User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2010/April

Sefton Central
Your accusation that dirty tricks was mentioned in my edit is wholly incorrect. All I quoted was the fact that the press now regard this seat as a Con - Lib marginal, which was correct and supported by the given reference. Thank you -  Gallo glass  10:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like you- I am reverting any edit that seems to be politically motivated, and your edit could now be quoted in Lib-Dem propaganda. I don't agree that one line on a POV article is a sufficiently strong reference to justify the claim you made. We see how Cameron's nasties- have misrepresented the Anfield incident and the journalist explained this (possibly mistakenly or probably mistakenly) as a LD-Tory conflict in a 3 way marginal. After May 7th, there will be an paragraph here about spin and manipulation but before then I believe that any attempts by me to add analysis would be open to criticism- and the safest thing here is top remove the text or find a better reference.


 * Is see from your edit summaries comments like ‎ (Undid revision 357252598 by Fangz (talk) its crystal ball gazing which we don't do here) which I totally agree with. We are also not a newspaper so don't need to provide running commentary.


 * The issue of when an MP ceases to be an MP is a complex one. The MP stopped being an MP 17:00 Mon 12th Apr, but the MPs office continues until 5th May (time uncertain). The MP may take on no further casework from the first date but remains the point of response for relies until the 5th May. Technically present tense remains correct.

--ClemRutter (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)