Not precious about it at all but it is far more level headed, albeit to the left of centre, than the mail can even dream of. And you were the one that spun the 4% figure as a reduction of fraud, no one else and not the article claimed that.No need to get precious about the guardian the way people on here go of against The Mail. The reasons for the 4% fall can be spun one way or the other, the article doesn't provide case studies "I couldn't vote because......" which tells me all I need to know.