THERE'S one question which has perplexed Citizen Smith for some years.

Why does Pravda (aka our rival) so slavishly follow the mewings of a small clique of political activists?

Its relentless bias in favour of a small, politically motivated group, some of whom were hoofed out of office by the public at the last election, is staggering.

It's not even a Labour Party thing, just a clique within the party who have this bizarre belief that they have a divine right to rule Lancaster - a delusion aided and abetted by fawning propaganda.

Let me highlight the latest example.

The District Auditor has issued a report which includes a stinging attack on the council's financial competence.

Pravda has written about this at great length and has given us all the gory details - we agree, it's abysmal - but it's very telling what details they've left out.

The auditor's report suggests some underlying reasons for the financial difficulties and targets Crinkley Bottom and Salt Ayre among other things - which have cost the local authority a bank-busting £3.8 million.

But the opposition makes absolutely no mention of this?

Read their stories and all you get is that the reasons were "numerous and complex."

Has it been conveniently overlooked in a bid to airbrush unpalatable truths from the public consciousness?

You've got to ask - who are they trying to protect? Why would a supposedly impartial newspaper not print this damning stuff direct from the auditor?

It seems that despite their circulation figures they are determined to cover and spin for a discredited clique who were responsible for some momentous cock-ups which cost you millions.

God knows why. It does a great disservice to its readers who could remain ignorant of the full facts.

How are local people to make informed choices based on such one-sided information?

Luckily, as many of our readers keep telling us, The Citizen isn't afraid to print the truth.

In fact, we believe the auditor has done a good job and his conclusions actually mirror what we have been saying for many years.

He says: "I am not satisfied the council has acted with sufficient prudence, with sufficient regard to legal requirements or with sufficient regard to proper accounting practice."

That's about as damning a report as we can imagine from a civil servant and justifies the campaign of this paper and the long-suffering public.

What conclusions will the auditor's two and a half year inquiry into Blobbygate reach? Only time will tell.

But we can assure you that when the Blobby report is published, the Citizen will give it to you straight.

On this evidence, can our rivals be trusted to do the same?