Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Ok, so they're owned by Murdoch, so it shouldn't be surprising, but they've been Labour since 1997.
They've hardly been supportive in recent years anyway.
support scum toffs. Woopee.
The Sun like to back the winning horse. No surprise there.
did I? I was suggesting the fucking hate rascist journos arses were scum. And I was suggesting the toff fuckwit lying twat public skoolos like Cameron and Osbourne were toffs. Fucking pricks.
Blair, Balls, Harman, Kelly?
I know Acland Burghley was THAT shit, but being based in LSU hardly makes me a lord...
It's not that shit an area really although the schoolkids from it annoy me when I'm walking about.
when they'd leave pizza boxes all over the pavement outside my front door.
Daniel Kelly went to a girls' Catholic school. Can we point and laugh?
You so don't get catholic girls
their support for Labour for the past year or two has been quite fleeting...
Still, the fact is (whether you DiSsers like it or not) The Sun is the most read paper in this country and hence has more influence on this nations population then any other paper. This move to backing the Tories will have an positive effect on the Tories support. Oh well...
So that's when it will bite.
Not that Labour had any chance of winning. That said, the more I hear Brown speaking recently the more I am warming to him.
for instance the Mirror has really been throwing it's weight behind Labour the past few days/weeks now.
it's the in house paper for Labour's pig's head on a stick automaton voters.
but the amount of Labour brown nosing in the Mirror recently has been even more intense than usual.
It’s the drip-drip that will change voters’ perceptions through conditioning. Expect to see eight months of stories that follow the line of the Tories spin doctor, (and former NotW editor) Andy Coulson.
(and my memory is pretty limited considering how young I was when the whole 'it was The Sun wot won it' stuff happened), The Sun only ever really nails it's colours to the wall when there is virtually no risk of it nailing the wrong colours to the wall. Which isn't a criticism per se, but does make me wonder if which way round a causal relationship between The Sun backing the Tories and more people supporting the Tories works.
Actually, have they declared support for the Tories? Or just laid into Labour?
They used to have Labour columnists for example but now I imagine these will make way for Tory ones. The Sun has been laying into Labour for a while now.
See their reporting on Hillsborough and Poll Tax.
That said, I can't see Labour getting in again which is good, but Tories getting in is bad.
Have I done that right?
You have to do it about someone else.
That's a hardcore mast/colour/nailing interface right there.
As much as the Labour ministers are all 'well, the British public decides, not the newspapers'...yes, that's true. But I don't think you realise how swayed some people can be.
One shot of Gordon Brown's head photoshopped into Zippo the Clown and the happy masses are laughing their way to the Blue corner.
That said, the result of this 'election' has already been sorted for at least six months. I just want to see Labour v Liberal Democrats for second place. It's the only thing that hasn't been fully decided yet.
Labour have got second place pretty much sewn up due to the way the current system favours just the big two parties.
Go to http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk and choose 'Make your prediction'. As an example, I put in 38% to the Tories, 34% to the Lib Dems and 24% to Labour; Labour still came out 20 seats ahead of the Libs.
It's more predictable than the Premier League, this.
but does it really matter which party get in at the next election?
Because at the moment, it seems to me that the choice is between two different shades of grey.
That isn't meant to sound obnoxious or glib, it's just the truth and I can't be bothered to give much more detail when it's freely available elsewhere on the web
Conservatives: We're more fucked
Vote in 2010: It's your Moral Duty.
- The NHS go back down the pan to really long waiting lists
- Teachers striking for better pay
- Taxation more popular with those earning good money.
- Economy improving (but probably that would happen anyway)
I'm hopeful that, being the Tories, they can also get away with sorting the fucking housing market out. You know, the sort of thing that if Labour try gets them accused of being socialists trying to step on the free market. Essentially the Tories have the opportunity to put things in place to stop capitalist madness without being questioned on it. Whether they will is a completely different matter.
In fact, do they even see it as broken?
Or rather that it was because the prices have got so out of hand there's a vast swathe of the middle-classes who are either priced out of the market or unable to move to larger properties due to lack of choice.
I get the impression even people who've done well by the housing market feel that people owning multiple properties for rental wasn't good and Labour should have 'controlled' the market.
Maybe I'm wrong here but I'd be interested to see if they'll do something to get it under control.
laissez-faire government, combined with self-protecting nimbyism will ultimately reduce their social mobility and leave them in hoc to the upper 5% of the population, then perhaps the country isn’t really ready to take a step to the right.
But the question is a bit more 'chicken and egg'.
It depends whether the conservative tide is sweeping through the country and The Sun is piggybacking off the renewed vigour, or, they are trendsetting and are in actual fact ahead of the curve.
We've got a totally different media situation. I'm not really convinced it has the same pivotal role to play it once did.
It was me wot won it.
"The Sun believes - and prays - that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain."
so am surprised they've done it before the tory conference - seems more like a fuck you to labour than an endorsement of cameron.
and neither does the sun if you read the article.
they've based the whole thing on labour being shit rather than the tories being brilliant.
Yeah, we're bland and offer no hope of real social change, but at least we're not [Insert opposition party].
Healthcare has clearly improved under Labour. The Tories left it in a piss-awful state.
The Tories did their best to fuck up the NHS.
Look, feel free to be Tory boy about this but at least be honest: The Tories have different priorities. I wasn't saying the Sun's list of failures by Labour was completely false because it's not. But the NHS isn't one of their failures for sure and to stick it in there is completely silly.
had Cameron not been one of the few Tory MPs that have experienced the long-term care and attention that only the NHS can provide? Not sure.
I don’t see any of the private providers offering that level of care.
I don’t think that it’s too unreasonable a thing to say, and it wasn’t meant as a smear. One of the few Conservatives that believes passionately in the NHS is also one of the few to have actually experienced the work it does.
"Between now and the election Cameron's Conservatives must earn voters' trust by setting out their promising policies in detail."
but following Labour in this general election would be suicide.
Obviously, they're not supporting Labour either.
That just leaves the Guardian and the Daily Mirror then....and I'd be interested to know what proportion of the Guardian's readership intend to vote Lib Dem, Green, Conservative or none of the above.
Anyone know what stance the Independent are taking these days? I realise they've turned their newspaper into a polar bear fanzine with a lower circulation than a parish newsletter, but still.
It's in the contract.
All the sixth form communists that read it won't be old enough to vote
launched a very passionate and convincing defence of the move when questioned by political heavyweight Sian Williams this morning effectively saying 'It was Murdoch'. Mind boggling stuff!
I think even if 'Dave' was caught fucking a pig whilst drinking champagne out of a top hat then the Tories would still win. The Sun obviously had to get on board sooner rather than later in order to maintain their 'it's The Sun wot won it' bollocks.
a "deal" has been struck between your lot and Murdoch to liberalise news laws (forgotten the exact law and can't be arsed to check), allowing Sky News to more closely resemble its American news internation counterpart. yep, Fox News. i guess that means instead of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck you'd have Nadine Dorries and Littlejohn
not sure whether i believe this, your lot will have known they could rely on Murdoch support without any deal, unless it's a both-sides-get-what-they-want situation. but i thought it was widel expected Cameron was going to stick the boot in to the bbc in some way - there have been enough "bbc's too liberal" comments from tories in recent years anyway, as daft as that is
There was that story last week about the tories wanting to stuff the BBC with ‘its’ people, as if the BBC’s political editor isn’t a former president of the Young Conservatives.
to come for the BBC. there has been some suggestion that once the tories are in they're going to effectively dismantle the BBC, neutering it and opening up the way for a totally commercial media. the beeb has definitely suffered under Labour too, but not to the extent it could do - plus the tories would be backed in taking it down by baying mobs who want to stop paying the license fee and those upset about BBC talent salaries, so it'd be a popular move.
i wonder though how much this (which is admittedly at this point speculation, but you can see it coming, right? there will certainly be a massive downscaling and lots of cuts, this much is inevitable) is also fuelled by their relationship with James Murdoch, who at a recent television conference called for the BBC to be scrapped, calling it evil state media that is strangling the industry and, boo hoo, not allowing Newscorp to maximise their market share.
i'd also be interested - given that one of the main reasons a lot of people support the tories is their anti-european, national pride thing - to see whether any attacks on the BBC are, because of the Murdoch connections, not seen as the country being governed by foreign business interests.
i wonder just how deep the Murdoch-tories relationship runs. i wonder if he's scratching their back now so that they'll scratch his when they're in power and end with half the country watching Fox News instead of the beeb...this is admittedly a worst case scenario.
i've heard rumours and hearsay of the Murdoch-tories thing - and you know, there obviously is a thing - but would like something a bit more solid to back up my preemptive pro-BBC stance.
because they'd fucking lose.
the public wants to stop paying the license fee, and is outraged about talent salaries. gutting the BBC would be seen as part of the newly elected governments fresh, sweeping reforms and 'sorting out' of the country and would be hugely popular. the BBC wouldn't have a leg to stand on, particularly as the BBC isn't really allowed to appear to be pro-BBC.
between being forced into post-David Kelly political cowtowing, management under the BBC Trust and the pressures of commercial, multi-channel television, the BBC barely has an iota of the power it once did, and Cameron has already drawn the battle lines - saying they'll fill it with their people, chop executives, force huge cuts, scale down its power even more, freeze the license fee for a year. Scrapping the license fee completely, which is under consideration, would give them a huge boost of popularity.
i'm not optimistic.
but there are so many holes in your argument that I can't be arsed to engage with it.
Right now people love Sky and UK drama isn't considered good enough to lick the boots of US drama. Even shit like CSI and House are held up as being far better than anything we have to offer...though given the standard of guff like Merlin, Torchwood and whatever crap ITV had with Gene Hunt in, it's not altogether surprising.
The Licence Fee is massively contentious and whatever the middle class Radio 4 listeners think, they're not the majority of this country. The BBC is going to have to change a lot soon.
I'm sure at the time he was paving the way for Murdoch to take an even bigger hold on the media over here.
reading into future tory policies on this whole thing though, it seems that as well as gunning for the BBC, they're going to remove all operational power from the media regulator Ofcom, which has so far blocked a lot of Sky's digital initiatives that lean towards creating a monopoly and has a say in maintaining the impartiality of news reporting, which Newscorp has a problem with. removing both BBC and Ofcom, Newscorp's two biggest enemies in this country, will, in my opinion anyway, be the last straw in keeping up any standard or quality in TV - a principle that has already suffered pretty heavily over the past decade. we'll have American standard TV. i doubt Blair would have gone that far.
because one of the strongest things Brown could come out and say now is, look the Tory party is a Newscorp vehicle, Murdoch is writing Cameron's speeches (allegedly), a vote for them is a vote for someone who doesn't even live in this country and has nothing but the interests of his own media conglomerate at heart. that might actually sway quite a lot of votes.
but he isn't saying that.
i think it would just look - or be successfully spun, at least - as a sign of brown going crazy. also, the only people who'd be put off voting tory by that are the ones who wouldn't vote tory in the first place
just no tightening of the laws surrounding media ownership, which a lot of people were arguing for.
It's like Pravda or something.
It's been obvious for, what, the better part of two years the Tories would win the next election? They say they supported Labour but I can't remember the last supportive thing they said about them. The Sun's just done this so when the Tories win, they can have a picture of today's front page and go "THE SUN TOLD YOU SO"
I love that. Whenever anything happens, the Sun suddenly has little pictures of front covers you don't remember going "WE TOLD YOU SO 5 DAYS AGO", with little pictures of "man in street" going "The Sun is so right about everything".
There it is. A few hours late, but we got there in the end. Well done people, we can all leave, our work here is done.
post is. Given that 95% of DiS falls into this category.
Exactly as Sparks says below me.
As you were.
It's the way of the world. You keep your stereotype alive, and I'm going to think you're a bit of a plank. S'all.
to get your knickers in a twist over.
all other considerations rescinded.....its not imoral from their point of view, its just its nature.
Its as neutral as the copies of sun distributed in scotland compared with copies of the sun distributed in england, when it comes to a football game between england and scotland.
and so I'm sure this has been said more eloquently elsewhere.
However, if you're the sort of person that can be influenced by the opinion of a newspaper as to who (whom?) to vote for, then you probably shouldn't be allowed the vote in the first place.
As I say up the thread, people aren’t necessarily going to say “the Sun tells me to vote for Party A, therefore I am,” rather it’s the choice of what news is reported, and the deliberate slanting of it that will change people’s opinions.
Whether it’s via the Sun or not, there is no news that isn’t received through layers of interpretation and representation anyway, so there’s no way to escape it, and everyone is influenced by it to some extent or another
I'm saying that their opinion shouldn't matter. Report about foregin affairs, expenses, business interests etc. so that I can make my mind up. It is almost impossible for something to be reported without a slant being applied, but I'm damn sure I'm going to make my decisions rather than waiting to hear who the newspaper themselves are throwing their weight behind
The Lib Dems are doing their usual thing of having realistic, honest policies but ones which even they have concerns about internally. The Tories are trying to be some weird hybrid of EVERY party rolled into one and are obsessed with Twitter. I mean, just look at this website? Go on, I DARE you?
If I was a designer advising them as a brand, I'd point out that its a total mess and a very hollow way of saying everything about precisely nothing at all.
And New Labour have blown their chances and failed the generation that got them into power, missing opportunities for easy votes and sensible decision making.
It's all a total mess. Not one of those parties has a coherent goal or semblance of unity, and whoever wins is going to likely continue to merely fuck up royally.
I mean, HOW hard is it to win an election anyway? Just say the usual shit (decrease taxes, improve employment, talk about an area that'll get you easy middle ground votes (immigration or schools), tax high earners, sort out banks, etc) and then do absolutely none of it and merely shrug your shoulders 4 years later on.
use strange fake versions of the youtube/twitter/facebook logos?
me fail english? that's unpossible!
I think they're just squished to fit in the block, aren't they?
i'm not really sure. i just look at them and get the feeling it should be spelt TWOTTER or YOUTUBER or something
the papers like the sun are succesful because they pander to popular opinion I dont think the papers make popular opinion. Say the daily mail decided to take on a progressive liberal stance people would just stop buying it and get the express instead.
They pander to their/an audience, but having this audience means they can slip in a bit of an angle/agenda that can influence readers.
the wind changed a long time ago and the editorial values of the sun are hardly core vaguely centre-left values.
Fuck knows how the likes of Kavanagh and Littlejohn passed themselves off as Labour supporters for so long. Although I suppose that says more about etc. etc.
The far more worrying aspect of this is the behind-the-scenes shenanigans it indicates, described better above. Saying Labour is a joke is one thing, outright declaring support for Nice Dave is another- that does suggest very strongly to me that a deal has been cut between Murdoch and the Tories. Hardly surprising- Blair did exactly the same thing a decade ago. But it has very depressing implications for the media in this country.
they've got a feature where they're interviewing white van men about this.
man one: "i don't understand how you can switch from a left-wing socialist party to the centre-right"
man two: "i only read for the sport, glamour and birds"
everyone else: "i don't really care"
if only we had that choice again