Financial Times

[trousers]

...comes out in support of Conservatives for first time since 1987...does Murdoch own that one too...?

[dune]

...comes out in support of Conservatives for first time since 1987...does Murdoch own that one too...?

 

So that just now leaves the boring Daily Mirror supporting a sinking ship. However the FT's defection is not really going to change anything due to it's readers already being Conservative in all probability.

 

In this election the newspapers have had less influence than in any other in my opinion. The televised debates followed by bigotgate have been the key factors. That said it's lucky that Nick Clegg peaked after the first debate (and not later in the campaign) because it has given the press time to "work on him", and I do believe that the swing back to the Conservatives from the initial Liberal gain has been down to this.

[GenevaSaint]

In this election the newspapers have had less influence than in any other in my opinion. The televised debates followed by bigotgate have been the key factors. That said it's lucky that Nick Clegg peaked after the first debate (and not later in the campaign) because it has given the press time to "work on him", and I do believe that the swing back to the Conservatives from the initial Liberal gain has been down to this.

 

Talk about contradict yourself. Less influence, but more than enough to force a swing back to the Conservatives.

[dune]

Talk about contradict yourself. Less influence, but more than enough to force a swing back to the Conservatives.

 

Correct.

[OldNick]

So that just now leaves the boring Daily Mirror supporting a sinking ship. However the FT's defection is not really going to change anything due to it's readers already being Conservative in all probability.

 

In this election the newspapers have had less influence than in any other in my opinion. The televised debates followed by bigotgate have been the key factors. That said it's lucky that Nick Clegg peaked after the first debate (and not later in the campaign) because it has given the press time to "work on him", and I do believe that the swing back to the Conservatives from the initial Liberal gain has been down to this.

If the Financial times now backs the Tories for the first time since 1987 that tells you something important.

They by doing this may feel also that DC's policies are financially correct. In that case Browns scaremongering will be shot down. They haven't gone for Cable, but the tories financial ideas.

To the masses it does not mean a lot but it may reinforce or even change a few who are flirting with the Liberals.

[IamLeGod]

I have said before on here that I am not a big believer in this idea of papers swinging elections, or the whole "it was the sun what won it" proclomation and I stand by this.

 

Newspaper's lets not forget are a product. Part of a business, who inevitably having the overarching ambition to make profit. In order to do this they have to sell papers. In order to do this they have to identify their market, and understand what they want.

 

Labour in '97 were clear favourites to oust the Tories from Govt. due to the unpopularity of the Tory party and peoples frustrations with a stagnant tory party. The Sun's move to ditch the Tories in favour of Labour came after it was clear public support was moving towards Blair's New Labour. The same can be said again of The Sun's recent move back to the Tories (although the gap has since lessened - again showing their lack of influence over people's persuasions).

 

The FT is another example of this, their market is heavily linked to the business world. A key part of the Tory campaign has been the backing of Tory policies by Big Businesses and business leaders.

 

Coincidence? Or can anyone else spot this pattern?

[IamLeGod]

It may also be possible to suggest that this trend is also apparent in the Guardian's support of the LIb Dems. Due to the Guardian's readership tending the have a leaning to the left - readers are more likely to leave the Labour party to support the Lib Dems than they are to move to Tories - making the move to support Lib Dems quite a rational one.

[buctootim]

I have said before on here that I am not a big believer in this idea of papers swinging elections, or the whole "it was the sun what won it" proclomation and I stand by this.

 

Newspaper's lets not forget are a product. Part of a business, who inevitably having the overarching ambition to make profit. In order to do this they have to sell papers. In order to do this they have to identify their market, and understand what they want.

 

Labour in '97 were clear favourites to oust the Tories from Govt. due to the unpopularity of the Tory party and peoples frustrations with a stagnant tory party. The Sun's move to ditch the Tories in favour of Labour came after it was clear public support was moving towards Blair's New Labour. The same can be said again of The Sun's recent move back to the Tories (although the gap has since lessened - again showing their lack of influence over people's persuasions).

 

The FT is another example of this, their market is heavily linked to the business world. A key part of the Tory campaign has been the backing of Tory policies by Big Businesses and business leaders.

 

Coincidence? Or can anyone else spot this pattern?

 

I'm also pretty sure that newspapers carry much less influence than they did in the past. Fewer papers are sold and people are much more spin and bull**** aware than they used to be.

[biggerthanjesus]

You say that newspapers are chasing markets and profits but the sun is traditionally a working class / blue collar publication and therefore switching to Tory support will not actually help gain profit margins. There is enough support for Labour still for The Sun to sell a healthy amount of papers and gain a large profit, rather than risk this by switching.

 

I think its more likely due to a certain Mr Murdoch pre-empting the election results and siding himself with the most likely winner, gaining their favour and support should any laws he views as harmful to his businesses get put forward in the near future.

 

Could say its a cynical view, but there you go.

[Ponty]

You say that newspapers are chasing markets and profits but the sun is traditionally a working class / blue collar publication and therefore switching to Tory support will not actually help gain profit margins. There is enough support for Labour still for The Sun to sell a healthy amount of papers and gain a large profit, rather than risk this by switching.

 

I think its more likely due to a certain Mr Murdoch pre-empting the election results and siding himself with the most likely winner, gaining their favour and support should any laws he views as harmful to his businesses get put forward in the near future.

 

Could say its a cynical view, but there you go.

Not really cynical. The Sun was a Tory paper before Major started to look shabby and it was clear there was going to be a change at the top, then it championed Blair and New Labour.

[biggerthanjesus]

I wonder how long it'll take The Sun to change its allegiance again after the Tory's make a complete hash of things (again)

[OldNick]

 

The FT is another example of this, their market is heavily linked to the business world. A key part of the Tory campaign has been the backing of Tory policies by Big Businesses and business leaders.

 

Coincidence? Or can anyone else spot this pattern?

That the FT haven't supported the Tories since 1987, so there goes that theory

[dune]

I wonder how long it'll take The Sun to change its allegiance again after the Tory's make a complete hash of things (again)

 

Given that the Conservatives were in power for 18 years they must have done something right.

[OldNick]

I wonder how long it'll take The Sun to change its allegiance again after the Tory's make a complete hash of things (again)

It is widely recognised that Blair inherited a 'Golden economy' from the last Tory government after chancellor Ken Clarke got us into a good position.Sadly the the election was called before those benefits started to come through.

[dune]

It is widely recognised that Blair inherited a 'Golden economy' from the last Tory government after chancellor Ken Clarke got us into a good position.Sadly the the election was called before those benefits started to come through.

 

And Clarke will again be chancellor in all but title if the Tories win the election....

[Saint George]

I wonder how long it'll take The Sun to change its allegiance again after the Tory's make a complete hash of things (again)

 

and there lies one of the biggest problems in politics.....'Ignorant allengiances'

 

To many peeps see supporting their 'Party' in the same way as supporting their Soccer team..."Labour till i die" and all that...Even after the horendous last 12 years, there's peeps out there, who are going to vote for the 'final nail' because "it's Labour innit"

[IamLeGod]

That the FT haven't supported the Tories since 1987, so there goes that theory

 

And the Tories havent had a procession of big businesses publicly support them in the manner they have in the run up to the current election either.

 

It's easy to criticise, what do you suggest? Everyone goes along blindly with what The Sun tells them?

 

Also, I have used several examples to support my case, whilst you pick on what I would admit is the weakest of the lot. Top work.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Although supporting Labour from 97 till now, the Sun's slant was always been Tory over most issues. Immigration, Crime and Punishment, Europe, and Taxes, the Sun's position has always been nearer the Tories than Labour.

[Scummer]

The Financial Times and The Economist, both serious and respected publications, have come out in favour of the Conservatives. They obviously trust them to take the right decisions to get the UK back on track.

[OldNick]

And the Tories havent had a procession of big businesses publicly support them in the manner they have in the run up to the current election either.

 

It's easy to criticise, what do you suggest? Everyone goes along blindly with what The Sun tells them?

 

Also, I have used several examples to support my case, whilst you pick on what I would admit is the weakest of the lot. Top work.

I pointed out the flaw in the arguement. It iseasy to point and say that as it is a paper aimed at businessmen that they are going to back them, the case that they haven't for 20 years or so says that the Tories in their eyes have changed for the better.

I didnt see any of your better points as the major one this thread is about was patently wrong.

For you to be on this thread tells me that you of course would not need the Sun or another to make you decide who to vote for. You will make up your own mind and that is what debate is all about. I wish we could pick and mix a few of the parties policies, and that would be perfect.

Sadly that is not possible and so Im plumping for the one that I feel will turn the countries fortunes back for the better.

[Wade Garrett]

Murdoch is siding heavily with Cameron because he wants a few favours.

[buctootim]

FT is owned by Pearson, a quoted and listed company.