Sun switches support to Tories

[Saracen]

Apparently, the Sun has switched it's political support to the Tories .... after watching Gordon Brown's conference speech.

Tomorrow's (or rather, later today's) front page headline reads ....

"LABOUR'S LOST IT"

with a subhead of

After 12 long years in power, the Government has lost it's way. Now it's lost The Sun's support as well

and a leader column saying

"Twelve years ago, Britain was crying out for change from a divided, exhausted government. Today we are there again.

"In 1997, 'New' Labour, shorn of its destructive hard-left doctrines and with an energetic and charismatic leader, seemed the answer. Tony Blair said things could only get better, and few doubted him. But did they get better?"

"The Sun believes - and prays - that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain."

While I could be uncharitable and draw analogies with rats deserting a sinking ship, a more charitable approach would be to say that it's no surprise that newspaper editors or proprietors can read the writing on the wall.

But by any measure, this is damaging. And it seems timed to have maximum damaging impact. If Brown was going to get any boost from his conference speech, such a high-profile and public desertion and endorsement for Cameron's crew has got to be a kick on the family jewels for Brown.

And, of course, it's a boost for Cameron.

It also strike me as interesting that they waited to hear what Brown had to say and them dumped him as if he were radioactive, without even hearing Cameron's conference speech!

After 12 years of courting Labour (and being courted by them), well, I thought dumping someone (or firing them, like Baroness Scotland did to her illegal immigrant cleaner) by text message was harsh and cold, by doing it by newspaper front page headline .... that's in a whole different league.

[SammEl]

"The Sun"

Nuff said, bunch of utter idiots too, not far behind the Daily Mail.

[Saracen]

"The Sun"

Nuff said, bunch of utter idiots too, not far behind the Daily Mail.

Perhaps, but they have a large readership and their decision to back New Labour for the 97 election is claimed to have been influential, if not in achieving the win than at least in the size of the majority.

Whatever we might think of the standard of the editorial content, they do have a fair bit of clout. That's why, apparently, Cameron has been actively courting them. Successfully too, it seems.

It's also why the buzz that Brown managed to achieve among the party faithful apparently distinctly fizzled out at the conference hotel when this news came out.

Make no mistake, Sun or not, this is NOT news Brown will have wanted to hear. It's a very public declaration of no confidence in him by a major publisher that's been backing New Labour for just about their entire existence.

And it just might be enough to trigger a desperation leadership bid .... though I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen, let alone be successful.

[Lucio]

Not sure who'se worse, the politicians who alter their views depending on what the think the public wants to hear or the overly commercialised media who change their opinions based on whatever sells more papers...

[jim]

I'd say the worst thing is that the Sun honestly seems to think it decides who wins.

[pollaxe]

A good friend of mine is a journalist (he now lives and works in the U.S.) and he always said that despite it being a tawdry rag, all the best journalists went to the The Sun. I don't know if that's true but he always maintained this line.

I'm not a big fan of the tabloids and particularly anything owned by Murdoch. I'd much rather this leaders' debate that's being pushed on Sky News took place on the beeb if it has to happen.

Truth be told I think this is a pretty hard blow to New Labour. I just hope the Tories don't win by a landslide; they're bad for democracy.* Having said that, I'm ready for a change, I've really disliked the Nanny State imposed by NL though I have a sinking suspicion that it's not going to get any better under the next lot, whoever they may be.

*Landslides, not the Tories.

[emzallan]

There are many many things that can be said about this, firstly it is interesting that the Scottish edition does not have the same headline.

Is the Sun influential?
Yes:

Look at 1992/ 1997 support, and election outcome

Look at huge readership, and how many are floating voters/ not strongly partisan

Wider view that it isn't the Sun alone, but influence of Murdoch across his media empire.

No:

The Sun is a popular newspaper, likes to run with the times and popular mood, and maybe is just trying to have a popular line, reflects views of people rather than influencing them.

How many Sun readers actually vote? Significant voter apathy, although still better than those who don't follow any sort of news/ politics regularly

When the Times switched from Conservative to Labour it lost a lot of its readers, and who is to say that a change of editorial line is enough to sway readers, especially in the short term.

There are still relatively strong links between party preference and class, views of parents and peers etc (although clearly these influences are declining) and although the media can be influential, is it really an overriding factor?

[GheeTsar]

A good friend of mine is a journalist (he now lives and works in the U.S.) and he always said that despite it being a tawdry rag, all the best journalists went to the The Sun. I don't know if that's true but he always maintained this line.

Largely true - it takes a lot of skill to turn complex stories into words of two syllables or less and find an angle on it to sell it to the masses.


Back on topic - this smacks of a weak kid switching between rival gangs at school when the other one becomes more popular.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

Just wait for

"It's The Sun wot won it!"

headline next year.

It really grates me. I especially hate the

"The Sun says:"

sections of that rag; "Sun says/You think"...

[menthel]

Oh joy, a paper with the IQ level of a slightly simple 12 year old boy switches it support from one bunch of muppets to an even bigger bunch of muppets in a vain attempt to claim that it shapes Britain today. It almost makes you want to leave, but I can't think of anywhere better!

[format]

Its a sad indictment of the UK that this 'newspaper' holds so much sway over our political opinions... but it does, and this is a huge blow for Labour.

[MarcSten]

I saw that one coming, to be honest. The last time the Sun switched allegiance - in 1997, from the Tories to Labour - Murdoch was only following the zeitgeist anyway. Labour would have hammered the Tories in 1997 with or without the Sun's backing; Murdoch just likes to back a winner. Now he's smelt that Brown doesn't have a chance at the next election, he's switched again. Nothing new here...

I don't think it will turn out to be much of a problem for Brown. It's not like the Sun has ever delivered Labour votes; it has never whipped up support for the party. Rather, it has just held back from ripping into him. But over the last few months and years he's had so much bad press that I don't think a little more in the Sun will make that much difference. Frankly, his problems are biggest than this...

[Saracen]

.....

There are still relatively strong links between party preference and class, views of parents and peers etc (although clearly these influences are declining) and although the media can be influential, is it really an overriding factor?

It's certainly not an over-riding factor, but I think it'd be a mistake to think this isn't damaging for Brown and NL. If nothing else, it's symbolically significant and a kick in the crotch for Brown's attempt to fire up the troops .... and no doubt was deliberately timed for maximum impact.

If Sun readers are as thick as some posts above suggest (and on which I refrain from expressing - excuse the pun - an opinion, by virtue of not personally knowing anyone that will admit to ever having touched a copy of the Sun, much less having actually read it) .... but if their readers really are that stupid, then it's even more likely that a constant barrage on negative spin on NL and positive spin on the Tories will have a cumulative and vote-affecting result.

[father smurf]

... of course those who dislike the sun may be more inclined to vote NL with the removal of their support.

[Saracen]

... of course those who dislike the sun may be more inclined to vote NL with the removal of their support.

Good point.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

... of course those who dislike the sun may be more inclined to vote NL with the removal of their support.

Those who disliked The Sun are probably naturally left wing anyway, so I don't think The Sun's support or otherwise of NL would have affected much...