Clegg is evil! Lock up the children...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

http://twitpic.com/1he6lp

Meanwhile, the Daily Star misses April Fool's Day by three weeks with a hilariously untrue story http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/131856/GORDON-BROWN-I-QUIT/

My guess at headlines to come:

"CLEGG'S GUILT OVER DIANA COVER-UP" - Express

"YOUTH CLEGG SPORTS HITLER MOUSTACHE" - Sun

"NEW OUTRAGE: CLEGG LINKS TO PAEDOPHILE - Mad Bolshie LibDem leader Clegg has been linked to a dangerous sex attacker after it was shown that Mr. Clegg and an unnamed 17 year old offender shared the same county as residence. Tory spokesman Michael Gove demanded..." - Daily Mail

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. The Star is on a roll with made-up stories:

Daily Star pulled from airports over volcano ash splash

Paper removed from shops in Gatwick and Manchester airports over computer-generated image of 747 with engines ablaze



Copies of today's Daily Star have been removed from airport newsagent shelves today over fears that its splash, headlined "Terror as plane hits ash cloud" with an image of a 747 with engines ablaze, could cause panic among travellers.

Richard Desmond's red top was removed from shops at Gatwick and Manchester airports after today's edition was published, with a front-page story claiming to feature "dramatic pictures as jets get OK to defy volcano".

However, the image used in the splash was taken from a TV reconstruction of an incident 28 years ago in which a BA 747's engines were knocked out by a volcanic ash cloud. The documentary, previously broadcast on the National Geographic channel, is to be shown on Channel Five tonight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/21/airports-pull-daily-star#

[Nihil]

5. How could they even *think* that they'd get away with that?

> "Terror as plane hits ash cloud" with an image of a 747 with engines ablaze,
> could cause panic among travellers.

:wtf:

[T_i_B]

2. The Mail - O - Matic has a special edition today!

For a limited time only, every headline is about Nick Clegg.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Also, I keep posting the #nickcleggsfault hashtag on twitter, which is doing a very good job of biting the RW press on the arse! Well reccomended.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23nickcleggsfault

http://broadstuff.com/archives/2179-nickcleggsfault.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Excellent Mail-o-matic!

qwghlm has also done the best spoof of the 'unspoofable' Tory poster, IMO:

http://twitpic.com/1h5bzj

[T_i_B]

21. 2 days later....

and #nickcleggsfault is still the top trending subject on Twitter in the UK. #disobeymurdoch is another subject that's come up of late, encouraging people to give Rupert Murdoch the bird by voting Lib Dem.

[LeftishBrit]

12. ROFL!

DID NICK CLEGG IMPREGNATE THE CHURCH?

COULD NICK CLEGG HAVE SEX WITH PENSIONERS?

COULD NICK CLEGG TURN HOUSE PRICES GAY?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. You have just given me my new sigline.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Did Nick Clegg Grope the Invisible Woman?

:evilgrin:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

24. Even if he didn't. It's still a pertinent question to ask. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. Murdoch-Wade posse crash Independent's office – that's pretty uncool, isn't it?

Rattled News International heavyweights respond to Cleggmania with visit to Simon Kelner's office

Things are hotting up. Hours after the traditional British election egg was thrown at David Cameron's shoulder, we learned this morning that James Murdoch and his enforcer, Rebekah Brooks, nee Wade, burst their way into the offices of the Independent to give executives a hard time.

Gosh, that's pretty uncool, and may suggest that expensive suits at News International are rattled by Cleggmania, which could leave them out in the cold if the Tories fail to win on 6 May.

What seems to have upset them are ads that the Indy has been running along the lines of "Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election – you will." Brooks apparently rang Simon Kelner, the editor-in-chief and now chief executive of the Indy to complain that dog does not eat dog in Fleet Street.

That means that editors and owners do not attack each other in person – not their politics, their finances or their private lives. Remember the running battle, later patched up, between the Daily Mail and the once-mighty Daily Express over the former's habit of referring (correctly) to Express owner Richard Desmond as a pornographer? That sort of thing.

More:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/22/murdoch-wade-crash-independent

Well, I'm sure that Rupert Murdoch is very upset that he won't decide this election. How dare the British electorate infringe on his democratic rights.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. More on News International's strong-arm tactics

How did Murdoch get into The Indy’s inner sanctum?

One puzzle about James Murdoch and Rebekah Wade bursting into the Independent editor Simon Kellner’s office yesterday to berate him for his campaign saying Rupert Murdoch wasn’t going to dictate this election and The Indy is free from proprietorial influence… How did they get into the Indy inner sanctum without passing their security?

I may have the answer. You can very easily get into the Indy’s offices if you are already paying a visit to the Daily Mail offices that share the block. I haven’t managed to stand up that there was a meeting between Paul Dacre and the Murdoch delegation yesterday but it would be intriguing and very unusual if there was.

There is a certain theme, it has to be said, to the onslaught on Nick Clegg in the Mail, Sun (and Telegraph). You might even say a certain degree of overkill (link to Mail front page here pls). Nick Clegg just said he must be the only politician to have gone from Churchill to a Nazi in one week flat. Tonight, of course, Nick Clegg walks into a Murdoch organised event – the Sky debate. The dynasty will be represented at a posh “do” to celebrate this coup.

Meanwhile in the Tory camp there are claims that it was ex-Murdoch editor Andy Coulson who was too keen to please his ex employers and didn’t grip the debate negotiations and Clegg’s equal prominence by the throat.

Tory strategists seem relaxed about Gordon Brown’s plans to sail a flotilla of ships from Spain into Bristol harbour as a curtain-raiser to tonight’s debate. Only joking.

By the way, interesting interview in The Independent with Nick Clegg in which he says AV isn’t enough to win him over to supporting Labour in government – it would have to be AV+. He also says he wouldn’t shove Gordon Brown out as part of a deal to share with power.

Source:http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2010/04/22/how-did-murdoch-get-into-the-indys-inner-sanctum

Interesting times.

[fedsron2us]

17. Noticed all the Tory rags have 'Clegg Eats Babies' headlines

Given that the papers readership is largely made up of people who will already vote Tory I found the hysteria faintly bewildering as I suspect do some of their more venerable columnists. Interestingly, the Mail's Andrew Alexander who actually stood as a Tory candidate under Harold Macmillan back in the 'Pliocene' seems a lot less phased about a hung Parliament than his employer. I get the sneaking suspicion Alexander is enjoying seeing the modern supposedly PR savvy Conservative leaders campaign foundering on public indifference.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1267660/General-Election-2010-A-horse-race-Im-betting-it.html

Any way it is clear Murdoch and Co are really rattled by Clegg. This alone are enough to make me want to vote Lib Dem.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. More on the Murdoch/Indy affair

Today programme suggested that News Corp is unhappy with the Indy campaign ads that suggest "Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election. You will."...

1pm update: It seems that Murdoch and Brooks were in the Derry Street offices to see Lord Rothermere. Probably to discuss the fact that the Daily Mail has asserted that it will not go behind a paywall, just as the Times prepares to do just that.

The News International pair then popped in to see Kelner to express their displeasure about the personal nature of the Indy's "Murdoch wot done it" ad campaign...

4pm update: Arch Murdoch-watcher Michael Wolff has weighed in with an interesting analysis of the Brooks/Murdoch Jr/Kelner showdown. Wolff places the row in the context of Brooks/Murdoch Jr persuading Murdoch Sr that the Sun must support David Cameron - coming soon after Roger Ailes persuaded the boss to back John McCain against Barack Obama - and the Tories' subsequent opinion poll stutters to a surprise Lib Dem surge:

"In a coming-apart-at-the-seams scenario, Rebekah Wade/Brooks and Murdoch's son, James—who will both face the wrath of Murdoch senior if they don't produce a winner—stormed over to the Independent, breached its security systems, barged into the offices of the Independent's editor-in-chief and top executive, Simon Kelner, and commenced, in Brit-speak, a giant row. Their point was that newspaper publishers don't slag off other newspaper publishers in polite Britain, but also the point was to remind Kelner that he wasn't just slagging off another publisher, he was slagging off the Murdochs, damn it. Indeed, the high point of the screaming match was Wade/Brooks, in a fit of apoplexy and high drama, neck muscles straining, saying to Kelner: "And I invited you to Blenheim in the first place!" Blenheim being the Murdoch family retreat and the highest social destination for all Murdoch loyalists and ambitious Brits in the media."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/apr/22/independent-alexander-lebedev-boots

This fits in with the idea that the Murdochs are bricking it. A centre-left coalition entrenched by PR means a big "no" to further media deregulation. Cameron's pledge to kill OFCOM was meant to be a start of the foxisation of cable news in Britain.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. Tory blogger Iain Dale reckons that this crazy demonising of Clegg will backfire

These Shameful Attacks on Clegg Will Backfire

What a terrible indictment of the British press we see this morning. The Mail runs a spurious story about Nick Clegg making a supposed Nazi slur against Britain. The Express reckons he wants us to be overrun by immigrants. The Telegraph accuses him, of well, properly declaring donations made to him to employ a member of staff. I haven't seen The Sun yet, but judging by their tirades against him over the last few days, he will probably be accused of fathering Kerry Katona's latest child and then paying her to get rid of it.

What a disgrace. And they say blogs are biased. On Sunday I wrote...

Personal attacks on Nick Clegg will not work. They will backfire on those who make them and rightly so. Everyone who knows Nick Clegg likes him. He's a transparently likeable individual. Anyone trying to make out that he's anything else will come a cropper.

I don't want Nick Clegg to win. I don't want him to be Prime Minister. But he is not the devil incarnate. He's a nice guy, doing a fair job of leading his party. I do not agree with many of his policies. I think many of them are misguided. But I am happy to accept that he believes they will be best for the country. I am happy to debate them with him or any other LibDem and that's what politics and this election should be about. It should be about debating ideas, arguing about policy. It shouldn't be about this sudden urge to denigrate Nick Clegg as a person. It will backfire on those who promulgate these attacks because most people can see with their own eyes that he is a transparently decent individual.

More:http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/these-shameful-attacks-on-clegg-will.html

Dale is more of the "Big Society" wing of the Tory party than the "flog them/string them up" sort. As has been muttered numerous times by the Indy and Grauniad, the change in message by the Tories does represent a new predominance of the latter, traditional Tory message compared to the former.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Today's attacks on Clegg are "classic Coulson" - Mandelson

From the Grauniad's live blog:

2.16pm: Hello. Simon Jeffery taking over from Hélène and with some more of Mandelson's World at One interview, where he said today's attack on Clegg was "classic Coulson" and "violates basic rules of electioneering". Those are quite some charges.

1.27pm: Lord Mandelson is on the BBC's World at One. He says the media coverage we've had today in the national press (see 7.15am) shows the Tories are "in panic".

The Lib Dems deserve strong scrutiny on their policies, says Mandelson, but, he adds, there's no place for the kind of coverage we've seen today. He says the Tory campaign has been "subcontracted" to Andy Coulson (former News of the World editor).

He deftly managed to duck Martha Kearney's questions about why Labour should be worrying for the Lib Dems when they are trailing in third place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/22/general-election-2010

[TheBigotBasher]

19. In between Mandleson pointing at Coulson

I wonder how much smearing was being done by him.

He is hardly a saint and it was also interesting to see Alistair Campbell slithering around yesterday as well.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. parts of the RW press are sensing that the anti-Clegg hysteria is backfiring

Peter Hoskin in the Spectator

One thing's for certain: the Lib Dems are coming in for greater scrutiny and attention from the media. The covers of the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Express and, yes, The Spectator are testament to that - even if some are less substantial than others. But the question is: will this derail the Clegg bandwagon? And, like Iain Dale, I'm not so sure.

Iain's point is that some of the coverage is so spiteful that it will "serve to increase his popularity and position in the polls". He adds that this would be a "sure sign that the power of the press to influence an election is on the wane". He's right, and the theme he identifies is one of the major currents that's swirling about underneath the surface of this election campaign. It might yet turn out to be a tidal shift.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5934158/people-loathe-politicians-but-do-they-loathe-the-political-media-too.thtml

Robert Colvile in the Torygraph

A friend emails to tell me that she’s never given money to a political party, but after reading today’s front pages, she’s opened her wallet… to the Lib Dems.

The spectacle of the national press in full cry against the Lib Dems has provoked something of a backlash. Some of the tabloid websites have suffered a flood of hostile comments not seen since the Jan Moir episode...

(snip)

The #nickcleggsfault campaign on Twitter (as reported by Toby Young) shows how people today are sceptical of all authority, whether political or editorial. Indeed, some commentators have wondered whether it’s a coincidence that the slide in the Tories’ poll ratings began at the same time the Sun publicly switched sides, and started a blunderbuss campaign to convince its readers that Gordon Brown is a villain and David Cameron a saint (and vice versa for the Mirror).

In short, there’s a strong possibility that many people will not just ignore the attacks on the Lib Dems, but will actively switch their support to them, whether out of spite or sympathy. From the reaction so far, I suspect my friend is not alone.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robertcolvile/100035913/is-this-becoming-the-anti-media-election

The New Statesman thinks there's some changes over at the The SCUM.

Has the Sun realised it went OTT?

Clegg disappears from paper's home-page

After a back-lash against Nick Clegg's mauling in the right-wing and Conservative press -- a backlash that has included not just Peter Mandelson, Paddy Ashdown and Alastair Campbell but also the Tory-supporting blogger Iain Dale (a must read post) and even provoked thought at the Telegraph itself (one of the anti-Clegg vessels) -- could it be that even the Sun is cottoning on?

A quick glance at its home-page shows that the screaming front-page splash about Nick Clegg, which was certainly still the main story last time I checked an hour or two ago, has now disappeared. Do a "control f" search and their is no mention of "Clegg" on the (extremely busy) page.

Rupert Murdoch is an ideologue. But he is also a businessman. Could it be that even he realises there is only so far you can go against popular opinion. After all, everyone knows the Sun executives are desperately trying to will on a Tory victory, but, Murdoch may ask himself, does every potential Sun reader hate Nick Clegg?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/04/home-page-nick-clegg-sun-paper

[LeftishBrit]

13. I'm surprised they haven't yet called him a Secret Muslin and demanded his birth certificate!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. the Daily Hate has already said he's not British, "he's a Ruskie/Spaniard blah blah blah"

[LeftishBrit]

20. So unlike our own dear Queen - Well, no, not really.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. meanwhile, Tory male candidates are physically attacking female Labour volunteers

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/04/poplar-prescott-ground

How did Clegg allow this to happen?

[T_i_B]

11. Which is better, Tory or Labour?

There's only one way to find out...........

FIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. More on Tory/Coulson link to anti-Clegg hysteria

Nick Robinson originally poo-pood Mandelson's suggestion that it was Coulson's work (even suggesting that it was a baseless smear of Mandelson), but he's changed his mind it seems.

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://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

[Anarcho-Socialist]

18. 'Sun' censored poll that showed support for Lib Dems

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sun-censored-poll-that-showed-support-for-lib-dems-1951940.html

[Hopeless Romantic]

25. The Polecat is claiming that Clegs PR reform would give the BNP 60 seats

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100036759/nick-cleggs-electoral-reform-could-give-the-bnp-over-60-seats-in-the-house-of-commons/

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. based on his own idle conjecture

what a non-story. It's a weak "vote Clegg, get Hitler" argument.

[T_i_B]

27. Same old same old

Vote Clegg get Cameron.
Vote Cameron get Brown.
Vote Brown get Clegg.
Vote Clegg get Brown.

Repeat ad nauseum until thoroughly fucked off. Why can't they talk about their policies instead of "tactical" bullshit?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Straight in with Godwin's Law

In the midst of all this it is clear that the Lib Dems have a single overriding priority: to change our electoral system to the one which they believe would most favour their party. It is also the one by which Hitler was elected to power in Germany.

Actual votes in the 1932 federal election:
National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) 37.8%
Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) 21.9%
Communist Party of Germany (KPD) 14.6%
Centre Party (Z) 12.3%
German National People's Party (DNVP) 6.1%
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

Under an FPTP system, the Nazis would have had more seats than under the PR system the Germans used - probably a majority in 1932. Similar results after that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

And he doesn't understand STV:

They might score 10 per cent in a future election – and under the Clegg system finish up with over 60 MPs.

STV is not a system proportional over the whole country - unless you make the whole country one district and tell people to vote for 500 (or however many) MPs. To keep the numbers of candidates a voter is faced with manageable, you have districts with, say, 5 seats. Then, someone has to get one sixth of the voters (either as a first choice, or as part of the redistribution from unsuccessful candidates, or the 'over-vote' of successful candidates) to get elected in that 5-member district.

I don't know if the Lib Dems have specified the size of the constituencies in their manifesto - from the bit I've seen, they haven't, but it may be in more detail somewhere else. But you can, if you want, keep the constituencies small enough that minority parties below a certain level don't stand much of a chance (especially if they're extremists that a lot of people with never vote for). Even if you don't do that explicitly, a practical size tends to have the same effect anyway.