Courtesy of Dizzy Thinks, I’ve just come across Political Hearsay, a new site that isn’t quite finished yet but will allow people to rate different politicians. Is it a welcome new idea, or is it an attempt to pass off Conservative propaganda as neutral information, using online voting to suck in a large audience?

Certainly at first glance, it looks like it could turn out to be an interesting innovation, and the site does not present itself as being a partisan cheerleader for any particular party:

Political Hearsay was founded by Darren Andrews, a young Internet Entrepreneur based in South Birmingham.

This website offers a fresh, new, and innovative design that plans to bring politics into the 21st century.

It is realistic to say that politics is currently failing to reach out to the younger generation. However, Political Hearsay will bring this important subject to Internet like never before – appealing to the young and older generation alike.

Here, users will be able to vote for leaders of the three main political parties along with the Labour Cabinet Ministers. The site will average out all the votes cast and display a unique 5 star rating for each politician. An exclusive graph will also be on display to show how their popularity and support from the public has changed over time.

However, on second glance, there is a persistent pro-Conservative bias in the descriptions given of politicians.

For example, David Cameron’s write-up mentions (reasonably enough) his successful conference speech without notes. But David Davis’s write-up doesn’t mention his conference speech flop, but does have space to say, “he has consistently attracted support on a personal level from all sections of the party”.

But it’s not a matter of all of the write-ups being positive, because look – for example – at some of the wording used for David Milliband: “In January 2007 he sparked minor controversy by saying there was no evidence organic food was better than conventionally grown produce”. In fact, saying very little about someone’s overall career but finding the space to quote a recent controversy is a common feature across several of the Labour biographies.

Harriet Harman is perhaps the most extreme case, as you can see from her full write-up: “In March 2006, Harman relinquished her Ministerial responsibilities for electoral administration and reform of the House of Lords. She stated that this was to avoid any potential conflict of interest after her husband announced that he would be investigating a number of loans made to the Labour Party which had not been disclosed to party officers. ” No mention of any of her achievements, other major posts or career – just one negative story.

More subtly, some of the points presented as neutral or positive in biographies arguably are really negative ones in disguise – such as saying that Brown has stressed he won’t change key Blair policies (when of course Brown’s message is that he has changed).

What to make of this all then?

I tried getting in touch with the person who runs the site before writing this piece to get their response, but the feedback form just gives me an error message at the moment. So if you’re reading this Darren, do post a response in the Comments.

[UPDATE: He has now been in touch – thanks Darren. See comment no.4 below]