The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3

Originally Posted by danielf

Apart from the fact that, imo, newspapers should objectively report the news and leave opinion to the opinion pages, and that therefore the concept of a newspaper backing a party in an election seems an odd concept to me: good choice!

I think they should back no one but the broadsheets are much better at keeping the opinion to the editorial. You won't get the embarrassing stuff coming out from The Sun from any of the broadsheets (although The Times and Independent might test that theory).

They haven't actually said who they are backing but the theme seems to be that Voting reform is the priority. I hope they reject picking a party and simply campaign on that to make it a bigger issue.

In truth it doesn't matter who they back because the readers will have decided already IMO. Also The Guardian has too small a readership to be able to make much impact on the election in the way The Sun can. The Sun has quite a wide readership and a lot will take only a passing interesting in politics and the mood they get from the paper could influence them in my view. Unlikely with The Guardian/Telegraph or Independent.

On a similar note: Sky should be banned from ever hosting a leaders' debete again.

Why?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by danielf

And ironically, due to the inclusion of Lib Dems in the debates, it seems that this year's election is the first genuine opportunity in years to do something about it.

Agree with that. the Lib dems have never had so much 'publicity' in all time. if people treat the election as some sort of X-Factor competition from watching them battle it out as they are doing, then they will have loads more votes than they ever would have before.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Why?

Did you miss yesterday's blatant smear campaign?

Originally Posted by danielf

Did you miss yesterday's blatant smear campaign?

You mean Bolton asking Clegg about the Telegraph's front page? I didn't really mind that, I took it as Adam Bolton trying to inject some of the current political climate into the debate and change the dynamic of a boring debate.

I think it's kind of easy to see bias when none exists. Sky I believe is quite balanced.

I do think they need to release polls at the same time though. The 20 minute gap between the poll that said Cameron won it and then the rest which said Clegg did or it was a draw was more than enough time for the debate to be awarded to the party.

I would like to see the Tories pressed more on the revelation they briefed their attack dogs/papers on Nick Clegg before that amazing set of headlines on a single day!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

You mean Bolton asking Clegg about the Telegraph's front page? I didn't really mind that, I took it as Adam Bolton trying to inject some of the current political climate into the debate and change the dynamic of a boring debate.

That was one reason. I didn't see it as an innocent injection. It was a flagrant breach of the rules surrounding these debates. Coupled with a poll released hours before the debate, and Sun headlines going 'CLEGG LOSES SIX POINTS OVER 2 DAYS" it's not hard to spot the agenda.

I think it's kind of easy to see bias when none exists. Sky I believe is quite balanced.

That's fair enough I suppose, but I don't like what I see. It's alright to debate and take a stance on the issues, but this has nothing to do with it. It's blatant electioneering and smearing on the part of the media. It's sickening.

I do think they need to release polls at the same time though. The 20 minute gap between the poll that said Cameron won it and then the rest which said Clegg did or it was a draw was more than enough time for the debate to be awarded to the party.

No surprise there...

I would like to see the Tories pressed more on the revelation they briefed their attack dogs/papers on Nick Clegg before that amazing set of headlines on a single day!

Absolutely.

[nomadking]

Shouldn't Clegg have been pleased to have the opportunity to comment on any stories?

And now for something completely different.....

UKIP candidate for Meridian, Mr Barry Allcock


hattip to annaraccoon

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Shouldn't Clegg have been pleased to have the opportunity to comment on any stories?

I believe he did comment: IIRC, he said it was "nonsense".

[Which it is... so why waste time on nonsense?]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobin...ood_smear.html

Originally Posted by The BBC's Nick Robinson

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8636311.stm

Originally Posted by BBC

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 at 23:46 ---------- Previous post was at 23:44 ----------

So... does anyone here live in Hitchin & Harpenden, Twickenham, Doncaster Central, or Brighton Pavilion, and care about Undead Rights and the exploitation of Zombies? LOL

http://www.votecure.com/vote/?p=1

http://www.votecure.com/vote/?p=52

So why haven't the LD's given back the £2.4 million they accepted from the convicted fraudster Michael Brown?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Matt D

So... does anyone here live in Hitchin & Harpenden, Twickenham, Doncaster Central, or Brighton Pavilion, and care about Undead Rights and the exploitation of Zombies? LOL

http://www.votecure.com/vote/?p=1

http://www.votecure.com/vote/?p=52

My vote may have just changed.

In other news there's a few articles online about Cameron's interview with Paxman. The main news story about it all actually makes perfect sense so long as it's done properly but given how horny and addicted so many people seem to be to sucking on the public sector teat just the mere suggestion of being weaned off it will probably go down like a lead balloon.

Clearly there are issues when the state is a larger part of local economies than it was in formerly communist countries, the answer is obviously not to follow the Labour way of taking money from the South and routing it North in order to keep feeding the state involvement there.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So why haven't the LD's given back the £2.4 million they accepted from the convicted fraudster Michael Brown?

Wasn't the money given to the party 4 years before Brown was convicted? And didn't the Electoral Commission conclude that the donations were permissible and that the Lib Dems had no need to return the money?

[nomadking]

And Clegg was therefore given the chance to explain about the true part of the story, which was, that money was paid directly into his personal account and not the party account.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And Clegg was therefore given the chance to explain about the true part of the story, which was, that money was paid directly into his personal account and not the party account.

Which was duly declared to the relevant parliamentary authorities etc, and was use for the intended purposes; to pay for a researcher, and all paper work to back this up has been provided. What's your point?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And Clegg was therefore given the chance to explain about the true part of the story, which was, that money was paid directly into his personal account and not the party account.

Had it not already been explained though?

The donations were made before he became party leader, so did not go into the main party account.

Not ideal, no.

But does it really matter? Once he became leader, subsequent donations went to a party account.

And although these donations in question went into his own account, they were fully & properly declared and accounted for. And equal amounts (actually, a slightly larger amount in total) were transferred out of his account to pay the staffing costs that they had officially been declared as being used for.

So what exactly is the issue?

[DocDutch]

think the issue is that some people would prefer a politician that just nicks money from the taxpayer then seeing 1 little error of judgment.