Interesting article in today's Independent by Stephen Glover. Mr Glover notes that the Tory leader has few cheerleaders in the right-wing press when compared with the support enjoyed by Tony Blair when he inherited the Labour crown. Bruce Anderson, Michael Portillo and Matthew D'Ancona are the Tory leader's only consistent advocates on the centre right although Mr Portillo's advice "verges on the lunatic," thinks Mr Glover. As the article goes on it becomes clear that Mr Cameron has a number of other key supporters in the press - Boris Johnson, Alice Thomson, Charles Moore, Matthew Parris... I would add Danny Kruger.
Mr Glover also lists Mr Cameron's critics: Simon Heffer, Jeff Randall and, significantly, acting Telegraph editor John Bryant. The Mail has been inclined to be supportive of David Cameron up until now and has warmly profiled David Cameron's personal insights into his care of his disabled son, Ivan. Are things changing at The Mail? Glover thinks so:
"Last Friday's Mail probably went further than it has before in representing Mr Cameron as a ludicrous figure. Over a photograph of the Tory leader being pulled by huskies across a Norwegian glacier, the Mail suggested that he had accounted for 30,000 gallons of fuel in his jaunt to the Arctic Circle. The science editor, Michael Hanlon, suggested in an accompanying piece that Mr Cameron had visited the wrong glacier."
"If the Conservatives should perform poorly in the local elections, the Telegraph and the Mail may let fly," Mr Glover predicts. But does it matter? Many Cameroons think not. They won the Tory leadership without the right-wing press. The Mail, Sun and Telegraph only endorsed Mr Cameron after his leadership bid had become unstoppable. The newspapers still do count, however, insofar as the broadcasters are often fed by newspapers and newspapers can be decisive in motivating voters in low turnout elections.
He doesn't write a column but he is editor-in-chief in a few places and Andrew Neil does not strike me as a man with a great deal of respect for Diversity Dave
Posted by: Rick | April 24, 2006 at 10:48
Danny Finkelstein is a supporter of Cameron.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | April 24, 2006 at 10:51
Something about the centre-right and right leaning press not all speaking with one voice.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | April 24, 2006 at 10:53
Don't forget Alice Thompson and the painful Rachel Sylvester, i swear if i read their tripe anymore my retinas are going to wither. They support Cameron, but not conservatism, which i think needs to be stressed. Not all of Cameron's cheer leaders are traditional conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: Tim Aker | April 24, 2006 at 10:54
If there is any parallel between political developments in the US and the UK, it is not only the newspapers and broadcasters which are going to have an effect.
Increasingly, the internet (forums and bloggers, and even e-mail circulation lists) are going to have an effect, especially when the UK (at 10 million accounts) has the highest broadband uptake per capita in the world.
In so far as one can divine a trend (early days), the bulk of political blogs seem to be hostile to the Boy King, so any general evaluation of media sentiment which fails to take account of internet traffic may not tell the whole story.
Posted by: Richard North | April 24, 2006 at 11:06
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the likes of Heffer and Hitchens are against David Cameron, then he must be doing something right.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | April 24, 2006 at 11:34
Looking at some of DC's supporters I note Bruce Anderson. Being supported by Bruce Anderson is a recipe for disaster.In 97 fourty eight hours before the biggest labour landslide in history he said on national television and I quote, "Why is it, that apart from John Major, I'm the only person in the country that thinks the Tories are going to win this election, not by much but they will win it.!
An endorsement by Anderson is nearly as good as one by William (wrong again) Mogg, who said at the last election, "Due to errors in the way that opinion polls are conducted, the Tories are about 5% ahead of labour".
Or perhaps we might like to quote Michael Gove, who said, "I fully expect William Hague to make substantial inroads into Labour's majority"!
Most of these political commentators are totally incompetent, if they were racing tipsters they would have been sacked years ago. They are political propagandists, they will support the Tory party, what ever it does, so you can pretty much discount them.
On the liberal/left political commentators do not seem, on the whole to fall into this trap. They are much more critical and less supportive. Andrew Lansley/Polly Toynbee do not let their own political views cloud what they write, and are very critical of the present government and Tony Blair in particular.
For DC there is a new threat, in the shape of the right wing columnist, who also do not tow the party line, in the Anderson/Mogg way. Hitchins/Heffer and they are influential in a way that the Left/Liberal columnists are not. They have undeniable appeal for the Mail/Telegraph reader, and they are hovering over DC like vultures. The first real mistake he makes, they will whip up a storm against him. They see the way that right wing, radio and tv commentators in the US have had enormous influence over the Republican Party and want to emulate their power. They have the power to destroy the Project Cameron, and one day they will
Posted by: J.W.Tozer | April 24, 2006 at 11:58
I cannot stand either Hitchens or Heffer, but what I am sharing with you right now is an absolute gem from the Mail's letters page. We should recruit this Mr Kerridge to CH! Here it is:-
Donors who bunged Tony cash for honours
(allegedley) must cringe at their dosh
being spent on the " Get David"
campaign.
Better a chameleon than a lying toad.
Says it all really!!!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 24, 2006 at 12:08
Sorry - no name! It was John Kerridge, Higham, Essex. Any one know him? Give that man a pat on the back, and a pint of best!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 24, 2006 at 12:10
I forgot Danny Finkelstein, Selsdon Man. Thank you. There are rather more cheerleaders than Mr Glover suggested!
Posted by: Editor | April 24, 2006 at 12:19
A little alarming to see from the article that DC considered appointing Sarah Sands to his press operation. Her approach to editing the Sunday Telegraph did have Cameroonian elements to it. But the length of her tenure is not the model DC would wish to emulate.
Posted by: Simon C | April 24, 2006 at 12:24
There is a lack of a pro-Blair press as well.
Do we want slavish uncritical papers?
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | April 24, 2006 at 12:36
Anyone catch the press conference with Blair earlier today? Just before walking out of the room after the press conference, he said "All good things must come to an end!".
Posted by: James Maskell | April 24, 2006 at 13:33
'Do we want slavish uncritical papers?'
Certainly not.
Heffer for PM
Posted by: verulamgal | April 24, 2006 at 13:34
At least the days of "THE SUN BACKS BLAIR" are far behind.
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | April 24, 2006 at 13:40
Patricia Hewitt speaks before Unison...whats the betting on a booing session near the end?
Posted by: James Maskell | April 24, 2006 at 14:10
I would suggest that there are more anti-Cameron commentators in the right-wing press than pro-Cameron commentators.
Some of those regularly writing in favour of Cameron are actually left-wing commentators, like Steve Richards and Andrew Rawnsley.
Posted by: John Hustings | April 24, 2006 at 14:17
if they were racing tipsters they would have been sacked years ago
I live with a racing tipster. If she was right all of the time then I would be typing this from my yacht in the Carribean.
I'm not.
Posted by: Geoff | April 24, 2006 at 14:21
Yes...hecklers!!!
Posted by: James Maskell | April 24, 2006 at 14:21
"Polly Toynbee (does) not let their own political views cloud what they write"????
Posted by: Jon Gale | April 24, 2006 at 14:30
The headline writer on CH's ToryDiary is NOT in the Cameron camp :-0)
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 24, 2006 at 14:39
Mary Ann Sieghart is someone else who has been writing quite positive things about Cameron's Conservatives. She has long been someone willing to give a modern Conservative Party a hearing and could emerge as an ally at The Times.
Posted by: changetowin | April 24, 2006 at 14:45
Mary Ann Sieghart is someone else who has been writing quite positive things about Cameron's Conservatives.
But The Times isn't part of the Conservative press. It's currently affiliated to New Labour (as are the rest of the Murdoch empire).
Glover's point was that the Conservative press (i.e. Telegraph and Mail) weren't terribly supportive of Cameron.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 24, 2006 at 14:56
James H: But that is the most interesting point. In "the good old days", The Tory press included the Times, Sun and Express. What really matters is what is being written across the range of papers being read by people who might vote Conservative. Who knows, that might even include the Independent and the Guardian.
Posted by: Rob G | April 24, 2006 at 15:02
Though even at The Times there are more critical voices than those supportive (eg. see Tim Hames in today's paper).
Posted by: John Hustings | April 24, 2006 at 15:02
Both the Times and Sunday Times are sometimes ambivalant to the Tories they are even more ambivalent toward New Labour and are increasingly damning of them.Neither could be described as being 'affiliated' to New Labour as their red top stable mates are.
Posted by: malcolm | April 24, 2006 at 15:15
Neither could be described as being 'affiliated' to New Labour as their red top stable mates are.
The Times most certainly can be. It's not as loyal a friend to the government as The Sun, but its leaders are usually supportive.
The Sunday Times is different in that it's Murdoch's outrider to the Conservative movement.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 24, 2006 at 15:35
No doubt you'll correct me James but I can't recall seeing a pro Labour anti Consrvative leader in the Times for months.Having said that I don't read it everyday.
Posted by: malcolm | April 24, 2006 at 15:52
The headline writer on CH's ToryDiary is NOT in the Cameron camp :-0)
I disagree, I think it's a case of dress to the right, look to the left. The Editor is very close to Francis Maude and therefore the blog will ultimately support the leadership while trying to keep credibility with the right.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | April 24, 2006 at 16:14
Compared with it's Historical stance, and the underlying politcal views of it's owner, the Times is pretty supportive of Labour.
Murdoch supports winners, and he'll only support Cameron if he picks us up from flatlining at 33% to something closer to 40%, and avoids ducking key policy decisions. It could take some time before either of those happen but it needs to be before the next GE.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | April 24, 2006 at 16:21
""Polly Toynbee (does) not let their own political views cloud what they write"????
"
I think JW Tozer meant that she will criticise Labour despite her left-wing sympathies.
Posted by: Richard | April 24, 2006 at 17:05
I think JW Tozer meant that she will criticise Labour despite her left-wing sympathies.
Surely Polly Toynbee criticises New Labour because of--not despite--her left-wing sympathies!!!
Posted by: Rob G | April 24, 2006 at 17:23
Is The Times pro-Labour? It has been pretty anti-Government, and Brown in particular for sometime now, and very good at it (unlike the Telegraph).
The Telegraph is too much these days, I know quite a few people that find the level of indignation and bile in the throat commentary it packs in often to be way ott, its embarrassing.
Cameron has been attacked in the FT by John O'Sullivan, but supported (luke warmly) by the likes of Philip Stephens.
Who said Polly Toynbee does not let her political views cloud her judgement? I think the opposite applies myself. She is very entertaining though, what a laugh reading her article on how -actually- New Labour are the principled and original party.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | April 24, 2006 at 17:26
Any paper will attack the government, especially one in it's third term. Even a paper will support the policies of a government will find problems with the practice.
The sun spent many years attacking the government on a range of issue but when it come to the crunch, supported them. The Times is merely a less dramatic and more rational alternative.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | April 24, 2006 at 18:38
While it's certainly irritating that the Telegraph is so luke warm about Cameron it's not a real worry - they aren't about to urge people to vote for Gordon Brown are they.?
I don't rate Stephen Glover that much I think for someone who makes a living as a media columnist he is on occasions remarkably uninformed.
Posted by: free democrat | April 24, 2006 at 18:40
Refering to the comments about Polly Toynbee. Everone knows what her politics are you would be an idiot if you didn't. The point I'm making is that does not in anyway inhibit her from attacking the present government, note her vehement attack on the decision to ban foxhunting!
Simon Hoggard for instance in his sketch, wrote, "New Labour are just a bunch of sleazy crooks, and I for one will be glad to see the back of them," Could you imagine if we had a Conservative government, George Jones of the Telegraph, writing anything of that nature.
Some of the contributors to this excellent website seem to want to return to the days, of 1970 when Bernard Levin writing in the Mail, said he had no time for Heath, he would be voting Labour, Lord Rothermere immediately sacked him!
I admire and respect Heffer/Hitchins I don't think I could agree with them on anything. Anderson/Mogg are just dismal sychophants.
I don't want cheer leaders for politicians of any party, the last thing I want is a partisan press.
Posted by: J W Tozer | April 24, 2006 at 18:59
I think most Telegraph readers these days only remain so out of inertia, or because they've bought up a year's worth in advance. The whole paper's a joke, and its sports section isn't even much good any more.
Posted by: alex | April 24, 2006 at 21:34
OT but over on politicalbetting they are talking about an ICM poll showing Cons 34 Labour 32 Libs 24 - which would be well into hung parliament territory.
Posted by: Ted | April 24, 2006 at 21:58
"OT but over on politicalbetting they are talking about an ICM poll showing Cons 34 Labour 32 Libs 24 - which would be well into hung parliament territory."
If that is so then the Lib Dems seem to be picking up disenfranchised Labour voters instead of the Tories. I wonder how the BNP did.
Posted by: Richard | April 24, 2006 at 22:10
"I think most Telegraph readers these days only remain so out of inertia, or because they've bought up a year's worth in advance. The whole paper's a joke, and its sports section isn't even much good any more."
The Telegraph certainly seems to have gone downhill but I can't quite put my finger on how. It just doesn't seem to be the paper it used to be.
Posted by: Richard | April 24, 2006 at 22:11
"Mary Ann Sieghart is someone else who has been writing quite positive things about Cameron's Conservatives"
She's very left wing though.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 24, 2006 at 22:16
She's very left wing though.
There is a pattern emerging:
Sieghart (leftie)
Portillo (God knows)
Finkelstein (ex-SDP)
etcetera
Posted by: Shocked! | April 24, 2006 at 22:19
Yes I have to agree although I have bought the DT for donkeys years and still do, it seems to have lost its way somehow. I am buying the Times more now to try and balance off the attitude in the DT,
Matt
Posted by: matt wright | April 24, 2006 at 23:10
Gave up buying newspapers and read them for free on the web - you miss a few bits but nothing important.
Posted by: Ted | April 24, 2006 at 23:20
Mary Ann Sieghart is someone else who has been writing quite positive things about Cameron's Conservatives.
Well she wants anyone with a lax line on drugs and her brand of patrician social liberalism - Blair was her first love but he's no longer young so she's transferred her affections to Dave - her kind of man.
Whatever La Sieghart is into is anathema to the world outside the London Bubble
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 at 07:07
I am buying the Times more now
There's more intelligent news in the Crossword than the rest of that newspaper. It is a shadow of its 1976 -self
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 at 07:09
The press is there to report the news, not be the news. David Cameron is the leader of the opposition - opposition to the real Conservative Party and the nation, unless they're green:O) I will support a proper centre right leader, someone who has Britain as their first and enduring priority - David Cameron doesn't even get on this ballot paper. He doesn't qualify. "SSSHHHH!" Keep being quiet about Europe David. The people will do the talking and when we're done, you will be one in a long line of failed leaders.
Posted by: Mandy Worrall | April 26, 2006 at 09:22
It would be nice if Cameron was louder and aggressive on all issues, but the environment is the policy du jour above all others.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 26, 2006 at 09:25