Grauniad switches sides from backing NuLab in 2005 to LibDems this time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

much tutting over skinny-decaf-lattes in the suburbs this morning….

I vote libdem and read the Grauniad and yet have never had a skinny-decaf-lattes. I feel somewhat of an impostor.

and the Times are supporting the Tories for the first time in 18 years?

cos rupert the bear says so.

I feel somewhat of an impostor.

You must have the same spell checker as the Grauniad too.

numchul pattukul fattumch

get real, no one ever says ftumch.

…anyways, i guess it can be spelt either way.

I'm relieved they've made their minds up – I just do what the guardian tells me to do – it makes life easier

I'm not sure I'm joking either 🙁

Don't the paper decide once they've worked out who is going to win? Or in the case of the Guardian work out who will do best out of the Lib Dems and Labour.

Don't the paper decide once they've worked out who is going to win?

😕 Why would they do that ?

Obviously in the case of News International it's important for Rupert Murdoch that the UK government should owe him a favour, as he relentlessly builds up his global media empire and extends his monopolistic stranglehold on the news and information which people receive.

Certainly the New Labour government, as the Tories before them, felt indebted to Rupert Murdoch, and his vast media empire has come out completely unscathed after 13 years of New Labour, despite the thoroughly anti-democratic nature of the foreigner's stranglehold over Britain's media.

And in fact on many occasions Murdoch has been able to successfully dictate to the UK government what their policies should, or should not be. Despite never having been elected to any office, by anyone. He doesn't even have a vote in UK elections.

Other newspapers owners on the other hand, do not have simular interests, and they certainly do not have the power of Murdoch, so their influence by comparison, is insignificant.

Supporting the "winner" is of no benefit whatsoever to the owners of the Guardian, the Scott Trust. The Guardian simply does what it has always done. It backs the party which most soothes it's bourgeois liberal guilt over social injustice. On the understanding of course, that the party in question will do absolutely nothing ………. and not in any way at all, attempt to change the order of things.

The attitude of the Guardian is very simular to the attitude of the Christian Socialists of the 19th century.
Which were wonderfully described by Marx thus :

"Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat."

Am I the only Guardian reader that loves the paper but does NOT agree with everything they write? Does that make me special? 😀

It backs the party which most soothes it's bourgeois liberal guilt over social injustice.

That's a meaningless statement

On the understanding of course, that the party in question will do absolutely nothing

And that's just wrong.

Am I the only…

I buy it on saturday for the Review section (and the TV Guide)…

Who believes in newspaper reader "types", anyway?

I will, of course, make an exception for the Daily Wail.

Good grief, ernie just said something I agree with!

And in fact on many occasions Murdoch has been able to successfully dictate to the UK government what their policies should, or should not be

Examples being?

That's a meaningless statement

And ? What's wrong with "meaningless statements" ? ……..presumably nothing ….. since you openly confess to buying/reading the Guardian. But thanks for highlighting my meaningless statement anyway.

The Guardian likes to talk the talk, but God forbid that it should ever walk the walk.

The Guardian invariably takes the high moral ground when comes to what it perceives to be social injustices. But hell will freeze over, before it will throw it's weight behind a party which is actually committed to real fundamental change.

Rendering all their bleeding heart concerns utterly meaningless. Still, it makes their readers feel more comfortable about their privileged lifestyles.

Examples being?

What TF do you think Murdoch's countless meetings with Blair, Brown, Mandelson, etc have been about ? Do you think they were so that Blair, Brown, and Mandelson could tell Murdoch what his papers should print ? ……ffs

So lets have some examples then. Don't just say "Oh of course they have", that's a cop out. Lets have some proper policies dictated by Murdoch that any government in the last 20 years or so have carried out without questions…

you've said many, I'll settle for some…

Don't just say "Oh of course they have", that's a cop out.

No, sorry mate ……I can't be arsed……..got things to do – bike to sort out for tomorrow for Leith Hill. Just dismiss my comments as bollox, if it makes you feel better…….I won't mind.

But from the Iraq war, to Britain's stance on Europe, to the trade unions, etc etc, Murdoch has had real influence on New Labour……and far more than the Labour Party membership has ever had under New Labour.

Cool, I will then.

The Guardian likes to talk the talk, but God forbid that it should ever walk the walk.

Of course it bloody well talks the talk, it's a newspaper! Not an activist group!

Sorry but on my planet newspapers SHOULD only report things. They often don't, preferring to try and subvert their readership to match the political preferences of their owners – and that's a frigging disgrace.

must confess, my friend and I were under the impression that the Guardian had supported the Lib Dems for a good few years. after all, they're a 'liberal' newspaper so in our simple minds it made sense that they would support the Liberal Democrats… 😳

after all, they're a 'liberal' newspaper so in our simple minds it made sense that they would support the Liberal Democrats

But are they a democratic newspaper?

😐

Sorry but on my planet newspapers SHOULD only report things. They often don't, preferring to try and subvert their readership to match the political preferences of their owners – and that's a frigging disgrace.

Yeah, however you'll find that in every country on this planet, newspapers, including the Guardian, throw their weight behind political parties. Newspapers which "only report things" are extremely rare – the Guardian certainly isn't one of them.

Which bearing in mind that you consider it all to be a "frigging disgrace", that can't sit very comfortably with your description of yourself as a "Guardian reader that loves the paper" 😕

In fact the Guardian acts very much like an "activist group" as you put it. But whilst it might prattle on endlessly about social injustices and what's wrong with the world, etc, when crunch time comes round, it invariably throws it weight behind politicians who are committed to maintaining the status quote.

It talks the radical talk, but walks the conservative walk. Always has, and always will. Such is the way of the dinner party socialists.

But from the Iraq war, to Britain's stance on Europe, to the trade unions, etc etc, Murdoch has had real influence on New Labour……and far more than the Labour Party membership has ever had under New Labour.

While you're fettling your bike Ernie best get the bacofoil out and make yourself a hat. You've got a nice conspiracy complex going there.

Ernie best get the bacofoil out and make yourself a hat.

Thanks for the TopTip 8)

Status Quote?

“Both Rick and I are lifelong fans of Coronation Street so to be in the Rovers with the regulars is an ambition fulfilled.”

And btw uponthedowns, my conspiracy complex about Murdoch's significant political influence, is also shared by many Guardian opinion writers…….maybe a letter to the Guardian offering them simular advise ? 💡

Actually I kind of agree with you Ernie but its more general than just old Rupert. Nu Lab was quite happy to schmooze big business as long as they thought it was laying the golden tax eggs they could use to sprinkle on the public sector. Brown thought by leaving the "wealth creators" alone he was going to turn Britain into the equivalent of silicon valley. Instead he got the likes of Philip Green buying up perfectly good companies, loading them with debt and trousering billions in premiums whilst paying minimal tax and creating little new value.

And btw uponthedowns, my conspiracy complex about Murdoch's significant political influence, is also shared by many Guardian opinion writers

Ah well that proves it then.

but its more general than just old Rupert

"Old Rupert" only got mentioned here because someone suggested that newspapers like to back the winner. I disputed that, saying that only Rupert Murdoch might feel that it's relatively important to do so. It certainly doesn't apply to the Guardian imo, which is what this thread is about.

.

Ah well that proves it then.

Yep, it proves that many of us need to get busy with the bacon foil.

+1 uponthedowns.

We need a real economy.

Do people still read actual newspapers then?

In my first few weeks as Alastair Campbell's deputy, I was told by somebody who would know that we had assured Mr Murdoch we wouldn't change policy on Europe without talking to him first. The Cabinet Office insisted that I couldn't say in my book that such a promise had been made because I did not know it for a fact. With some reluctance I turned the sentence around so that it read: "Apparently News International are under the impression we won't make any changes without asking them." Every other request relating to Murdoch was rejected. It seemed to me that the government was simply trying to avoid political embarrassment on a subject of wholly legitimate public interest.

All discussions – and let us hope the word "negotiations" isn't more appropriate – with Rupert Murdoch and with Irwin Stelzer, his representative on earth, were handled at the very highest level. For the rest of us, the continued support of the News International titles was supposed to be self-evident proof of the value of this special relationship. The Sun and the Times, in particular, received innumerable "scoops" and favours. In return, New Labour got very sympathetic coverage from newspapers that are bought and read by classic swing voters – on the face of it, too good a deal to pass up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/01/comment.rupertmurdoch

Also Cameron made several calls to the editor of The Sun immediately before announcing his U-Turn on European policy, which strangely enough they announced very sympathetically with an exclusive Cameron 'promise' article, despite normally being very anti-Europe.