You can tell that the No to AV campaigners are getting desperate. They are resorting to lies and personal attacks in the hope of winning May's referendum.
There is a case to be made against changing the voting system (although I think that the arguments in favour are far stronger). But Tim Montgomerie is determined to play the man not the ball in his post entitled 'AV can be defeated if voters go into the polling booth thinking of Nick Clegg, broken promises and tuition fees' (snappy title).
Mr Montgomerie writes in the post and in a column in the New Statesman:
"Clegg wants to abolish first-past-the-post because he wants the Liberal Democrats to become the permanent power-brokers in British politics."
Really? Prove it.
Opponents of change might think that a consequence of change would be a smaller party permanently in a position of power. I happen to doubt that this will be the case as I think it is equally possible for the two largest parties to get together in some circumstances. But can anyone provide any evidence that this is the motivation behind Nick Clegg's backing for AV. Maybe he is actually telling the truth when he has set out time and again why he thinks that change to the voting system is actually fairer for the people of Britain as a whole.