Not The Politics Thread.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

By "friendly media", I assume you're excluding the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, The Guardian, Independent, Mirror, etc etc.

 

43 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Well I imagine he's not excluding the BBC with it's Tory donor Chair, a chief political correspondent and editorial policy that finds it impossible to ask searching questions of or challenge the current administration on its lies and corruption (excluding Newsnight) in the interests of 'neutrality and balance'. 

 

Unless of course you're referencing another BBC I'm not aware of. 

Well, this. The stance of the BBC and ITV towards the current government is at worst neutral.

 

I would of course exclude the print media mentioned but also mention the friendly print media occupies a vastly larger market and demographic share.

[David Guiza]

13 hours ago, Wolfox said:

The canary in the coal mine!  It was dashed off as apathy as they were going to win anyway… The Tories offered nothing at the time and, fortunately for Blair, he never had a serious opponent 

 

Whatever your political persuasion it’s important to have a strong and credible opponent to hold you to account….
 

Labour missed an opportunity by not only failing to choose a northern woman recently, but, by failing to pick someone who can speak to an audience beyond the metropolitan elite…

 

Starmer is a decent man with an unimpeachable CV, but, he ain’t the man to speak to the rapidly shrinking northern heartlands

 

Even if they did find that person, devolution and the politics of independence killed 40+ seats in a single term and I can’t see them ever coming back…

 

A party of power who feels like they can go about their business with very few consequences is never a great thing…

I see this banded about quite a bit, and it's certainly a fair assessment based on what's happened in recent years. What I however struggle to understand, when it's broken down to personality politics, is why Starmer is often branded a metropolitan elite, as a result of his background, but Eton educated Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson isn't labelled as similar?

It's also surely deeper than simply appointing somebody who fits the bill for a certain demographic? If people are voting for somebody who they feel is a physical representation of themselves and their area then surely for every vote you may gain by appointing some sort of Prescott/Kathy Burke hybrid, votes would potentially be lost in places like Canterbury and Kensington?

 

As for the Blair/Johnson comparisons above - Corbyn got more of the vote share, in what is widely considered to be the biggest loss in recent memory in 2019, than Major did 1997. 

 

Politics goes in cycles. Labour have been here before with the extreme left and centrists at war with one another and came out the other side. Perhaps Starmer will be the Kinnock to Burnham's Blair. Perhaps we'll become a one party state. Perhaps centre left coalition will form. It remains to be seen what the UK, and Europe and beyond, will be like next year and beyond but, yes, it's certainly not a great time to be anything other than a Tory on these shores. 

[Wolfox]

23 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I see this banded about quite a bit, and it's certainly a fair assessment based on what's happened in recent years. What I however struggle to understand, when it's broken down to personality politics, is why Starmer is often branded a metropolitan elite, as a result of his background, but Eton educated Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson isn't labelled as similar?

It's also surely deeper than simply appointing somebody who fits the bill for a certain demographic? If people are voting for somebody who they feel is a physical representation of themselves and their area then surely for every vote you may gain by appointing some sort of Prescott/Kathy Burke hybrid, votes would potentially be lost in places like Canterbury and Kensington?

 

As for the Blair/Johnson comparisons above - Corbyn got more of the vote share, in what is widely considered to be the biggest loss in recent memory in 2019, than Major did 1997. 

 

Politics goes in cycles. Labour have been here before with the extreme left and centrists at war with one another and came out the other side. Perhaps Starmer will be the Kinnock to Burnham's Blair. Perhaps we'll become a one party state. Perhaps centre left coalition will form. It remains to be seen what the UK, and Europe and beyond, will be like next year and beyond but, yes, it's certainly not a great time to be anything other than a Tory on these shores. 

Some really interesting points…

 

And here in lies the key point…. The ultimate skill of a politician to be able to speak to people beyond their own background…. I mean Bozza would only be talking to <0.001% of the population if he honed in on ex-Etonians…. But, his bumbling, hair tousling harumphings seems to appeal (lord knows why?)

 

Farage was an impressive politician…. Spoke with great clarity with a beer in one hand and fag in the other (he prefers wine by the way)

 

Harold Wilson famously preferred cigars and brandy!

 

Which ever way we cut it, labour are only cutting through to educated city dwellers and there aren’t enough of them to win any election 

Barrack Obama was (I think?) the first non southern democrat to win the presidency…. Your background matters more than we might appreciate…. It makes you relatable and you don’t have to fake it…

 

Politics does, of course, go in cycles…. Post Foot, it took the Labour Party along time to recover, but, the battleground has changed…. They no longer need to only focus on ‘Mondeo man’ as the heartlands voted leave and like Bozza plus the Scottish vote (in all likelihood) has gone and won’t return 

 

Perhaps it’s Burnham?  I can’t profess to be a huge fan and he was enormously weak v Corbyn, but, he seems to have something about him…

 

What is clear is that it will take a brilliant leader with a clear message and quite a bit of time to turn this around…. I can’t see any significant change in the status quo for a good 10+ years (how depressing!)

 

 

 

 

 

[Wolfox]

14 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

The surprise result of 2017 actually damaged them massively.

The vocal hard left mob thought Corbyn was the messiah after that and you'd often see the Corbyn cultists spouting abuse at Labour moderates, centrists, Tory floaters - they didn't think they needed them to get into power.

If you tell these people constantly to 'eff off and join the Tories' then don't be surprised when they do. As 2019 showed.

 

As for the current polling, surely the 'vaccine bounce' has long since gone. Labour insiders must be scratching their heads as to why they're constantly behind. Maybe Keith isn't the right person to lead them. Surely he'll get the next election, unless the loony left somehow manage to oust him.

I suspect you’re right…. Say what you like about Corbyn, but, he pulled it out of the bag in 2017 and then slowly leached the life out of the party for the next 2 years…

 

I’m grateful for the vaccine roll out still (typing whilst sat on my couch after a pretty grim 5 days)…. The ‘savior’ complex can stick for a little while….
 

Look beyond vaccines and the rest of the data is horrendous and yet many don’t even know it as the Labour Party doesn’t appear to have a voice!

 

kier (or Keith if you prefer!), will get the next election, he’ll lose handsomely and then we’ll have to see if anyone else in the Labour movement has any bright ideas…!

[David Guiza]

2 hours ago, Wolfox said:

Some really interesting points…

 

And here in lies the key point…. The ultimate skill of a politician to be able to speak to people beyond their own background…. I mean Bozza would only be talking to <0.001% of the population if he honed in on ex-Etonians…. But, his bumbling, hair tousling harumphings seems to appeal (lord knows why?)

 

Farage was an impressive politician…. Spoke with great clarity with a beer in one hand and fag in the other (he prefers wine by the way)

 

Harold Wilson famously preferred cigars and brandy!

 

Which ever way we cut it, labour are only cutting through to educated city dwellers and there aren’t enough of them to win any election 

Barrack Obama was (I think?) the first non southern democrat to win the presidency…. Your background matters more than we might appreciate…. It makes you relatable and you don’t have to fake it…

 

Politics does, of course, go in cycles…. Post Foot, it took the Labour Party along time to recover, but, the battleground has changed…. They no longer need to only focus on ‘Mondeo man’ as the heartlands voted leave and like Bozza plus the Scottish vote (in all likelihood) has gone and won’t return 

 

Perhaps it’s Burnham?  I can’t profess to be a huge fan and he was enormously weak v Corbyn, but, he seems to have something about him…

 

What is clear is that it will take a brilliant leader with a clear message and quite a bit of time to turn this around…. I can’t see any significant change in the status quo for a good 10+ years (how depressing!)

 

 

Yes, very much agree RE the Boris character. He and his people have done well to carefully manufacture this 'loveable rogue' character, so much so that virtually nothing sticks to him. HIGNFY and beyond have got a lot to answer for that, but that's another issue for another day! It's been said countless times, but there are things he's done both in the recent and distant past that would have severely hampered countless predecessors. When broken down to a leader v leader debate, I still cannot see what Johnson has done to appeal the masses any more than Starmer has. Perhaps it's as a result of my position on the matters, but it very much feels like there is a predisposed perception of Starmer that Johnson seemingly doesn't have. For example, Starmer (an actual football fan) turns up to the pub/Wembley during the Euros and it's labelled as a PR stunt on the whole, Johnson does the same (in a pissing football shirt over a suit and tie) and it's laughed off as 'typical Boris'. I just can't quite work it out.

 

Yes, there's certainly a lot that numerous politicians can learn from Farage. He's not somebody I'd ever care to agree with, but he knows how to alter public perception where it matters. I think also that Johnson is far more willing to 'do what it takes' than Starmer is and Corbyn ever was. 

 

I also can't see anything changing dramatically in the next GE, and perhaps the one after that also but we'll see I guess. As with you, I would just prefer a strong government with a strong opposition. 

[CosbehFox]

I was always wonder how it would have been perceived if Labour constantly attacked the government throughout the pandemic - I see plenty of sympathy for Boris in the electorate even with some pretty ropey personal decision making. Countless occasions 'he's trying his best' across facebook - which as a social media platform I find far more representative of what people really think. 

 

Personally I think it's pretty hard to be in opposition at such a period. Particularly when motions in passing certain laws can be so splitting - in some cases stepping away from party politics. 

 

I see yougov reduced the tory lead on their poll - with a Tory point loss and Labour gaining three. Suspect triggered by NI increase. Shows for me how people increase change and alter their opinions prone to the story of the week. 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, very much agree RE the Boris character. He and his people have done well to carefully manufacture this 'loveable rogue' character, so much so that virtually nothing sticks to him. HIGNFY and beyond have got a lot to answer for that, but that's another issue for another day! It's been said countless times, but there are things he's done both in the recent and distant past that would have severely hampered countless predecessors. When broken down to a leader v leader debate, I still cannot see what Johnson has done to appeal the masses any more than Starmer has. Perhaps it's as a result of my position on the matters, but it very much feels like there is a predisposed perception of Starmer that Johnson seemingly doesn't have. For example, Starmer (an actual football fan) turns up to the pub/Wembley during the Euros and it's labelled as a PR stunt on the whole, Johnson does the same (in a pissing football shirt over a suit and tie) and it's laughed off as 'typical Boris'. I just can't quite work it out.

 

Yes, there's certainly a lot that numerous politicians can learn from Farage. He's not somebody I'd ever care to agree with, but he knows how to alter public perception where it matters. I think also that Johnson is far more willing to 'do what it takes' than Starmer is and Corbyn ever was. 

 

I also can't see anything changing dramatically in the next GE, and perhaps the one after that also but we'll see I guess. As with you, I would just prefer a strong government with a strong opposition. 

This is what I was getting at with the original post, tbh. The Tory PR team have played a blinder on this one, and a significant portion of the media aid and abet this.

[Carl the Llama]

7 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

By "friendly media", I assume you're excluding the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, The Guardian, Independent, Mirror, etc etc.

If you genuinely believe that you're spending too much time searching for echo chambers. Your first 2 examples are by no means unfriendly to the govt, they just aren't as sycophantic as your bias confirmers of choice.  

[David Guiza]

19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If you genuinely believe that you're spending too much time searching for echo chambers. Your first 2 examples are by no means unfriendly to the govt, they just aren't as sycophantic as your bias confirmers of choice.  

Conveniently missed out the 3/4 highest grossing newspapers too, strange. 

 

As an aside, whenever I read/hear anything about a UK politician(s) being well liked by a newspaper all I can picture is Malcolm Tucker in a fleece schmoosing the press in his home after getting the sack. Assume that's how Cummings, Campbell and co operate. 

[What the Fuchs?]

4 hours ago, Wolfox said:

Barrack Obama was (I think?) the first non southern democrat to win the presidency….

There’s been a few such as FDR and Kennedy but I get your point

[bovril]

3 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, very much agree RE the Boris character. He and his people have done well to carefully manufacture this 'loveable rogue' character, so much so that virtually nothing sticks to him. HIGNFY and beyond have got a lot to answer for that, but that's another issue for another day! It's been said countless times, but there are things he's done both in the recent and distant past that would have severely hampered countless predecessors. When broken down to a leader v leader debate, I still cannot see what Johnson has done to appeal the masses any more than Starmer has. Perhaps it's as a result of my position on the matters, but it very much feels like there is a predisposed perception of Starmer that Johnson seemingly doesn't have. For example, Starmer (an actual football fan) turns up to the pub/Wembley during the Euros and it's labelled as a PR stunt on the whole, Johnson does the same (in a pissing football shirt over a suit and tie) and it's laughed off as 'typical Boris'. I just can't quite work it out.

 

Yes, there's certainly a lot that numerous politicians can learn from Farage. He's not somebody I'd ever care to agree with, but he knows how to alter public perception where it matters. I think also that Johnson is far more willing to 'do what it takes' than Starmer is and Corbyn ever was. 

 

I also can't see anything changing dramatically in the next GE, and perhaps the one after that also but we'll see I guess. As with you, I would just prefer a strong government with a strong opposition. 

I think it's more that the Conservatives have gained the overwhelming majority of votes of people who wanted to leave the EU and end freedom of movement (for themselves). Same with Farage and his popularity. Nobody cares about tousled hair or drinking ale if they just don't want to live next door to Romanians.  

 

And the fact Labour don't seem to have any policies. 

Edited 6 September 2021 by bovril

[What the Fuchs?]

8 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

By "friendly media", I assume you're excluding the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, The Guardian, Independent, Mirror, etc etc.

Firstly you seem to have missed out referring to the vast majority of media outlets which are overtly supportive of the Tories. Around 90% of the print media in this country is owned by the same handful of Tory donor tax exile billionaires, like Rothermere, Barclay and Murdoch - and the BBC have a less than stellar record over the past few years when it comes to editorial ‘mistakes’, unbalanced coverage (and sometimes neglecting to cover certain stories at all) and statistical preference for ‘right wing’ commentators on their programmes. Not to mention that over the last 10 years the BBC has become an employment pool for figures going to work for the government or going to work for the BBC from the government; the BBC board and chairman also now has an open Tory bias with their stated intention to curb comedy shows critical of the government, and their attempting to deny jobs to a new board member who has been critical of the government in the past. And less said about the likes of GB News the better.

 

All this is unsurprising as the BBC tends historically to show bias towards the government of the day, particularly when that government shows hostility towards them and threatens their funding as the Tories have done multiple times even in the past few years. Eden even pressured them into setting up a propaganda station for him because he threatened their funding over what he saw as disloyalty over the Suez Crisis. So politicisation of the BBC isn’t new.

 

The media system we have currently isn’t really fit for purpose. At the minute we have a system whereby newspapers basically regulate themselves. This leads essentially to the media being grossly propagandised, especially at election time. Lies, smears and selective reporting are the norm in the tabloids particularly as there is no obligation to provide readers with accurate information. Instead papers like the Sun print what they like, relying on the ‘unspoken rule’ that politicians will not take legal action against them. (They do however retain vast amounts of money to defend lawsuits, as they know they’ll be challenged due to the inflammatory nature of their reporting). It makes you wonder how things might have been different if Corbyn had nipped things in the bud and actually litigated against these papers for defamation of character, like when they said he sold secrets to the Soviets in the 80s. Instead the lack of accountability for the press emboldens them, and we end up with a more unsavoury political atmosphere, and uninformed and angry sections of the population (which - having seen Murdoch’s other work at Fox - is probably the idea).

 

Press regulation is a bit of a taboo subject because when it’s mentioned the like of the Sun and Express kick off saying it’s an assault on ‘press freedom’. But the fact is the press isn’t free; like I said the majority of it is run by the same handful of people, whom former editors have claimed personally influence their output. If Ofcom is accepted as being an arbiter of accuracy in television media, it begs the question why we can’t expect to at least aspire to a degree of objectivity in the print media. Perhaps we all like confirming our biases too much to think, or even care if we’re being misled or not.

Edited 6 September 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[fox_up_north]

As someone reasonably middle class, with a low mortgage, no kids and educated - I am somewhat shielded from most decisions a government takes. I am also devoutly centrist. I believe that there should be greater taxes on big businesses (particularly if they just operate within the UK, looking at you Amazon) but that also we, sadly, need things like nuclear deterrent to exist. 

What I see at the moment is Kier Starmer is a man who, on paper, is much more palatable to people than Jeremy Corbyn but is really failing to get that across. I think if Burnham takes leadership, it's Labour's to lose. I live near Manchester and I can guarantee that his stock is so high that they instantly win back the north. 

As others have pointed out - politics is about projecting an image first. Labour have failed to do that for so long. Corbyn did so well in spite of his policies, not because of them, to my eyes. He captured a lot of voters and was able to achieve something, in their view. 

 

What saddens me most is that, looking at what we have currently, I can't think of a worse line up of politicians in my lifetime. Though I'd admit that my knowledge only goes back to the late 80s. 

[Dunge]

24 minutes ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Firstly you seem to have missed out referring to the vast majority of media outlets which are overtly supportive of the Tories. Around 90% of the print media in this country is owned by the same handful of Tory donor tax exile billionaires, like Rothermere, Barclay and Murdoch - and the BBC have a less than stellar record over the past few years when it comes to editorial ‘mistakes’, unbalanced coverage (and sometimes neglecting to cover certain stories at all) and statistical preference for ‘right wing’ commentators on their programmes. Not to mention that over the last 10 years the BBC has become an employment pool for figures going to work for the government or going to work for the BBC from the government; the BBC board and chairman also now has an open Tory bias with their stated intention to curb comedy shows critical of the government, and their attempting to deny jobs to a new board member who has been critical of the government in the past. And less said about the likes of GB News the better.

 

All this is unsurprising as the BBC tends historically to show bias towards the government of the day, particularly when that government shows hostility towards them and threatens their funding as the Tories have done multiple times even in the past few years. Eden even pressured them into setting up a propaganda station for him because he threatened their funding over what he saw as disloyalty over the Suez Crisis. So politicisation of the BBC isn’t new.

 

The media system we have currently isn’t really fit for purpose. At the minute we have a system whereby newspapers basically regulate themselves. This leads essentially to the media being grossly propagandised, especially at election time. Lies, smears and selective reporting are the norm in the tabloids particularly as there is no obligation to provide readers with accurate information. Instead papers like the Sun print what they like, relying on the ‘unspoken rule’ that politicians will not take legal action against them. (They do however retain vast amounts of money to defend lawsuits, as they know they’ll be challenged due to the inflammatory nature of their reporting). It makes you wonder how things might have been different if Corbyn had nipped things in the bud and actually litigated against these papers for defamation of character, like when they said he sold secrets to the Soviets in the 80s. Instead the lack of accountability for the press emboldens them, and we end up with a more unsavoury political atmosphere, and uninformed and angry sections of the population (which - having seen Murdoch’s other work at Fox - is probably the idea).

 

Press regulation is a bit of a taboo subject because when it’s mentioned the like of the Sun and Express kick off saying it’s an assault on ‘press freedom’. But the fact is the press isn’t free; like I said the majority of it is run by the same handful of people, whom former editors have claimed personally influence their output. If Ofcom is accepted as being an arbiter of accuracy in television media, it begs the question why we can’t expect to at least aspire to a degree of objectivity in the print media. Perhaps we all like confirming our biases too much to think, or even care if we’re being misled or not.

Sorry, but I simply don’t believe most of this is right.

 

In terms of the available, popular newspaper publications there are in this country, you have:

 

Pro-Tory:

The Express

The Sun

The Telegraph

The Daily Mail (Although they’ve been moaning like mad at Boris ever since Dacre left)

 

Anti-Tory

The Mirror

The Guardian

The Independent

 

Somewhere in the middle:

The Times (could be considered Pro-Tory)

The Metro (could be considered Anti-Tory)

The Star (rips the p*ss out of everyone)

 

Assuming that people can choose to read whatever they like and so therefore readership numbers are irrelevant, that’s hardly 90% of even major print publications that are Pro-Tory. If readership is higher in the Pro-Tory papers, then that is choice. You can argue it’s influenced choice, but it’s choice nonetheless. And you can’t tell me the likes of the Mirror and the Guardian aren’t equally trying to persuade and influence their readership through their own preferred methods.

 

I don’t see any terrestrial TV channel that’s Pro-Tory. I’d put all of BBC, ITV and Channel 5 as basically neutral, or at least attempting to be. The BBC have had to be somewhat supportive of government over the last 18 months because of the pandemic and helping out with national messaging, but I certainly wouldn’t class them as Pro-Tory. As for the panel show comment, have you seen HIGNFY in the last few years? It used to be a staple of my televisual viewing; now - even before the awkwardness of the pandemic - it’s become unwatchable. I still tune in occasionally from time to time but it’s always the same thing - echo-chamber moaning about Boris, the Tories and Brexit. The humour’s long gone, and scheduling it right next to the often-brilliant Would I Lie To You just emphasises the point. It’s no wonder new bods at the BBC are concerned about neutrality on panel shows, the bias is right there to see on its flagship one.

Tangent aside, Channel 4 I class as Anti-Tory, and I remember the scandal they tried to cause on the eve of the last election. GB News is a joke that deserved to fail. I always hoped it would but it’s done even worse than I was expecting. With even Andrew Neil gone now it needs to be taken outside like Old Yeller.

 

And that’s before we get to social media, where activity is far more Anti-Tory than Pro-Tory, particularly on the bigger platforms like Twitter. Essentially, I simply don’t believe it’s true to say that the media is biased in favour of the Tories, and even less so to say it’s 90% biased in their favour. If the Tories are polling higher because of the media, it’s because the content of the Pro-Tory papers is resonating more. Not because the Anti-Tory arguments aren’t out there and readily available.

 

But more than all that, this is an excuse - an excuse to give Labour, both now and under Corbyn who lead them to failure in the last two elections, a free pass, an excuse to dismiss any kind of introspection because “we’re right and it’s all the media’s fault”. It’s not. People are not voting Labour for a simple reason: They don’t want to. To change that, Labour, it’s leaders, members and activists have to start offering something that people beyond their modern core want to vote for. It’s clear as day to me that they’re failing to do that.

[doverfox]

Quetion how many on here are members of a trade unions? The traditional labour party backers.

[Guest Kopfkino]

20 hours ago, doverfox said:

When a new landlord takes over a run down pub he kicks out the trouble makers and puts up the under new management banners. What has Stammer done to show the uk Labour is under new management and disillusioned patrons are welcomed back?

In the Sunday Times, Stephen Bush, much to my bemusement, mentioned how Labour have made 200 non-COVID policy announcement since Starmer took over. I’d struggle to conjure up one of them and I say that having seen one a few weeks ago that I thought was quite good but have now completely forgotten what it was.

 

Which speaks to a big problem with Starmer atm, there just isn’t a narrative, theme or a story that he’s telling. It’s spray and pray. So currently nobody has any idea what he really stands for as a politician nor what his Labour Party is about. 

[Wolfox]

2 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

There’s been a few such as FDR and Kennedy but I get your point

JFK + FDR - 😣 

 

I know there’s some weird stat around southern democrats, but, that clearly wasn’t it !

[What the Fuchs?]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Sorry, but I simply don’t believe most of this is right.

 

In terms of the available, popular newspaper publications there are in this country, you have:

 

Pro-Tory:

The Express

The Sun

The Telegraph

The Daily Mail (Although they’ve been moaning like mad at Boris ever since Dacre left)

 

Anti-Tory

The Mirror

The Guardian

The Independent

 

Somewhere in the middle:

The Times (could be considered Pro-Tory)

The Metro (could be considered Anti-Tory)

The Star (rips the p*ss out of everyone)

 

Assuming that people can choose to read whatever they like and so therefore readership numbers are irrelevant, that’s hardly 90% of even major print publications that are Pro-Tory. If readership is higher in the Pro-Tory papers, then that is choice. You can argue it’s influenced choice, but it’s choice nonetheless. And you can’t tell me the likes of the Mirror and the Guardian aren’t equally trying to persuade and influence their readership through their own preferred methods.

 

I don’t see any terrestrial TV channel that’s Pro-Tory. I’d put all of BBC, ITV and Channel 5 as basically neutral, or at least attempting to be. The BBC have had to be somewhat supportive of government over the last 18 months because of the pandemic and helping out with national messaging, but I certainly wouldn’t class them as Pro-Tory. As for the panel show comment, have you seen HIGNFY in the last few years? It used to be a staple of my televisual viewing; now - even before the awkwardness of the pandemic - it’s become unwatchable. I still tune in occasionally from time to time but it’s always the same thing - echo-chamber moaning about Boris, the Tories and Brexit. The humour’s long gone, and scheduling it right next to the often-brilliant Would I Lie To You just emphasises the point. It’s no wonder new bods at the BBC are concerned about neutrality on panel shows, the bias is right there to see on its flagship one.

Tangent aside, Channel 4 I class as Anti-Tory, and I remember the scandal they tried to cause on the eve of the last election. GB News is a joke that deserved to fail. I always hoped it would but it’s done even worse than I was expecting. With even Andrew Neil gone now it needs to be taken outside like Old Yeller.

 

And that’s before we get to social media, where activity is far more Anti-Tory than Pro-Tory, particularly on the bigger platforms like Twitter. Essentially, I simply don’t believe it’s true to say that the media is biased in favour of the Tories, and even less so to say it’s 90% biased in their favour. If the Tories are polling higher because of the media, it’s because the content of the Pro-Tory papers is resonating more. Not because the Anti-Tory arguments aren’t out there and readily available.

 

But more than all that, this is an excuse - an excuse to give Labour, both now and under Corbyn who lead them to failure in the last two elections, a free pass, an excuse to dismiss any kind of introspection because “we’re right and it’s all the media’s fault”. It’s not. People are not voting Labour for a simple reason: They don’t want to. To change that, Labour, it’s leaders, members and activists have to start offering something that people beyond their modern core want to vote for. It’s clear as day to me that they’re failing to do that.

I’d suggest you take a look at these articles that probably convey what I’m saying more eloquently 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/

 

https://www.mediareform.org.uk/media-ownership/who-owns-the-uk-media

 

http://www.humantruth.info/uk_newspapers_comparison.html

 

The fact is there is undoubtedly a massive political imbalance in UK print media - it’s undeniable. I don’t think I said 90% of publications are pro Tory, I think I said 90% are owned by the same Tory donors (of which the majority of their publications unsurprisingly tend to be largely pro Tory). But even so the vast majority of newspapers/tabloids that skew to be right often have the highest readership and the lowest objective quality when it comes to balanced reporting and libellous material. (See pic) The reason their readership is higher than the only two serious left leaning publications - The Guardian and The Independent (both of which are not owned by billionaires by the way) - I would argue is because people don’t buy tabloids to sufficiently inform themselves, they buy them for entertainment and reinforcing their held biases. Much of what you read in these tabloids wouldn’t be swallowed unquestioningly by anyone with an ounce of educated, critical thinking.

 

I can go into statistics and elucidate points I’ve already made about editorial ‘mistakes’, biased reporting, government influence and links within the BBC etc if you like. The stated intention of the government to curb shows critical of the government is concerning because comedy especially should be aimed upwards. The government whether you like it or not is certainly more ripe for comedy than many others in the past as well. You say Channel 4 is anti-Tory. I doubt many people would agree with you - I’ve certainly seen hostile interviews taken on there when Labour figures weren’t given a word in edgeways.

 

I would agree with you that social media tends to be anti Tory, but this is because of its demographic. Most users of social media tend to be of younger generations who surprisingly enough do not like the Tories or Brexit. Though you do see your fair share of right wing bots on there, like when that picture circulated before the election of a kid having to lie on the floor of a hospital because there weren’t enough beds. Hundreds of accounts spammed identical messages along the lines of “my sister works there and this is fake”. And despite the fact the hospital itself confirmed it was genuine, many Tories like my dad are so preconditioned to support their ‘team’ no matter what, they believed it. However the subject of social media is irrelevant to the subject of print media, as you cannot censor people’s views online outside of a totalitarian state. What is viable is an Ofcom style regulator for print media to ensure that mass produced papers are not simply used as methods of propagandising, but are required to be truthful when reporting on subjects they are currently inflammatory and scarce on facts about. I’ve often thought that tabloids that consistently print gossip and simply ‘opinion’ pieces with no attempt at impartiality or at least fact based and comparative arguments shouldn’t be allowed the title of ‘newspaper’.

 

Its nonsense to say simply that the influence of widely circulated Tory newspapers is beneficial to the Tories politically because their content ‘resonates more’. Part of the role of the press is to hold the government to account, and because the section of the press interested in doing that is so small comparatively, the government are less accountable and are able to get away with the corruption and sleaze we’ve seen over the past 18 months with little impact, from Jennifer Arcuri and contracts for mates, to Robert Jenrick and his backroom deals with Tory billionaires, and listing his own affluent constituency as ‘deprived’ so he could blackmail his constituents by promising this funding only if he was elected. Many things the government do which may hurt them electorally are simply not published by papers like the Sun, Mail and Express, because it’s not in their interests to do so. I remember when Dominic Cummings was coming out with all these revelations about Johnson’s conduct, and the Mail’s response was along the lines “Sorry Dom, we’ve got bigger fish to fry”. Too many also journalists see the government as a source they cannot anger if they want to continue receiving their ‘scoops’, even if these scoops tend to be whatever message the government want to release in their interest. Laura ‘a Labour activist assaulted Matt Hancock’ Kuenssberg is a prime example of this.

 

I am not giving an ‘excuse’ for Labour or Corbyn, as I specifically alluded to the fact that Corbyn was naive in not combating a libellously hostile press, even more so than is normal for Labour figures. Much of the media undoubtedly misled and propagandised against him from the very start (I read a very good thesis on this which I can also link to if you like), but it was his naivety in not also descending into the gutter that was his undoing. If he had sued the worst perpetrators for slander at the start, then recent political history might have played out differently as the tabloids may have been less emboldened to print whatever they wanted to assassinate his character.

 

You say people don’t vote Labour because they don’t want to. While that’s true for the vast majority of non Labour voters, you have to wonder that given the political imbalance within the UK’s media just over the past 10 or so years whether the Labour Party really have the same platform available to them as the Tories do to present themselves. The truth is they don’t within traditional media, social media is perhaps the only way they do but is is debatable over what impact this has, not a significant one if recent elections and referenda are to go by.

Edited 6 September 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, doverfox said:

Quetion how many on here are members of a trade unions? The traditional labour party backers.

I am.

 

Although never voted Labour in my life.

 

I'll probably never vote blue again either, or maybe even bother ever voting again. It's pointless.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, What the Fuchs? said:

I’d suggest you take a look at these articles that probably convey what I’m saying more eloquently 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/

 

https://www.mediareform.org.uk/media-ownership/who-owns-the-uk-media

 

http://www.humantruth.info/uk_newspapers_comparison.html

 

The fact is there is undoubtedly a massive political imbalance in UK print media - it’s undeniable. I don’t think I said 90% of publications are pro Tory, I think I said 90% are owned by the same Tory donors (of which the majority of their publications unsurprisingly tend to be largely pro Tory). But even so the vast majority of newspapers/tabloids that skew to be right often have the highest readership and the lowest objective quality when it comes to balanced reporting and libellous material. (See pic) The reason their readership is higher than the only two serious left leaning publications - The Guardian and The Independent (both of which are not owned by billionaires by the way) - I would argue is because people don’t buy tabloids to sufficiently inform themselves, they buy them for entertainment and reinforcing their held biases. Much of what you read in these tabloids wouldn’t be swallowed unquestioningly by anyone with an ounce of educated, critical thinking.

 

I can go into statistics and elucidate points I’ve already made about editorial ‘mistakes’, biased reporting, government influence and links within the BBC etc if you like. The stated intention of the government to curb shows critical of the government is concerning because comedy especially should be aimed upwards. The government whether you like it or not is certainly more ripe for comedy than many others in the past as well. You say Channel 4 is anti-Tory. I doubt many people would agree with you - I’ve certainly seen hostile interviews taken on there when Labour figures weren’t given a word in edgeways.

 

I would agree with you that social media tends to be anti Tory, but this is because of its demographic. Most users of social media tend to be of younger generations who surprisingly enough do not like the Tories or Brexit. Though you do see your fair share of right wing bots on there, like when that picture circulated before the election of a kid having to lie on the floor of a hospital because there weren’t enough beds. Hundreds of accounts spammed identical messages along the lines of “my sister works there and this is fake”. And despite the fact the hospital itself confirmed it was genuine, many Tories like my dad are so preconditioned to support their ‘team’ no matter what, they believed it. However the subject of social media is irrelevant to the subject of print media, as you cannot censor people’s views online outside of a totalitarian state. What is viable is an Ofcom style regulator for print media to ensure that mass produced papers are not simply used as methods of propagandising, but are required to be truthful when reporting on subjects they are currently inflammatory and scarce on facts about. I’ve often thought that tabloids that consistently print gossip and simply ‘opinion’ pieces with no attempt at impartiality or at least fact based and comparative arguments shouldn’t be allowed the title of ‘newspaper’.

 

Its nonsense to say simply that the influence of widely circulated Tory newspapers is beneficial to the Tories politically because their content ‘resonates more’. Part of the role of the press is to hold the government to account, and because the section of the press interested in doing that is so small comparatively, the government are less accountable and are able to get away with the corruption and sleaze we’ve seen over the past 18 months with little impact, from Jennifer Arcuri and contracts for mates, to Robert Jenrick and his backroom deals with Tory billionaires, and listing his own affluent constituency as ‘deprived’ so he could blackmail his constituents by promising this funding only if he was elected. Many things the government do which may hurt them electorally are simply not published by papers like the Sun, Mail and Express, because it’s not in their interests to do so. I remember when Dominic Cummings was coming out with all these revelations about Johnson’s conduct, and the Mail’s response was along the lines “Sorry Dom, we’ve got bigger fish to fry”. Too many also journalists see the government as a source they cannot anger if they want to continue receiving their ‘scoops’, even if these scoops tend to be whatever message the government want to release in their interest. Laura ‘a Labour activist assaulted Matt Hancock’ Kuenssberg is a prime example of this.

 

I am not giving an ‘excuse’ for Labour or Corbyn, as I specifically alluded to the fact that Corbyn was naive in not combating a libellously hostile press, even more so than is normal for Labour figures. Much of the media undoubtedly misled and propagandised against him from the very start (I read a very good thesis on this which I can also link to if you like), but it was his naivety in not also descending into the gutter that was his undoing. If he had sued the worst perpetrators for slander at the start, then recent political history might have played out differently as the tabloids may have been less emboldened to print whatever they wanted to assassinate his character.

 

You say people don’t vote Labour because they don’t want to. While that’s true for the vast majority of non Labour voters, you have to wonder that given the political imbalance within the UK’s media just over the past 10 or so years whether the Labour Party really have the same platform available to them as the Tories do to present themselves. The truth is they don’t within traditional media, social media is perhaps the only way they do but is is debatable over what impact this has, not a significant one if recent elections and referenda are to go by.

I still feel there’s a big distance between us here: I’m not saying that the likes of the Mail and the Sun aren’t the biggest readership. I have no reason to dispute your graph. What I’m saying is that that’s not the point. Opposing views are out there. If you’re saying that 90% of the print media readership reads Pro-Tory papers, that may well be true but that only matters if they don’t have other choices, and clearly they do. People can choose to read what they want, for the reasons they want (aside from obvious examples like terrorist material). The question to answer then is not what’s on offer but why the Mail and the Sun are more popular. What should other newspapers be doing instead to make themselves more attractive to a wider readership? Honestly, I believe that the Mail and the Sun get a wide readership through style rather than content - people feel the content regardless of what it is is on their level. And you don’t need to convince me that both papers are full of inaccuracies (to be kind) because I’ve seen many examples for myself. But certainly it is not their responsibility to figure all this out and deliberately thin their readership for the sake of fairness.

 

I took your original words to mean that 90% of the options were Pro-Tory, which clearly isn’t true but would be much more concerning.

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I still feel there’s a big distance between us here: I’m not saying that the likes of the Mail and the Sun aren’t the biggest readership. I have no reason to dispute your graph. What I’m saying is that that’s not the point. Opposing views are out there. If you’re saying that 90% of the print media readership reads Pro-Tory papers, that may well be true but that only matters if they don’t have other choices, and clearly they do. People can choose to read what they want, for the reasons they want (aside from obvious examples like terrorist material). The question to answer then is not what’s on offer but why the Mail and the Sun are more popular. What should other newspapers be doing instead to make themselves more attractive to a wider readership? Honestly, I believe that the Mail and the Sun get a wide readership through style rather than content - people feel the content regardless of what it is is on their level. And you don’t need to convince me that both papers are full of inaccuracies (to be kind) because I’ve seen many examples for myself. But certainly it is not their responsibility to figure all this out and deliberately thin their readership for the sake of fairness.

 

I took your original words to mean that 90% of the options were Pro-Tory, which clearly isn’t true but would be much more concerning.

So we just need an equally terrible, propagandistic left-wing alternative?  I disagree, Fuchs has it right that we should be holding the press barons to account for their editorial decisions or stripping them of the right to call their content 'news'.

[Dunge]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So we just need an equally terrible, propagandistic left-wing alternative?  I disagree, Fuchs has it right that we should be holding the press barons to account for their editorial decisions or stripping them of the right to call their content 'news'.

No. I’m saying that papers like the Guardian and the Independent target particular audiences, and the Mail and the Sun target different audiences. But the latter target much wider audiences. People are blaming them for people’s choice. Trying to limit these papers by holding press barons to account won’t have nearly the impact that you hope. If you want to persuade people then the messages have to be put a lot better, not just aimed at the converted like the Guardian constantly does.

[Voll Blau]

3 hours ago, doverfox said:

Quetion how many on here are members of a trade unions? The traditional labour party backers.

Yep.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Dunge said:

I still feel there’s a big distance between us here: I’m not saying that the likes of the Mail and the Sun aren’t the biggest readership. I have no reason to dispute your graph. What I’m saying is that that’s not the point. Opposing views are out there. If you’re saying that 90% of the print media readership reads Pro-Tory papers, that may well be true but that only matters if they don’t have other choices, and clearly they do. People can choose to read what they want, for the reasons they want (aside from obvious examples like terrorist material). The question to answer then is not what’s on offer but why the Mail and the Sun are more popular. What should other newspapers be doing instead to make themselves more attractive to a wider readership? Honestly, I believe that the Mail and the Sun get a wide readership through style rather than content - people feel the content regardless of what it is is on their level. And you don’t need to convince me that both papers are full of inaccuracies (to be kind) because I’ve seen many examples for myself. But certainly it is not their responsibility to figure all this out and deliberately thin their readership for the sake of fairness.

 

I took your original words to mean that 90% of the options were Pro-Tory, which clearly isn’t true but would be much more concerning.

When they publish misinformation in the name of a political stance that is life-threatening at worst, then yes, I would say it is their responsibility to figure that out rather than perpetuating it to sell themselves and satisfy a public need for the aforementioned misinformation and confirmation bias.

 

Or a regulator should do it for them.

 

I'm sorry Dunge, but this is way too laissez-faire.

[Dunge]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

When they publish misinformation in the name of a political stance that is life-threatening at worst, then yes, I would say it is their responsibility to figure that out rather than perpetuating it to sell themselves and satisfy a public need for the aforementioned misinformation and confirmation bias.

 

Or a regulator should do it for them.

 

I'm sorry Dunge, but this is way too laissez-faire.

If the original point was talking about Climate Change or Coronavirus then I’d have a lot more sympathy with this point.