[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yup I think draw. There are silly but if you look at The Sun and The Mail they can use the first poll as indication Cameron won. The Mirror will use the other two to show that Cameron lost.

I've just seen this on Twitter:

@commentisfree RT @MariamCook RT @DCPlod RT @lintably RT @uwitness: Daily Mail poll on #leadersdebate just published. Cameron: 103%; Brown 0%; Clegg: Nein%

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

Back to the "smears"...

"Does one good smear deserve another?"

Originally Posted by The BBC's Nick Robinson | 17:43 UK time, Thursday, 22 April 2010

Bristol: Today, Peter Mandelson said that the allegations in the press about Nick Clegg were "straight out of the Tory Party dirty-tricks manual". He even suggested that the Conservative director of communications Andy Coulson had had a hand in them.

(snip)

Now there's no doubt that many Tories are in a panic about Nick Clegg's advance - nor that the Tory press are out to get him - but as yet there is no evidence that the Tory leadership were behind this morning's stories and until there is we must conclude that Lord Mandelson is trying to make a story about the Liberal Democrats into one that is damaging for David Cameron.

Update 1939: I now learn that political reporters from the Tory-backing papers were called in one by one to discuss how Team Cameron would deal with "Cleggmania" and to be offered Tory HQ's favourite titbits about the Lib Dems - much of which appears in today's papers.

The key personal allegation about payments from donors into Nick Clegg's personal
bank account came, however, from the Telegraph's expenses files. Incidentally, the party has now published details of Nick Clegg's bank statements and party accounts showing that Mr Clegg received payments totalling £19,690 from three businessmen (Neil Sherlock, Michael Young, Ian Wright) and then paid staff costs of £20,437.30 out of the same account. According to these figures, Mr Clegg actually paid £747.30 out of his own money towards staff costs.

"Nick Clegg under attack ahead of second election debate"

Originally Posted by BBC

Nick Clegg has come under attack over political donations - as the Lib Dems say he is being "smeared" ahead of the second TV debate.

(snip)

Four newspapers attacked Mr Clegg on Thursday over policies and donations.

(snip)

On Thursday night Mr Clegg released copies of his bank statements and other paperwork in an attempt to clear up the row.

The figures released by the party show donations from three private donors amounting to £19,690 were paid into Mr Clegg's account between January 2006 and January 2008.

But according to the Lib Dems' figures Mr Clegg paid £20,437.30 into party coffers between March 2006 and February 2008 for staffing costs.

(snip)

The Daily Telegraph said Mr Clegg received payments from Ian Wright, a senior executive at drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold-mining executive - paid into his personal bank account.

The donations were registered with the Electoral Commission and with the Parliamentary Register of Members Interests at the time they were given.

(snip)

---------- Post added 23-04-2010 at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was 22-04-2010 at 23:22 ----------

Now this is very interesting...

"'Sun' censored poll that showed support for Lib Dems"

Originally Posted by Andrew Grice, Political Editor of The Independent

The Sun newspaper failed to publish a YouGov poll showing that voters fear a Liberal Democrat government less than a Conservative or Labour one.

The Liberal Democrats accused the newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of suppressing the finding. The paper, which endorsed Labour in the past three elections, declared its support for David Cameron during the Labour Party's annual conference last October. Like other Tory-supporting papers, it has turned its fire on Nick Clegg over his policies, pro-European statements and expenses claims since he won last week's first televised leaders' debate.

YouGov also found that if people thought Mr Clegg's party had a significant chance of winning the election, it would win 49 per cent of the votes, with the Tories winning 25 per cent and Labour just 19 per cent. One in four people Labour and one in six Tory supporters say they would switch to the Liberal Democrats in these circumstances. The party would be ahead among both men and women, in every age and social group, and in every region. On a uniform swing across Britain, that would give the Liberal Democrats 548 MPs, Labour 41 and the Tories 25.

The Liberal Democrats hope the long-standing argument that supporting them would be a "wasted vote" is breaking down following the surge in support for them in the past week. However, even the most optimistic Liberal Democrats do not expect to win the election.

The party has taken comfort from YouGov's unpublished finding that more voters would be delighted by the formation of a Liberal Democrat government (29 per cent), than by a Tory government (25 per cent) or a Labour one (18 per cent).

(very big snip)

[There is also a section at the end dealing with "The truth about those smears against Clegg"]

The YouGov results are in an article here:

"Could the Lib Dems win outright?"

Originally Posted by Peter Kellner, President of YouGov

Such are the uncertainties of this election campaign, following last Thursday’s TV debate, that it is no longer outlandish to ask whether Nick Clegg could end up as Prime Minister.

The answer is probably no – I’d put the odds at 10-1 against – but longer-odds horses have won big races in the past. Much attention has been paid to the way Britain’s voting system is biased against the Lib Dems: they could end up with more votes than Labour or the Conservatives – but win half as many seats.

(snip)

...We asked: “How would you vote on May 6 if you thought the Liberal Democrats had a significant chance of winning the election”. The responses: Lib Dem 49%, Conservative 25%, Labour 19%. On the – admittedly unrealistic – assumption of uniform national swing, there would be 548 Lib Dem MPs, 41 Labour MPs and just 25 Tories.

(snip)

What is more, far fewer people are deterred by the prospect of a Lib Dem government. We asked people whether they would be delighted or dismayed by different election outcomes – or whether they wouldn’t mind.

(snip)

Not only is a Lib Dem government the most popular option; it is the one that frightens voters far less than any other option. If the Lib Dem bandwagon is to be halted and sent into reverse, Labour and the Tories must do far more to persuade voters that a vote for the Lib Dems would be seriously bad for Britain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Johann Hari - "The forces that have been blocking British democracy are becoming visible in this election"