Has Cameron spurned The Telegraph for the BBC?

One of the best columns in The Spectator was Stephen Glover's Media Studies.  Mr Glover has now taken his perspective on the press to The Independent and its Monday Media section.  It's always worth reading.

Today's column looks at the increasingly difficult relationship between right-wing newspapers and Mr Cameron.

Mr Glover thinks that the Mail may choose to live with Mr Cameron but he is less sure about The Telegraph:

"At the Telegraph, the opposition to Mr Cameron is more venomous. Its editor, John Bryant, is a pragmatic Cameroonian, but he is surrounded by men who are fiercely critical of the Tory leader: the neo-Powellite columnist Simon Heffer; the director of communications, Guy Black, who appears to have taken a dislike to Mr Cameron when they both worked for Michael Howard; and Jeff Randall, who has already had a pop at the Tory leader in his column in the City pages. The paper's chairman, Aidan Barclay, did not welcome Mr Cameron's recent unfriendly remarks about big business."

Mr Glover thinks that Mr Cameron - who won the leadership with next to no help from the so-called Tory press - thinks that he can live without the Mail and Telegraph as cheerleaders.  Much more important to him is fair coverage on the BBC.  The BBC is undoubtedly the dominant media influence in Britain but the Corporation often reports what exercises the newspapers and The Telegraph is a big influence on Tory activists.  Mr Cameron would be wise to avoid causing too much upset amongst the right side of Fleet Street.

Comments

[David Farrer]

Here in Scotland the backlash against the new Tory regime continues. (Scroll down if necessary)

[Frank Young]

The Telegraph is a critical friend of the party and I find its comments and editorials interesting and insightful.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I stopped buying the Telegraph when they gave Heffer a colunmn...

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Funny how the Sunday Telegraph's glowing praise of Cameron's stance on education does not merit comment on this site, and yet once again we have a "Simon Heffer doesn't like Cameron" article.

This site is becoming the Labour Party's best friend.

[James Hellyer]

The Sunday Telegraph didn't offer "glowing praise" for Cameron's stance on education. It agreed with a particular stance and encouraged him to continue supporting the White Paper on eduction no matter how matter how watered down it became.

You're as biased as you accuse others of being.

[RobC]

'Its the Sun wot won it'

Don't worry too much about the ring-wing press, worry more about the right of centre press. Mark my words, it the Sun and Times come out in favour of Cameron over Brown (or whoever) then Cameron will win the next election.

[Michael McGowan]

The Sun and the Times will back at the last minute whoever they think is going to win. Neither of them has ever "won" anything and their Lord and Master, Mr Murdoch, is distinctly sceptical about David Cameron.

[Edward]

If the Telegraph hadn't been so appallingly managed over the last four years I might still look forward to sitting down to read it with my lunch. Then I might still listen to what it said.

As it is I saw so many articles riddled with mistakes and poor grammar I no longer buy it and lament how things used to be....and the less said about the Sunday Telegraph the better.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Funny how the Sunday Telegraph's glowing praise of Cameron's stance on education does not merit comment on this site, and yet once again we have a "Simon Heffer doesn't like Cameron" article."

"Glowing praise" is stretching it a bit. The Telegraph said that it was tactically right to support Blair's reforms in order to split him from his backbenchers, and that a future Conservative government should go much further.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

...something which Cameron has had spot-on from the beginning, despite criticism from - oh wait - the same minority that are criticising him now.

[Chris Palmer]

"This site is becoming the Labour Party's best friend." - Cllr Iain Lindley

That is a quite revealing observation, Iain. The people who frequent this website are certainly not representative of Conservative party support as a whole - many being part of a small, but vocal minority who complain and complain and complain.

If Tim Montgomerie believes that we should just give him £3000, then he has another thing coming. Normal Conservative party voters should not be encouraged to visit this website – especially with current attitudes. Further, how can he justify spending £1700 on a laptop? Spending that much sounds almost as wasteful as some of Gordon Brown’s public service schemes.

The only way to make this website better and more acceptable is to force users to login and register.

[James Hellyer]

...something which Cameron has had spot-on from the beginning, despite criticism from - oh wait - the same minority that are criticising him now.

It would be a mistake to support the White Paper "no matter how watered down it becomes". If it ceases to reflect any principles we should support - as it easily could - then we shouldn't support it.

[Ed R]

There's the old concept in politics that the other party are just the opposition -- the Senate/House/civil service/Lords are the real enemy. I'm starting to think the Labour party is just the Conservatives' opposition: its own factions are the enemies

When you have discussions on forums like these such as "who is more like Pol Pot -- Thatcher or Cameron" it makes me wonder where we’re coming to. The press has the same split: where once we had the intelligent and rigorous right-wing criticism of Janet Daley, now we have the ghastly sensationalistic rantings of Simon Heffer; and where once Boris Johnson coughed tentatively towards Cameron-style ‘modernisation’, now Portillo’s self-flagellating tub-thumping has assumed the position as the daddy of Cameroon columnists. Neither side are covering themselves in glory.

I've never considered myself a Tory 'wet' in the slightest, but comparison to dictators and reheated Daily Mail schlock just makes me cringe – some of the commentary is as alien to me as Polly Toynbee’s drivel. Conversely, I’ve always naturally sympathised with a lot of the Notting Hill modernisers – but I don’t want some Portilloesque blood-letting ritual for the sake of it either.

I can’t really blame the media. Its bread and butter are political battles, and the internal ideological dispute of the Conservative party is the battle of the moment. Not many editors are going to start saying, “Calm down, dear, it’s not as bad as all that”. By the same token, the party membership is an eclectic bunch and for different people some cows are more sacred than others. I could go for a more vigorous defence of grammar schools myself.

But by both sides focusing so heavily on the negative – ‘beating’ the enemy within – the opportunity is being lost to discuss and raise awareness of the best ideas for the country. It is inexplicable to me that the centre-right broadsheets would choose to turn to sloppy tabloid sensationalism during what might well come to be the most influential policy rethink the Conservative Party has had for thirty years. It is a time to up the level of debate and to engage people in the issues more than ever before, not hunker down in ideological bunkers. I hope that this comprehensive rethink is what the policy groups will come to provide.

Granted, Cameron has put some pretty clear parameters on the groups, some of which I could do without – but he’s the elected leader, he’s the candidate for Prime Minister, and I don’t believe in letting the tail wag the dog. If he wants to do things in such and such a fashion, he must say so – that’s leadership of the sort he was elected to provide. When he’s come up with his final recommendations, I’ll pass judgment on what he’s done – but in the meantime, he’s barely out of the starting gate and almost everything is still to play for.

I just want what I think most people here want: a centre-right party in government, soon. The reality is, if we don’t get Cameron, we get Brown – and nobody wants that!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Here in Scotland the backlash against the new Tory regime continues. (Scroll down if necessary)."

A very interesting article, with a revealing insight into how the A-List is likely to impact on local candidate selection procedures, with the best-placed local candidate, with a wealth of local connections and experience, being brushed aside all in the name of increasing equality and diversity.

"The Sun and the Times will back at the last minute whoever they think is going to win. Neither of them has ever "won" anything and their Lord and Master, Mr Murdoch, is distinctly sceptical about David Cameron."

I can't see Murdoch being too enamoured with Gordon Brown either. If Labour's chance of winning the next election is marginal, past form (as with Kinnock's marginal lead over Major) would suggest that Murdoch would call in favour of the Conservatives.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

To be honest Daniel, that article shows that this chap (rightly or wrongly) has quite a few major quibbles with the way the Party is being run in Scotland. The a-list may well be an issue (and I remain deeply uncomfortable with the concept) but in this case it would appear to be, if you'll excuse the cliche, merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Editor]

Chris Palmer: "how can he justify spending £1700 on a laptop? Spending that much sounds almost as wasteful as some of Gordon Brown’s public service schemes."

I actually wrote - "The cost of buying a laptop for [Sam] to use and a twelve month mobile internet contract from Vodafone is £1,700." The unlimited internet use contract is c£600. For the £1,100 laptop we also got a scanner, carry case, full Microsoft Office package and an extended warranty. We got the 'deal' after taking four or five competitive quotes. I don't mind criticism Chris but comparing me to Gordon Brown was a bit below the belt!

[Michael McGowan]

Iain, you may think that Cameron is doing wonders by backing Blair over school reform and I'm not unsupportive myself. However, it is all a pretty sterile debate at the end of the day. Any changes Blair introduces with Cameron's help will have a minuscule impact and certainly are not going to make any significant positive difference for my two school-age children. So if I'm one of the "moaning minority", tough. I judge politicians by results.....and I'm still looking for some.

[Victoria Street]

Surely the advantage for Cameron of supporting Blair's extremely modest reforms is that they represent a breach in the wall of Whitehall control that a Conservative government would be able to extend without appearing revolutionary.
If Blair is defeated on this, it will be a much tougher struggle to introduce an independent state school structure under the next Conservative government.

[malcolm]

I think your post Chris Palmer is very harsh indeed.This blog has without a shadow of a doubt become on of the most influential of political blogs in recent months and now is regularly quoted in the press,it is also read by many MPs and opinion formers in our party and it is certainly superior toanything the LabourParty or Lib Dems have.
Some of the debates particularly on 'Platform' are as high in quality as anything I have found anywhere.
Most of the threads on Tory Diary are also informative and sometimes hugely entertaining although I would agree with you that sometimes the 'axis of complainers' posts have become as dull as my (and others) attempted rebuttals of them.
Personally I would be very sad if Tim decided to close this blog and would urge everyone to send him a donation.

[Matthew Oxley]

I dread to think what sort of party you'd run Cllr Lindley; Politics is about debate, we are 4 years from an election and some debate between ourselves seems perfectly reasonable. Yes, there has been some negativity recently but that can only be expected in times of change.

Perhaps we don't have the right to offer criticism? After all, many of us are 'only' the rank and file members that don't hold any position within the party. We are also the ones though, that pay our yearly subscription, that praise the values of the party to our friends/family, and (sometimes) give up a little of our time at election time to give people like you your seat.

I also find myself somewhat dumbfounded with the marks of Chris Palmer - this website has had Francis Maude & Michael Gove posting on here as well as some other important figures - if you feel members should be encouraged to stay away from this blog then it is most clearly you that is in the minority.

[Matthew Oxley]

I'm largely supportive of the Eductation reforms, and understand the points made here. The danger I see is the stance becomes too see-thru, especially if repeated with certain future bills. Cameron pledges he doesn't want to play politics with the future of the country - yet he clearly is. The fact I can see thru this policy isn't a big problem (I'm a political junkie), but if he does gain too many enemies in the press (left or right) there is a danger it will blow up in our faces.

[Tory T]

I think Chris Palmer was over the top in his criticisms of this excellent site. There's nothing else like it and those of us who use it regularly should value it (and, when our circumstances permit, make an occasional financial contribution).

Having said that, there IS a slightly unfortunate over-eagerness to jump on perceived 'sell outs' on the part of DC and the leadership. I'm not talking about the boo boys who post comments (they are part of the robust debate, even if some of them are congenitally sour) but about the editorial stance. A certain negativity is creeping into the selection of topics. Once in a while - fair enough. But it sometimes seems that every single day Tim and Sam have scoured the media looking for a blue corner anti-DC comment to amplify.

It's a cheeky thing to suggest to those whose sweat keeps this site going but my advice is to keep CH as an honest broker - not a mirror for your own doubts.

[Chris Palmer]

I stand by my comments. Add a proper login system and get rid of the obviously anti-Conservative and "lets have a moan just for the hell of it" posts and it will be worth promoting on the whole.

You forget that many people who may have an open vote or are Conservative non-regular internet users might be put off by some postings on this blog - or take it as represenative of Conservative party thought and opinion.

I will however take back the "Spending that much sounds almost as wasteful as some of Gordon Brown’s public service schemes" comment. That may have been a little harsh on Tim, but it was the first thing that came into might head (you can't edit these comments once you've posted - another problem with the system?) - but there you go.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I also find myself somewhat dumbfounded with the marks of Chris Palmer - this website has had Francis Maude & Michael Gove posting on here as well as some other important figures - if you feel members should be encouraged to stay away from this blog then it is most clearly you that is in the minority."

Chris isn't too negative towards this blog - he does link to this site from his own blog after all!

As to the £1700 laptop controversy, my initial reaction was one of affront at being asked to cough up for it, but on balance, if it's what is required to keep this excellent site up and running, I'm happy to put my hand in my pocket and make a donation and I urge others to do the same.

The Editor occasionally mentions that upwards of a thousand people visit this site regularly - if only half of those could spare £5, we'd raise over £2500 and be well on the way to the total sum needed.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Chris - politics is all about cut and thrust - and if we as a party can't cope with negative comments (no matter how much we disagree with them) then perhaps we are in the wrong game.

I for one think DC is doing some excellent things - but don't you think that criticism may actually help make a good policy into a great one. I think we need to remember that the name of the website is "Conservativehome" which actually means we should be mature enough to accept a wide range of Conservative with a big and little c views. There are views I dont agree with - but sometimes they make me think about why I disagree with them - which can be very helpful.

Keep up the good work Tim!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

And as to the cost of running this site - I think its pretty good value for money frankly. I'd be interested to hear some money raising ideas which could help the site out. For "Tory Radio" I have already spent a pretty penny - which at the end of the day will hopefully help the party out.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Do we really want the Sun to endorse us? If we took their advice, we'd be called the nasty party again. Blair flew to Australia in 1996 to secure Murdoch's support. If I were Cameron and he 'summoned' me to Perth, I'd tell him to get stuffed. Perhaps if would be better to get the Guardian and Independent on board? On another subject, I have a spare laptop in my loft - if only, Tim, you had asked...

[James Hellyer]

Perhaps if would be better to get the Guardian and Independent on board?

I'd rather be called nasty than have Toynbee and YAB think I was right...

[malcolm]

Do we want the Sun to endorse us ? Yes.I hope we will be able to get that endorsement without prostituting ourselves to News International as Blair has done.
History tells us that Murdoch will only back us if he thinks we will win.Nothing else matters.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

You're talking about just two individuals (Toynbee and YAB). There are other, more sensible, people who contribute - e.g. Nick Cohen.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Do we really want the Sun to endorse us? If we took their advice, we'd be called the nasty party again. Blair flew to Australia in 1996 to secure Murdoch's support. If I were Cameron and he 'summoned' me to Perth, I'd tell him to get stuffed."

"Do we want the Sun to endorse us ? Yes.I hope we will be able to get that endorsement without prostituting ourselves to News International as Blair has done."

IIRC, Michael Howard flew out to Mexico to address a gathering of News International executives. It didn't do us much good.

[James Hellyer]

You're talking about just two individuals (Toynbee and YAB). There are other, more sensible, people who contribute - e.g. Nick Cohen.

There are very few sensible commentators in either paper. I find the socialist leanings of the Guardian distasteful and dislike the "how to be a liberal" handbook approach exemplified by the Independent.

[John Hustings]

"Perhaps if would be better to get the Guardian and Independent on board?"

Are you sure you're in the right party?

[James Hellyer]

Is Justin our John Bercow?

[Craig]

I read the Guardian and vote Tory. I dont read the Telegraph because I cant stand that Simon Heffer guy and why did it take so long for them to support Cameron.

Other newspapers do exist apart from The Sun you know. The Sun also voted for 90 days and didnt get it. So it wasnt The Sun Wot Won it.

[John Hustings]

"I read the Guardian and vote Tory. I dont read the Telegraph because I cant stand that Simon Heffer guy and why did it take so long for them to support Cameron."

I read the Guardian for fun sometimes as well. But the notion that we should be pushing for an endorsement from that paper is frankly ludicrous. Should we aim to get the endorsement of the "Socialist Worker" as well?

[James Hellyer]

The Sun also voted for 90 days and didnt get it.

Because the people voting were MPs and not The Sun's readership. Polls at the time showed that the majority of people supported 90 days...

[Craig]

So we should be endorsing The Sun? The same paper that lets its readers know what David Beckham is having for his breakfast?

[John Hustings]

"So we should be endorsing The Sun? The same paper that lets its readers know what David Beckham is having for his breakfast?"

So what if it's crude? The people want crude. It's the nation's best-selling newspaper. I hate that kind of snobbery.

It *does* have a alot of influence. Its influence is not who it picks on the eve of an election (as some seem to think) but in its long-running campaigns, consisting of either humiliating one side or building up another. If it "won" it in 1992 for Major, it was due to a longstanding campaign of humiliating Kinnock which helped to create an image of risibility with the public (partly self-inflicted). When it turned on the Tories, the same thing happened to us. Its influence is far more important than the Guardian, which speaks to an extremely select audience, virtually all of whom would rather die than vote Tory. The Sun readership, on the other hand, is essentially mainstream and unpolitical -- precisely the people we need to attract.

[Shaun]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4655204.stm
This article claims that Cameron is more of a traditional Tory than Thatcher ever was. Interesting theory.

[William Norton]

As a matter of interest - what does David Beckham have for breakfast?

[Craig]

Buy tomorrows Sun and turn to page 5 for your World Exclusive on Beckhams breakfast porridge or cereal?

[John Hustings]

"This article claims that Cameron is more of a traditional Tory than Thatcher ever was. Interesting theory."

The article is in many senses correct. Cameron is a classic "Patrician Tory", or a Tory Wet. He is going back to Butskellism as a philosophy which accepted the arguments of socialism and the ever-expanding state during the 1950's and 1960's (the result being that many of our contemporary problems with regard to the welfare state are as much the fault of the Tories as Labour). This post-war consensus resulted in a steady decline in our competitiveness reaching its acme with the Winter of Discontent. Then Thatcher came along.

But rather than compare with the past, I think it's more helpful to compare Cameron with other Conservatives in the "Anglosphere": Successful Conservatives in the US, Australia and Canada, and it is alarming just how out of step he is with all of them.

The fact that he is returning to an old tradition of Toryism is of little comfort; it's not a tradition many of us want to return to.

[Richard Allen]

Perhaps if would be better to get the Guardian and Independent on board?

Do you really crave the acceptance of the liberal left or are you just trying to wind us up?

[John Hustings]

Sadly, I don't think he was joking.

[john Skinner]

I'm sending £50 to Tim - all I can afford as a pathetic OAP, but much as I admire and enjoy the site, I have to agree that our esteemed editor does zoom in on every negative comment on Cameron in the newspapers. And unaccountably misses little positive touches. e.g. Senator McBain's warm praise, Brian Walden's approving radio talk and a few hours ago Blair's biographer (Sheldon) and the director of the Adam Smith think tank (sorry about the names)who thought his speech today was impressive.(Much to the interviewer Eddie Mair's chagrin). Hopefully we'll hear more about the speech. But come on Tim; give us an even break.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

A lot of young people who read the Guardian/Independent do so because they perceive them as 'trendy' but they are not necessarily left-wing. This Labour government is becoming increasingly authoritarian with their 'anti-terror' policies and ID cards. The liberals, many of them Guardian readers, want a libertarian-supportive government. With the LibDems in trouble, we can convince them that we don't eat babies for breakfast, believe in freedom and liberty and are a forward-thinking party. If that makes me the site's equivalent of John Bercow, so be it.

[Annabel Herriott]

You lot havnt figured Cameron yet have you. He positively thrives on opposition. Works through it, and suceeds. Just wait Oh ye doubters. And I am also an OAP, but act my shoe size for preference. When he sorts out all the setting for the schools, each child will get the education he/she needs to succeed. We arnt all destined to be rocket scientists. We also need our washers and cars fixed too.

[Sam Coates]

But it sometimes seems that every single day Tim and Sam have scoured the media looking for a blue corner anti-DC comment to amplify.
I'm sorry if it looks that, but we scour for articles of interest to Conservatives and if more of them are critical then that will be reflected. Perhaps the more positive ones do need spotlighting more as they are less interesting to the newspaper editors.
Personally, I voted Cameron and am happy with the direction of the party - but while I think there needs to be a degree of "benefit of the doubt" at this stage, a good dose of criticism from the grassroots is healthy.

[Matthew]

I disagree with a lot of the people on here but I still think this is a great site, keep up the good work!

As for the newspapers, do people really make up their minds based on who they back?

As for not wanting the endorsements of The Guardian and The Indy, I do think that it would be bizarre indeed to get their support, but surely not on the basis that they are 'liberal'; are we illiberal?

The Times and The Sun, I suppose, will be good indicators. For my few pence worth, I think Cameron is going a wonderful job so far and he should be allowed to continue in peace but the carping will, no doubt, go on.