Well, by my reckoning, Operation Fightback lasted about 8 hours.
The Sun throwing its support and directing its readership army behind the Tories has ensured that Gordon Brown is facing Operation Insurmountable.
Although given we can expect a long wait until the General Election of May 6th, I'm beginning to think of it as Operation Shitebag.
And why is the Conference continuing after Brown's impressive speech? Had that been the climax, it could have buoyed the members and carried some momentum out into the wider world. Now they have to decide whether they will all skulk out early or sit through some rather dull speeches before the end on Thursday.
It all means that David Cameron has the easiest of weeks ahead of him. Turn up, smile, look angry here, come up with a few new policies there and have some open, searching interviews over the weekend. One in the Guardian just to really rub it in.
So that's England and Wales sorted at least, but what does it all mean for Scotland?
Well the Scottish Sun's Editor David Dinsmore has said this morning that their publication will not be supporting the Tories, nor will they be supporting Labour. Not sure if that means the paper will make the biggest of U-Turns by coming out in favour of the SNP. The ridiculous headline they ran on the day of the Scottish Parliament elections suggesting Scotland was putting herself in a noose by voting SNP still looms large in the mind.
So I wouldn't get my hopes up if I was Alex Salmond but the clear margin of victory that Cameron and the Tories can now rely on, partly thanks to The Sun's backing, means that people are now free to vote for whomever they wish in Scotland. I know this is the case anyway but a close run election between Labour and the Tories would have squeezed the other parties out somewhat.
Labour's claims that voting SNP or Lib Dem will ensure that the Tories get into Westminster will look silly and remind voters of how little Labour stands for if Cameron is 15 points ahead in the national polls.
The Sun has stopped shining on Labour as storm clouds gather for Brown. He should call the election sooner rather than later to bring all of this to a head.
But something to think about. We haven't had a close election since 1992. A full 17 years ago and 22 years ago ago when the election after this one comes around.
Surely the case for proportional representation has been made.
24 comments:
Not sure if a close-run General Election would squeeze the SNP much. Maybe in places where the Tories have a chance of winning, but these remain few. I think most people would still rather vote SNP than Tory.
Excellent article on OurKingdom: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david_rickard/britain_and_england
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/
david_rickard/britain_and_england
Is the picture on that "The Sun backs Blair" page recursive?
The damage that the SUN newspaper coming out for the conservatives will do to Labour will be in the form of two waves. There is the initial bad publicity and of course comments in all the other papers and news mediums. It has removed any benefits Gordon Browns speech would have given to the Labour cause and blunted what is supposed to be his opening campaign shots.
The real damage though is that if the election is in May then that gives the Sun newspaper 7 months to snipe, disparage and to put its own spin on everything that Labour has done or plans to do. That is the real damage and one that is so pervasive and damaging that there must now be some serious thought about going to the polls a lot earlier than May. The possibility is of a January/February election where the cold weather may reduce the turn out and as such keep the core activists votes up so reducing any swing to the conservatives.
It may put an interesting spin on the by-election. The Scottish Sun won't be supporting Labour, and, according to what you say Jeff, they won't be supporting the Tories (not that it would do them much good even if they were).
Even if they don't support the SNP the average reader in the consituency won't have the Labour message in his face every day.
But in honesty the power that The Sottish Sun once had to influence things has probably diminished considerably, and the main result of this announcment is, as Highlander pointed out, to take any kind of boost that "the speech" would have had, and dump it staight in the bin.
Honestly Jeff I expect better of you. I guess this may be a SNP release to its members trying to show how bad a position Labout (they think/are) in.
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of media communications, knows that papers follow public opinion, not shape it. The sun has come out for the tories, because its own polling and focus groups says this is where its readership in England is. I wont’t try and deny that this is bad for Labour, a lot of working class people may be voting tory again in England and that group who supported Thatcher and major (1992) are moving there again, but this will not change peoples opinion.
I suggest you go and read Prof Curtis’ very good analysis of the effect a papers ‘decision’ on who to support makes, or the very good analysis of the 1997 general election (authors escape me, but it is done after every election). Papers follow their readership, the readership do not follow the paper.
Why do they follow? Because they want to back a winner to ensure they get the perks of supporting a winning government. They could not let the mail for example get exclusives from a tory government, they need this. The Broadsheets do not follow, because they make their own minds up about stories.
I reckon the SNP would get squeezed Mike, the average vote carries more weight in such circumstances so the (many) Scots who prefer SNP, Labour and then the Tories might plump for option 2 to prevent option 3.
If option 3 is going to happen anyway, then option 1 is freely available.
That's how I see it anyway. I, of course, may be wrong.
LH, you've enunciated it clearer than I did in my head but one of my first thoughts after The Sun decision was that it might somehow bring the election closer.
Who knows though...
Oh, not the old 'the SNP control the bloggers' chat, I in turn would expect better of you Alex ;)
I know full well that The Sun backs the winners so it may well have already been factored in by Labour but look around, is anyone talking about Gordon's speech? (which was apparently very good, I've still not seen it)
The papers may well follow public opinion but once they do so forecefully as they are doing now then that public opinion hardens. Consequently, I think it's pretty clear that Brown's optimistic fightback has now become an imnsurmountable lost cause.
I understand you're disappointed but it doesn't sound like you disagree.
Also, I will indeed go and read John Curtis' paper at some point as it sounds a good read but The Sun has scuppered Gordon's speech and the effect it might have had otherwise.
Furthermore, you seem to suggest that if The Sun had taken the unlikely step of backing Labour then you would not think it would make any difference.
That, clearly, is preposterous.
People like to vote for the winners, the winners are going to be the Tories, the Sun are going to remind voters of that for the next 7 months so I really don't know what it is you're objecting to in my post and what 'better' form you were expecting?
Jeff
Thanks for getting back.
The sentences I was referring to were
“The Sun throwing its support and directing its readership army behind the Tories has ensured that Gordon Brown is facing Operation Insurmountable.”
And
“but the clear margin of victory that Cameron and the Tories can now rely on, partly thanks to The Sun's backing, “
As stated above, and with the risk of turning this into something it should not, The Sun is no mega church in the US (which do have an army of followers to be directed like sheep to whichever right-wing zealot that particular church chooses.
My opinion (only can be that, but follows some very knowledgeable people), is that the Sun will not change many peoples opinion at all. They follow what there readership are thinking, they are not able to make people vote a certain way.
To try and answer your point about labour taking that step to back Labour. If you understand my argument, you would see that what I am saying is the sun will only back who they feel is going to win. So for example, they backed Blair in 2001 because he was going to win, even though there editorial policy was firmly set with Hague. The same thing was apparent in 2005.
My point therefore is, if they backed Labour this time, it would be because they thought they were going to win already, so would it make a difference? I do however like your point about hardening opinion, and this is maybe where they do influence things.
Also highly recommend anyone who is interested in this to read: Political Communications: Why Labour Won the General Election of 1997 by John Bartle (Editor), Ivor Crewe (Editor) and Brian Gosschalk (Editor). It is fascinating and somewhat interestingly the parallels between Labour in the run up to 1997 and SNP in run up to 2007 are to striking to miss.
Fair enough Alex, I still think it's a significant move but i may not have fully appreciated how much or how little impact a paper's backing really is this morning. At a bleary-eyed 7am and with that rousing BBC breaking news jingle in the background, it can be easy to get carried away ;). Brown still has no chance, incidentally.
i might have to concede your last point (unless we decide on an early referendum on voting reform ;-)
If the Scottish Sun are following its readers then is that why they are not endorsing the Tories?
Anonymous - because they are not suicidal.
Hi Jeff, totally OT, but just saw your message about the barber. Was that the place on Bread Street?
Ha, it was indeed on Bread St Nik. I thought I was in for the shortest of short back and sides. A bold move going for the ears, and a veritable balding one at that.
I had thoughts of being burned to a crisp the first time one of the guys came near me brandishing one of those flaming torches!
Jeff
Whether the Sun influences voters, or is influenced itself by voters, is immaterial. It has a reputation to live up to, a part of it's brand credentials, if you like: the ability to pick the winning party in a UK (not Scottish) election. I believe it takes pride in this fact, and to be honest, it's fantastic marketing!
The Scottish Sun should be brave and come out for the nats - they've been there before and could be again. They won't come out for the Tories - sales suicide!
Dinsmore claimed they are a unionist paper so with no union party to support (don't object Lib Dems, you know you're not on their radar) they'll fire at everyone in the campaign and then tell voters to "use your vote well" - vote but we don't have anything to tell you.
You'd think when the NATS have as many voters as the Sun has readers and every other paper is against the SNP they might see some sales value in backing Salmond, if not the Sun someone should see some sales value in it - it's not like the more even handed papers have suffered for it - that's the bold move - the question for the Sun is are they bold enough.
if you support the tories with 90% of your british circulation in the yoo kay south of gretna then you are not going to rock the boat.
if the sun supports the tories and it sees britain as an entity then by NECESSITY it needs to support them in scotland even if tory politics has been on the nose for a generation and it guarantees the record goes back to being the number one comic for those who like big boobies.
the scottish sun website has enough pro tory stuff on it to show they are saying they are not pro tory, HONEST, but clearly that is the message.
either that, or do a genuinely separate SCOTTISH website which does not have all that pro cameron drivel.
the tree copy may not inherently be that pro tory, but as an ORGANISATION that is where its support lies.
Agreed Andrew, fine marketing. I still wouldn't touch it with a bargepole but it's made the headlines. I can't imagine the Editors will be too disappointed with Tony Woodley ripping it up onstage at the Conference.
The Sun coming out in favour of the SNP would be a masterstroke, i'm with you there redcliffe, it could even dominate a rather lacklustse campaign but I can understand there would be some 'ideological hurdles' that the Sun would have to clear first.
If anyone out there reads the Express and cares to admit it: do they still support the Nats? I vaguely recall some fuss when they switched to us about a year ago, but haven't heard much since.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,酒店,
Post a Comment