"I think it was a genuine mistake, I don't think it was deceit and lies. I just think he wanted to get his point over and I think it was the only way he could see to do it."
Other than, I don't know, calling under his real name, declaring that he was standing (because bluntly that's hardly going to stop them talking to him; rather the reverse in many cases) and leading by example in offering to have his background screened?
He phoned in under a false name and when called back on the same number managed to deny himself a Peter-ific three times (though there's no mention of a cock crowing, just one from the Conservative Association with a statement...). Unless he's been diagnosed with a multiple personality disorder or has suffered some sort of schizoid break, I think it may be assumed that in the first instance he knew he wasn't called Paul and in the sceond that he recalled making the call. I'd be delighted to hear Mr. Bailey's explanation of how that could possibly not be "lies and deceit".