Speech
- 229 candidates; 139 passed - 61 per cent

The markers considered that this was a good, highly topical speech. Reporting it was expected to be well within the capabilities of candidates.

Oxdown's fairly new Labour MP was the speaker. He had soon become "distressed and disillusioned" and was announcing that he would not stand again at the next general election. Or, if his local party wished, he would withdraw earlier to allow someone else to stand in a by-election.

There was a wealth of strong quotes available, some of which could genuinely be called soundbites.

Complaining about some of the actions of his party's leaders, he talked of "sleaze and smears and donations from porn merchants". He felt he was involved – even at a distance – in "matters that were underhand, shameful and despicable".

This theme was contrasted by an account, with examples of local issues causing concern – the NHS, transport, house prices, crime and so on.

The speaker's phrases were emphatic and hard-hitting but too often were presented softly.

The markers had hoped for a lot of vigorous reports that matched the material. But, as so often in the past, only a handful could be called outstanding. Most stories were just about adequate. Should a higher standard be expected from trainees taking their final exams?

The printed brief studied before the start offered 300 words of background material, including the names, parties and the numbers of votes from the previous election.

Most candidates took advantage of this but many of them had difficulty in identifying which extra facts were worth using. Precious space was wasted in recounting the MP's previous, rather mundane history.

One revealed that he had been manager of a travel agency in Birmingham and lived in a rented flat. Others called him "the unmarried 41-year-old of Windermere Gardens", "the former French and Spanish teacher" or "the batchelor" [sic!].

The speaker mentioned his small majority but not everyone thought of calculating what it was from the poll figures provided. Among those who did, too many arrived at a wrong answer.

No fewer than 11 candidates took the Conservative's 18,997 votes from Labour's 19,104 and thought it was a majority of seven instead of 107. Other attempts produced four, 104, 108, "less than 100", "just over 100" and "more than 1,000".

Every candidate had passed at some time an NCTJ examination in public affairs, yet a surprising number knew little about Parliamentary by-elections (often misspelt as bi-elections). More that 20 thought a by-election would take place if called for by "the people", or "the electorate" or "the constituents". How interesting politics might be if MPs' jobs depended on the changing whims of public opinion. One reporter even confused backbenchers with spin doctors.

As ever, there were some unable to copy correctly the name of the speaker, Giles Stapleton (whose surname was spelt out five times on the preliminary brief). After getting it right in the first reference, five candidates later changed his name to Mr Giles.

Another called him Jack Stapleton in the intro. And one said he was Mr Blackwall (using the surname of the Conservative he defeated).

Find out who passed their exams
PLUS