Well, I'll give you an example. Before the last General Election, I never once entertained for a milisecond that the Daily Mail or the Sun or the Daily Telegraph would come out in support of the Liberal Democrats, but that didn't mean that I felt it was a waste of time to try and seek to explain to them what I stood for, what my plans were for the party, so that if not in their editorial stance, but nonetheless in their coverage, they would give us fair hearing, and I would still do that today.
Then there were other newspapers, I suppose notably the Independent, the Guardian, the Observer, where I felt there was just a much stronger convergence of world view, if you like, which I hoped would lead to a more explicit form of endorsement, which happily did occur. But as I said in my written evidence, I don't think one should get sort of overly -- hung up is not the right word, but I don't think one should devote an undue focus on the editorial written by a newspaper in the week of a General Election because I actually don't think that shifts very many votes one way or the other. My own view is what has a much, much bigger effect on the public's view of politicians as people and their parties is the sustained prism through which they are described over a sustained period of time, and that is immeasurably more important.