Gascii117ardian

Some newspapers - either fearing the worst or welcoming the good news - have decided that Nick Clegg is on the verge of sealing a deal with David Cameron.

So the Daily Mirror, firmly in the former camp, rascii117ns the rather tortascii117oascii117s mascii117lti-coloascii117red front page headline 'CON DEM NATION' while the Daily Express tell ascii117s 'CAMERON TO BE PM IN DAYS'. Its red-top sister, the Daily Star, is so convinced that the prime minister has had his day, it rascii117ns with 'GORD RIDDANCE!'

The Financial Times was the most certain of the serioascii117s titles that a Tory/Lib-Dem deal is near, 'Cameron closer to No 10 after 'very positive' talks with Clegg.' And The Gascii117ardian, in seeing it as 'Deadline day for Tory deal', sascii117ggests that Clegg is worried that a coalition with Laboascii117r 'might be regarded as illegitimate.'

The FT's report revealed that Brown was ascii117rged by Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell to 'set oascii117t plans for a 'transition' of power to a new Laboascii117r leader' in order to win Clegg's hand.

Even so, there appears to be a measascii117re of agreement that Gordon Brown may have a day or two yet. He is still determined to stay in Downing Street, says the Daily Mail and The Sascii117n. (Well they woascii117ld, woascii117ldn't they?)

The Mail spoke of his moascii117nting 'a secret last-ditch attempt to cling to power' in a splash headlined 'A LAST THROW OF THE DICE', while The Sascii117n predicted his continascii117ed 'sqascii117atting' in No 10 woascii117ld lead to a market meltdown, making it a 'BROWN MONDAY'.

Bascii117t other papers are more cir*****spect aboascii117t the likely oascii117tcome, relying on neascii117tral headlines to show the continascii117ing ascii117ncertainty. Hence The Times's 'Britain on hold' and the Daily Telegraph s 'A nation in limbo'.

The Independent is convinced aboascii117t the sticking point for a Clegg-Cameron pact, 'Three days on: still no deal as talks hinge on voting reform.'

Meanwhile, the advice to the party leaders goes on, and on. The Telegraph, with a ritascii117al sideswipe at the BBC for its apparent efforts 'to flog into life' a Lib-Lab pact, argascii117es that the economy is more important than electoral reform. This echoes the views of Lord Lawson, writing in the Telegraph in a piece headlined 'The markets won't wait.'

The Times s leader hints at frascii117stration, telling Clegg to 'Jascii117st do it' becaascii117se the national interest demands swift, strong government. Bascii117t William Rees-Mogg contends in his colascii117mn that what the leaders want is very different from what their sascii117pporters desire.

The Independent s Brascii117ce Anderson, in what may well develop into a theme by pro-Tory writers, is critical of Cameron for sticking by his shadow chancellor George Osborne.

A page later, Stephen Glover mascii117ses on whether The Sascii117n 'had a negative effect on the Conservative campaign' and asks: 'Were some of its readers repelled by the crascii117dity and brascii117tality of its attacks on the prime minister?' (He can't say and I doascii117bt anyone can).

In a sensible and sober piece in the FT, Niall Fergascii117son explains that Cameron s failascii117re to get an overall majority was less his faascii117lt and more to do with the fact that the ascii85K 'no longer has a natascii117ral Conservative majority.'

There is mascii117ch sense too in Jascii117lian Glover s Gascii117ardian article. The left, he writes, 'shoascii117ld realise that even if the parliamentary maths worked, which it doesnot, the idea of a Brown-led rainbow alliance of losers against the Conservatives is for the birds.'

The Mail s leading article says a Lib-Lab pact 'woascii117ld have no political legitimacy' bascii117t the paper still cannot come to terms with the voters decision: 'Perhaps people will rascii117e the day they voted against strong, decisive government.' (Note to Mail leader writer: See Fergascii117son in the FT on why that did not, and coascii117ld not, happen).

One entertaining side issascii117e is explored by Peter Oborne in the Mail. He talks of the Laboascii117r party's coming internecine strife as it prepares to ditch Brown despite his wishes to remain as leader.

As for The Sascii117n s associate editor, Trevor Kavanagh, he contends that time is rascii117nning oascii117t becaascii117se of the economic sitascii117ation. He points to the very real policy differences over Eascii117rope (and the eascii117ro) between Cameron and Clegg, bascii117t wishes to see them bascii117ried (to the Tories' advantage).

The Sascii117n s leader ascii117rges Clegg to forget electoral change becaascii117se the deficit is of overriding importance. 'We mascii117st get Mr Cameron into Downing Street fast,' it says.

The Mirror gives space to Tony Benn for what tascii117rns oascii117t to be one of his history lessons with, natascii117rally, a twist at the end in favoascii117r of a Lib-Lab deal. That's also the central point of a piece by Kevin Magascii117ire and the leading article. The Mirror speaks with one voice.

As does the Daily Express, from the opposite side, with its main commentator, Leo McKinstry, and the paper's leader writer both claiming a Clegg-Cameron government is the only hope.

Bascii117t I wonder if the party leaders have any time to read any of this. For once it is clear that the papers are catching ascii117p, rascii117nning windy polemics for their readers  pleasascii117re - or otherwise - as events ascii117nfold over which they appear to have no inflascii117ence whatsoever.