at the overall picture of public spending.

"In Blackpool we have had increased spending with the pupil premium, the public health premium and on infrastructure.

"This money aims to help poorer areas like Blackpool, it's not just about local government," said Mr Maynard.

I asked Peter Callow whether he agreed with those who say the government is letting down poorer areas?

"I understand that... at the moment it appears to be the case. If you ask me again after I've seen Eric Pickles - if I don't get anything out of it - yes, I will agree with you," he replied.

Apparently Eric Pickles has offered the delegation "tea and sympathy" but "more tea than sympathy".

Cllr Callow and other North West council leaders may need a stiffer drink.

BNP Leader Nick Griffin and BNP candidate Derek Adams

The Leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, was in Oldham East and Saddleworth for his first day of campaigning on Tuesday.

There was plenty of speculation that Mr Griffin himself would be the candidate.

But he is not on the ballot paper.

"I was probably going to be the candidate," Mr Griffin told me.

"But over the Christmas and New Year period when I needed to get the election addresses done and photographs, I was snowed-in in Wales.

"I couldn't get here.

"Derek Adams was available. He's a big local character. So I'm very happy to be supporting him."

Derek Adams is probably best known for running the Ace of Diamonds - the BNP's favourite pub in Manchester, before the city council subjected it to a compulsory purchase order.

The BNP got almost 6% of the vote at the general election.

The UK Independence Party was narrowly behind them with 4% of the vote.

Drive through the constituency and it's difficult to miss the billboards advertising UKIP's candidate, the North West Euro MP Paul Nuttall.

Nigel Farage, UKIP's Leader, started a two-day campaign visit on Tuesday to support his colleague.

And the BNP is very much in his sights.

"I was absolutely determined we chose a strong candidate and fought a big campaign," Mr Farage told me in a local pub.

"I want us to thrash the BNP here.

"There's no room for that kind of extremism in British politics."

This apparent battle for fourth place might have more significance than is immediately obvious.

In previous elections the Liberal Democrats have won a large number of protest votes.

Where will those voters turn now that the party's in government?

UKIP believes that many voters who supported them in the European elections, turned to the Lib Dems at the general election. Despite the fact that the parties have such divergent views on Europe.

How many of those disenchanted Lib Dem voters exist is one of the critical unknowns in this by-election.

How many will turn to Labour?

How many will turn to minor parties like UKIP or the BNP?

And how many might turn to their coalition partners, the Conservatives? Not as a protest vote but because they believe the Tories can now win.

The answers to these questions will help decide who wins here.

Kashif Ali, the Conservative candidate

Who does David Cameron want to win the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election?

It might sound like a silly question but, according to the influential website Conservative Home, the Prime Minister would prefer a Liberal Democrat victory in order to shore up the coalition.

If that's true, nobody has told the candidate, Kashif Ali, though I suppose he would be the last to know.

He is a credible candidate and has been doing his best with little support.

However, a Number Ten spokeswoman has told me the suggestion David Cameron wants the Liberal Democrats to win is "absolutely untrue".

The real criticism of the Tory campaign is that it's been late, slow and quiet.

The party should have been campaigning from the moment Phil Woolas lost his seat. Instead they waited for the outcome of the judicial review, even though there was very little chance of it ever succeeding.

Even Labour, who certainly had to wait, had their candidate officially selected before the Tories.

The Conservative campaign manager is Andrew Stephenson, the newly elected MP for Pendle.

He agrees the party has been slow to start campaigning: "It's been a longstanding criticism of mine that we have always held off by-elections until it's 'acceptable' to start campaigning.

"It was the same in Cheadle and the same in Crewe and Nantwich. The Liberal Democrats beat us off the start from the word go."

But he told me the suggestion they are not fighting to win is "complete rubbish".

Nevertheless, it's left the opposition parties believing exactly that.

A national Liberal Democrat source told me: "I don't believe CCHQ is actively trying to help Elwyn, but it's clear they're not actively trying to help their own candidate either.

"This has always been our fight and the Tories' hearts just aren't in it."

I know many Tory activists in the North West hold Kashif Ali in high regard and are keen to support him.

The Conservatives tell me there will be a strong, concerted campaign from January.

The party is paying for direct mail to be sent to constituents.

And, of course, the Prime Minster will be visiting, surely something he would not do if he did not want to win.

Andrew Stephenson hopes the Tories will leapfrog the Lib Dems. While that's possible, it's only going to happen if the party rapidly gets into gear.

Councillor Kemp is referring to two Conservative ministers - the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles and the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps.

He asks the Deputy Prime Minister to rein them in.

The full text of the email is below.

He is furious because he believes the two ministers are not facing up to the impact of the spending cuts on local government.

Richard Kemp is not opposing the cuts which he believes are necessary to reduce the deficit. But he believes the two ministers are coming up with "gimmicks" rather than admitting the scale of the cuts to jobs and services.

"Their behaviour is a disgrace. Either they really do not know how serious the situation is ... or they are deliberately trying to distract attention from the problems that they have created."

Cllr Kemp leads the Liberal Democrat group in the Local Government Association and is a Liverpool councillor.

Liverpool is facing an 8.9% cut in spending power next year.

However Nick Clegg does not appear to share these views. A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister said: "These are Mr Kemp's personal views and are not representative of Liberal Democrats in Government.

"The Coalition Government has, despite the financial mess Labour left us in, embarked on a radical shift of power away from central government to local government and communities."

And Grant Shapps does not appear particularly concerned either.

In a statement he said: "Mr Kemp will be rather embarrassed when he notices that on Monday his own council admitted its senior management was so bloated that it axed 48 posts saving the taxpayer £4.25 million.

"I don't think even Richard could deny that this move will protect plenty of frontline staff.

"Maybe Mr Kemp is rattled by our new level of transparency meaning that all councils will have to publish expenditure over £500 online, exposing the inner workings of town halls to public scrutiny for the first time.

"This was a tough but fair settlement ensuring the most vulnerable communities were protected.

"If councils share back office services, join forces to procure, cut out the crazy non-jobs and root out the wild over-spends then they can protect frontline services."

This political argument is at the heart of the government's spending strategy.

Liverpool and the rest of the country will find out next year whether the cuts will improve the efficiency of services or damage them.

From the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Local Government
Rt Hon Nick Clegg,
Deputy Prime Minister,
Whitehall

By E-Mail

17th December 2010

Dear Nick,

Reining in Laurel and Hardy!

As you know we are meeting next Monday to look at a number of issues one of which is the Local Government Settlement.

As the Leader of the Party's councillors I have struggled over the past few days to both explain the need for deep cuts in spending caused by the horrendous level of central government borrowing and defend the spending position of local government as we seek to provide much needed services especially to the poorest members of the community.

We all know that cuts mean job losses. My own authority will have an 8.9% reduction in spending power next year. There is no way that this can be done without job losses. Some of those job losses will be saved by increased efficiency. But we are already the most efficient part of the public sector according to the Treasury and Mr. Cameron and there are limits on how much efficiency can be increased within our sector alone. The rest will come through reductions in levels of service.

Whilst trying to have a serious discussion on these desperate issues we have too frequently been diverted by two Ministers - Pickles and Shapps - who behave more like Laurel and Hardy than members of Her Majesty's Government. They continually put forward the idea that all the savings at this massively high level can be made by increased efficiency, cuts in a small number of salaries, raiding reserves that are not needed etc etc. In fact almost every day we get from them a new gimmick.

Their behaviour is a disgrace. Either they really do not know how serious the situation is that they have created by rushing to get brownie points by being the first to settle with the biggest front loading or they are deliberately trying to distract attention from the problems that they have created.

I realise that they are Tory Ministers and not ours and that your room to deal with them is therefore limited. But there continued behaviour is a distraction from the serious ways in which we can try and reduce expenditure through things like community budgeting and the development of social enterprises which will be on the agenda for our discussion.

Regards,
Richard Kemp

The early date is a behind-the-scenes victory for the Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Dems believe this gives them a tactical advantage because their candidate, Elwyn Watkins, is in place and his campaign is well underway.

Labour's candidate, Debbie Abrahams, has been selected very quickly. But she is not yet well known in the constituency.

The Lib Dems want people to vote before Labour's campaign is properly established.

It's a bit like the fable of the hare and the tortoise. The Lib Dems are the hare. Rather than being pipped to the post by Labour's tortoise, they are trying to shorten the race.

This is a surprise because by convention it would be for Labour to move the writ for the by-election.

But the Lib Dems have argued that the way Phil Woolas was forced out has put this race into unprecedented political territory.

In this they were backed by the Conservatives, otherwise Nick Clegg would not have been able to force the issue.

But it's less clear why the Tories are so keen on a shorter race.

They could have been campaigning for weeks. Instead, Kashif Ali, was only officially confirmed as their candidate on Tuesday. The official launch is on Saturday.

Even the minor parties have been more nimble than this.

Visits by senior politicians are planned and underway. The parties will fight particularly hard for victory in Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Voters may find the streets even more crowded than usual over Christmas.

Interviews were held in London on Friday and a shortlist of just three names has emerged.

They are Riaz Ahmad, Abdul Jabbar and Debbie Abrahams.

A number of Labour members have been surprised and disappointed at the restricted choice.

To be fair, Riaz Ahmad was a likely contender. He is a former Mayor of Oldham and chairs NHS Oldham. He has strong local support.

Abdul Jabbar is also a former Oldham Mayor, and was the first Bangladeshi mayor anywhere in the country. He still serves as a senior councillor.

Debbie Abrahams was the Labour candidate in neighbouring Colne Valley at the general election. She works at Liverpool University and is a former chairwoman of Rochdale Primary Care Trust.

Both names seem to have taken most people by surprise.

Saddleworth News has more details on the candidates' backgrounds.

Even more surprising are the names left out.

For many Afzal Khan was the strongest contender. He is a former Lord Mayor of Manchester, a lawyer and had many supporters in the area.

Nigel Newton is popular as a successful businessman and councillor.

Peter Wheeler is a respected Labour figure and until recently a member of the NEC.

While the former Leader of Oldham Council, John Battye, is popular in the local party but was probably too closely associated with Phil Woolas' election campaign.

In total, we know about eighty people applied and around twenty were interviewed.

What is not clear is why several high quality candidates were left off the list. With just three names on the shortlist, it's hardly full.

There is a fair bit of anger among Labour activists at the way this has been handled.

Some even wonder privately if it will cost them the election.

It is hardly unknown for political parties to fix a selection by sending through one good name and a few duds.

But if that's happened here, it's not entirely clear who the NEC is backing.

Labour's ruling body - the NEC - will interview candidates and draw-up a shortlist towards the end of this week. On Sunday the local party will meet to vote on their new candidate.

But I gather preparation work has been underway for some time.

I have been told Iain Wright, the Hartlepool MP, has been lined-up to the be the campaign's political director.

He won his own seat in a by-election in 2004 when Peter Mandelson stood down as the MP for Hartlepool.

Mr Wright has already held informal conversations with some of the potential candidates, well before the Woolas case was resolved.

Labour List has drawn up a list of confirmed and potential candidates which includes a number of names which would distance the party from the Woolas saga.

Among them Josh MacAlister is the youngest candidate and could be the face of change.

Peter Wheeler is a former member of the NEC and is a popular Labour character.

Meanwhile Afzal Khan is running a professional campaign and as a Muslim would certainly draw a line under the Woolas affair.

As for the date of the by-election, the Liberal Democrats want to take advantage of their headstart and are aiming for 13th January.

But Labour prefers a slightly longer campaign with voting on 3rd February.

Once the writ is moved, a by-election must be held within 15 to 19 working days. This means that Labour will probably not move the writ until next year.

I'm told the Lib Dems might break convention and move the writ themselves, possibly with Tory support. But I think it's much more likely that Labour will decide.

That's because the former Labour MP's legal battle has finally ended in defeat, after the High Court ruled on Friday against his judicial review.

But should MPs wish to debate this case, they will find it has become even more complicated.

A judicial review is a type of appeal, but it considers the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Mr Woolas did well to get even that far.

The law was deliberately drafted to avoid exactly this kind of legal delay; once an MP has been disqualified, they are expected to simply shut-up and go.

The courts started dealing with Parliamentary election petitions back in 1870. 76 MPs have lost their seats since then, the last in 1924.

But such a decision has never been judicially reviewed until now.

Normally any disputed issues of law should be considered before a judgment is reached, but in this case it was not clear that such an issue had arisen.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies agreed to "exceptionally grant permission".

This gave Phil Woolas the chance to argue that the judges had misinterpreted his attacks on Elwyn Watkins as personal, rather than political.

It was a critical legal issue because political attacks are perfectly legal and would not have resulted in Mr Woolas losing his seat.

During the election, Mr Woolas claimed Elwyn Watkins had promised to live in the constituency but was not really doing so.

The Election judges ruled this was a personal attack: "A person who breaks his promise is untrustworthy."

But the High Court overruled them and agreed with Phil Woolas.

They ruled that an attack had to be either political or personal, it could not be both. This they decided was a political attack, even if it was untrue.

However, it is worth remembering the Election judges had made pretty clear that this issue alone would not have been enough to evict Phil Woolas from Parliament.

Far more important was the false allegation that Elwyn Watkins had been wooing Muslim extremists.

The Election Court took this to mean violent extremists.

The High Court upheld the conviction on this basis because such a serious accusation went "from being a statement as to Mr Watkins' political position to a statement about his personal character."

But Mr Woolas has always argued that he accused his opponent of wooing Muslim extremists but not violent extremists.

Mr Watkins' lawyers successfully argued there was no such distinction, and indeed the leaflets showed photographs of Muslims jailed for threatening violence.

But because this was a judicial review rather than an appeal, those arguments could not be heard again.

The High Court could only rule on the application of the law and it decided that on this far more serious charge, the Election Court had judged correctly.

Mr Woolas' supporters will share his anger and frustration that he cannot appeal and argue his case again.

But he knew that he was taking a serious political gamble when he sanctioned his all-out campaign. He just did not realise the stakes were as high as they were.

Phil Woolas hoped to make political headlines in victory, in the end he made legal history in defeat.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

There is no date yet for a by-election in Oldham East and Saddleworth but there is plenty of campaigning.

It will not be officially called until the High Court has ruled on the outcome of Phil Woolas' request for a judicial review of the decision to force him from the Commons.

But on the streets of the constituency a phoney war is already being fought.

I spent some of the weekend with the Liberal Democrat campaign which has the advantage of a candidate in place and a head-start.

In an email to supporters, Liberal Democrat HQ anticipates a by-election in early January: "There could be as few as eight working days in 2011 before Polling Day.

"That means we must win this by-election before Christmas. Please do not wait until the New Year to help out."

The campaign has had support from across the country. But the team admits it's difficult to maintain momentum when there is no election date and it's very cold.

This is even more tricky for Labour since Phil Woolas was one of their MPs and they cannot put a candidate in place until he moves on.

They are campaigning but unofficially.

In another email we've seen, Labour writes: "The Lib Dems are swamping the constituency with activists from across the country. We run the serious risk of being out campaigned if we don't rise to this challenge."

Indeed Lib Dem volunteers say they are getting a good response on the doorstep.

But they must handle it carefully.

At a Christmas fair I spoke to a few voters who were unhappy with the amount of campaigning. They didn't think it should start until the legal situation has been resolved.

I wondered during the General Election whether the Liberal Democrats had alienated some voters by putting out too many leaflets.

It seems for some, they are doing the same again.

He had a cameo role in the case after publishing a fairly unpleasant election leaflet called Radar, and even visited Uppermill to watch the election court in action.

Labour cited Radar as evidence of a death threat against Mr Woolas.

The leaflet's footnote read: "Anyone considering making death threats with regard to this publication should also include their name and address as Radar is offering a free hamper of goodies for the most imaginative and menacing communication."

Labour's campaign leaflet interpreted this as: "One extremist website has even created a competition for the most imaginative ways to kill Phil Woolas."

But the Liberal Democrats said it was nothing more than a joke.

The matter might now be resolved with the eagerly-awaited second edition of Radar.

The footnote now reads: "If you feel the need to kill the author of this leaflet then please send your threats directly to RADAR as the most menacing one will get a hamper of goodies."

I wonder how many entries he receives?

But six Lib Dem councillors have resigned there to sit as independents.

This is not great for the party which in some ways considers Rochdale its spiritual home.

It reminds me of the four councillors who did the same thing in Halton. The last I heard they were considering setting-up their own group.

The Liberal Democrats will at least be pleased that their former colleagues have not defected to Labour. But what has caused the departures?

These things can be difficult to unravel.

I think it's a combination of people being unhappy with the national direction, in other words spending cuts which are likely to have a painful local impact.

But there is also resentment about the way councillors have been forced to reapply to stand again and some have not been successful.

Maybe this is modernisation or maybe it is a lack of sensitivity.

Either way it is the kind of damaging disunity the party could do without.

There are rumours that others are on the brink of departure.

It leaves the coalition with a majority of three.

But the Lib Dems believe Labour will not topple the coalition because it would leave them having to implement the cuts.