The Sun and Labour

[Balbi]

Just seen on the news one of the politicians( didn't catch who it was) ripping up the newspaper at the conference.

Tony Woodley

The Sun has a fair old floating voter readership, it's not like the Grauniad or the Mail - with them you know you've got your saints and sinners for either side.

 

[stavros]

The Tories didn't completely implode after 1997. They were in the complete wilderness in the polls for about ten years, but until we change from the daft first-past-the-post system I can't see either the red or blue side going very far.

 

[Zabo]

I wish i was tempted, but really, i can't bring myself to vote for any of them.

Likewise

 

[Stoat Boy]

I suppose the worrying aspect of this is if Cameron has done what Blair did and bought Murdoch's support with a promise to do something, probably to further go after the BBC (who Murdoch blames for not letting him charge for news online).

I fully agree and I am a Tory.

The only deal that Murdoch is looking for now is to try and stifle the BBC and its internet services because they represent the primary stumbling block to him and all the other mainstream Media organisations agreeing to not give away content for free.

 

[agricola]

I wish i was tempted, but really, i can't bring myself to vote for any of them.

Ironically, I hate Labour and its many, many evils and yet will be voting for a Labour MP at the next election.

The only deal that Murdoch is looking for now is to try and stifle the BBC and its internet services because they represent the primary stumbling block to him and all the other mainstream Media organisations agreeing to not give away content for free.

Exactly.

 

[where to]

the BBC and its internet services ... represent the primary stumbling block to him and all the other mainstream Media organisations agreeing to not give away content for free.

spot on that.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's not specifically that - Murdoch papers have been against the BBC for ages simply because it's a competitor. Also for other papers owned by media groups. They have trouble coming out and saying it openly of course because in general their readership likes the BBC, but they can sow doubt and rumours.

 

[Zabo]

It's not specifically that - Murdoch papers have been against the BBC for ages simply because it's a competitor. Also for other papers owned by media groups. They have trouble coming out and saying it openly of course because in general their readership likes the BBC, but they can sow doubt and rumours.

Correct but we also know of the recognition and respect which is given to the BBC throughout the world. Piss off the middle-class like the Radio 4 demographic and you are asking for trouble - no matter who you are.

And then there's that little matter of the Royal Charter and those who fund it - the public. I guess they would want a say in matters.

It would be ironic if the man who introduced technology into printing and laid of hundreds of workers was fucked over good and proper by newer technology.

 

[Gromit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8281859.stm

Is this the death knell for a moribund Labour Party? A newspaper shifting to the most likely winner? The end result of both's decline?

Given how much time Labour have spent pandering to Murdoch's press' most base instincts, I guess this has to come as something of a blow to Brown. But aren't most of the readers affected by this already likely to have made the same transistion?

I was absolutely outraged by the Sun Headline.

Remember when newspapers printed news, without bias. Reported what politicians said and let you interpret rather than tell people what to think.

Basically they are trying to influence people's view of Labour with that headline instead of letting them make their own minds up based on Brown's speech.

 

[belboid]

Remember when newspapers printed news, without bias.

No. They never did that

 

[belboid]

Everyone involved in producing the sun should be shot right in the face.

I've had several mates (plus my father in common-law) who have worked n the scum, overwhelmingly printers and the like. they wre doing whats calld 'a job'. i wouldnt hold the end result of that job against them any more than I would someone who worked in a nuclear power plant (& I've known a few of them too) or any other occupation we'd rather get rid of.

 

[shagnasty]

100% correct. Dwindling sales, the power of the internet means the shitty little rag has no value. This episode ios nothing more than an ego massage and the twat Kavanagh has never been a fan of the left.




Yes, he and his fukwit son have an agenda but there is no way in a million light years they will screw up the BBC even with the collusion of the Tories. The BBC is one of Britain's biggest institutions and has an avid following equal only to the support for the NHS.

In a nutshell they are pissed off because their income generation isn't what they'd like and they are jealous of the BBC's wide range of output. All the crap about monetising papers won't work because there's enough free competition with expertise to act as a counterbalance.

Yes i have been thinking along them lines of how the tories taking on the bbc what the result would be.the bbc is more trusted than government and for all it's faultsis a great institution

 

[gosub]

Yes i have been thinking along them lines of how the tories taking on the bbc what the result would be.the bbc is more trusted than government and for all it's faultsis a great institution

That would be the same BBC that last weekend, asked the Gordon Brown directly, and on the record, if he was undergoing treatment for mental illness?

 

[ska invita]

A lot of the comments on this issue seem to be assuming that the people who buy the Sun automatically believe what it says and go along with it's agenda and so will vote accordingly (despite there being plenty of research that undermines this crude approach)

Have you got a link to that research? Id be interested to see it. Not saying your wrong, but the Sun since '79 has certainly supported the winners - there hasn't been a time since when they've been an 'opposition paper' (other than just before an election).

This is what has got me thinking - on the one hand the political world makes sense again - Union bosses can rip up the Sun at a Labour conference, Torys are toffs, etc -all feels right to me.

But what feels unusual about this is that where as the Sun is usually backing the right horse, I'm not sure the country really supports Cameron's Torys in the way they supported Thatcher, or even Major. I think a lot of the Tory vote at the moment is a protest vote against Labour, rather than a vote for the Torys.

Therefore I think Sun readers will be really at odds with any editorials that actively attempt to support Cameron. I think Sun readers on the whole think he's just as bad as Brown, and the Sun's going to have a hard time persuading them otherwise.

When Thatcher came in I think the public were on her side - with Major they were still scared of Labour - in this case I dont believe they are really behind Cameron. If the Sun's not careful I think it may fail to promote the Tory message to its readers, who don't really want to hear it. Which would be a good thing on the whole - perhaps this is the moment that the Sun will lose even more readers, alienating them with a pro-Cameron message?

the Sun will always back the party they expect to win as it gives Murdoch more power over the Government of the day. if he'd backed the Tories in '97 what level of influence would he have had over Prime Minister Blair - very little as Blair would of realised he didn't need him.

the fact that they are getting in so early to back Cameron suggests to me that they want in on his policy formation planning as early as possible.

the big one Murdoch will be pressing the Tories on in the next few years will be the BBC, he wants it slaughtered. for all its faults i can only imagine how shite TV will be 20 years down the line once he's succeeded there.

If that's true, and I think you may well be right, I think the Sun will be even further out of step with its readers from now )for the reason Zabo gives:

Yes, he and his fukwit son have an agenda but there is no way in a million light years they will screw up the BBC even with the collusion of the Tories. The BBC is one of Britain's biggest institutions and has an avid following equal only to the support for the NHS.

 

[ska invita]

I think this info backs up the idea that a Cameron-supporting Sun would be out of touch with its readers

Sun readers: How they voted
1992
Con 45%
Lab 36%
Lib Dem 15%

1997
Con 30%
Lab 52%
Lib Dem 12%

2001
Con 29%
Lab 52%
Lib Dem 11%

2005
Con 35%
Lab 44%
Lib Dem 10%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/30/david-cameron-rupert-murdoch-sun

This is spot on i think:

it’s very clear that some Labour ministers, although making light of the Sun’s influence in public, are deeply worried in private by its rejection of Labour and the effect that that rejection will have on the polls.

Which speaks volumes about their evaluation of the nature of Labour voters.

It really is long past time that the leadership of the Labour Party took a long hard look at themselves and their preconceptions of their supporters, and stopped accepting the low opinion of working-class voters implicitly enshrined in the Sun.

Perhaps if the Cabinet stopped accepting the Sun’s definition of working people as a pack of celebrity-obsessed breast fetishists with a fixation on TV soaps and started talking to them about the big issues of the day, they would find that they had an audience that respected what they said and responded to it.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/comment/No-place-left-in-the-Sun

 

[butchersapron]

I'll dig out that stuff later ska invita - meanwhile the latest Ipsos MORI Political Monitor paints a different picture than the one suggested above:

The Sun's decision to switch its support to the Conservatives (announced today) is actually a reflection of a decision already taken by the newspaper's readers, as newly-published data from Ipsos MORI shows.

The Conservatives now have a convincing lead among regular readers of the Sun: Ipsos MORI’s aggregate political data from January to September 2009 shows that 42% would vote Conservative, compared to only 29% who would support the Labour Party.

Report Summary

 

[butchersapron]

This is spot on i think:

it’s very clear that some Labour ministers, although making light of the Sun’s influence in public, are deeply worried in private by its rejection of Labour and the effect that that rejection will have on the polls.

Which speaks volumes about their evaluation of the nature of Labour voters.

It really is long past time that the leadership of the Labour Party took a long hard look at themselves and their preconceptions of their supporters, and stopped accepting the low opinion of working-class voters implicitly enshrined in the Sun.

Perhaps if the Cabinet stopped accepting the Sun’s definition of working people as a pack of celebrity-obsessed breast fetishists with a fixation on TV soaps and started talking to them about the big issues of the day, they would find that they had an audience that respected what they said and responded to it.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...eft-in-the-Sun

And that's exactly the sort of preconceptions that have been on very public show on most of these threads on here for the last few days as well.

 

[JimPage]

My thoughts, When you split up with your partner you can either accept it, try to win her back, or go on Jeremy Kyle to tell the world you never loved her in the first place

Labour have done the latter

 

[trevhagl]

My thoughts, When you split up with your partner you can either accept it, try to win her back, or go on Jeremy Kyle to tell the world you never loved her in the first place

Labour have done the latter

if the Sun was a partner it would drop it's drawers for anyone

 

[tar1984]

I've had several mates (plus my father in common-law) who have worked n the scum, overwhelmingly printers and the like. they wre doing whats calld 'a job'. i wouldnt hold the end result of that job against them any more than I would someone who worked in a nuclear power plant (& I've known a few of them too) or any other occupation we'd rather get rid of.

I meant the people who control the content. The editors and that.

Right in the face.

 

[Zabo]

Trevor (Kunt)Kavanagh - Associate Editor was asked today by Nicky Campbell.

"How can you so wholeheartedly support the Tories without really knowing what their policies are? This is what a lot of people are saying."

"Well the policies are emerging. I think we are seeing more flesh on the bones, but we aren't giving them a blank cheque here, we want to know more detail."

 

[audiotech]

“Unions are already painting placards and preparing to strike. There may be riots on the streets.”

The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh on how workers may respond to a Tory victory.