"harryagain" wrote in message
...
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more sinister?

Rupert Murdoch and his editors are happy for people
to think they swing elections.
In fact they don't, but they don't like backing losers
and they're very good at identifying winners
well before time.

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have
recognised that electing Ed Miliband as
party leader would be electoral suicide,
compounded by having somebody called Balls
as Shadow Chancellor. Basically nobody will
want to vote for somebody who can be ridiculed
solely on account of their name. Previously
Balls had been able to hide behind Gordon Brown
and then Alastair Darling. Who also admittedly had
a funny name but wasn't high profile in the
minds of voters.

When the "Sun" got well stuck into Miliband quite
possibly a lot of those questioned didn't
want the polsters to think they'd been swayed
by Murdoch, or the media in general. Who all
mainly recognised Ed Miliband for the liability
he was. So they pretended they were going to vote
for him nevertheless to show their independence.
As if.


michael adams

....


....