'Fleet Street' is becoming friendly again

The Sun backed him earlier this week and, today, The Times endorses Boris Johnson:

"The Conservative candidate is an enormously intelligent man. His eccentricities are, it should be remembered, basically harmless and inoffensive whereas Mr Livingstone's various attempts to summon up the political spirit of 1968 and cosy up to political thugs and merchants of hate most definitely are not. The thrust of Mr Johnson's policy suggestions on crime, transport and planning are sensible. His candour is welcome. His energy, enthusiasm and appetite for the role are much needed, particularly as London's economy heads into a testing few years. He is alive to Londoners' very deep concerns about drugs, stabbings and gangs, disappointment about persistent poverty and housing shortages, as well as their frustrations at traffic jams, empty bendy buses and an Underground network that is held to ransom by Bob Crow and the RMT."

There will be real delight inside Team Cameron that two Murdoch-owned titles have 'voted for' a Conservative candidate for the first time since the creation of New Labour.  Although many dispute that newspaper endorsements are of much electoral value - and Cameron won the Tory leadership despite much early hostility from right-wing newspapers - there is much more benefit to be had from positive coverage on the news pages, which can often flow from changes in editorial stance.

Team Cameron can already rely upon the endorsement of The Express and The Telegraph.  The Telegraph would like more boldness from David Cameron (ConservativeHome's position, too) but the only newspaper that backed the Tories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 will back the Conservatives again.

Most Westminster insiders surveyed by PoliticsHome.com believe that The Sun's backing of Boris is more than a personal endorsement but reflects growing warmth towards the Conservatives.  The Times will be harder to win over and is certainly more independent of Rupert Murdoch than its tabloid stablemate.  At the end of today's leader, The Times notes that Boris' success will help it decide if a modernised conservatism can govern effectively.  The shadow cabinet has had another discussion about Boris' readiness to govern and Team Cameron must give every support to a Johnson Mayoralty should it begin on 2nd May.  Labour will pounce on every failure by Boris to try and pull the Tories down to their level.

The Daily Mail is the other big newspaper prize.  Its Editor Paul Dacre is friendly towards Brown but there has been a marked increase in hostility towards Labour in recent days and today it has backed Boris, although has mainly emphasised Livingstone's failings in so doing.  We expect Tory promises on the family to be crucial to winning the support of The Mail at the next election.  Support will almost be certain if Mr Dacre has retired by 2010.

What about the other nationwide daily titles (assuming that The Guardian - which has backed Livingstone today - and The Mirror stay firmly in the red corner)?

• CCHQ hasn't written off The Independent - particularly under its new editor Roger Alton.  Alton, a New Labour man and a supporter of the Iraq war, will certainly be friendlier than former editor Simon Kelner (who has been moved upstairs in the newspaper).  A right measure of commitment to public service reform and greenery could, at least, see the party receive fair coverage from the newspaper.
• The Pearson titles - the FT and Economist - are unpredictable but The Economist is more likely to endorse the Conservatives - especially given that it is not infected with the FT's deep enthusiasm for the EU.

Regional newspapers including the Birmingham Post, Yorkshire Post and Manchester Evening News will also be actively courted by CCHQ.  Perhaps readers from Scotland and Wales can share their views on the likely stances of the Western Mail, Scotsman and Herald etc.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

"Manchester Evening News will also be actively courted by CCHQ"

Please do this, parts of the city are literally falling down and there are many no-go areas at night. Only last year the Manchester Evening News carried pictures of teenagers openly showing off with guns in the street. Any vistor coming to the city would think the area is prosperous because the Labour council spends all its money on flashy projects in the centre but if a visitor wants to see the real Manchester get on the bus to Hulme, Ardwick, Salford etc. Labour donimation has led to social deprivation. Manchester needs to be rescued in an all-out effort by the Conservative party.

[bluepatriot]

The Scottish Sun endorsed the nationalists last time :-(

[Ashton]

The MEN is owned by the Guardian group, and is a vile left-wing rag. The Conservatives in Manchester have been fighting hard to gain publicity for all the good we're trying to do, and the MEN refuses point blank on almost every occassion. Good luck CCHQ, but I'm not holding my breath

[Patsy Sergeant]

Maybe the Press has begun to realise how well Mr. Brown does 'HATE', which he certainly does - he can hardly stand next to David Cameron without the antipathy oozing out of his p aws (I forgot, completely how to spell the word, but that spelling is equally apt) - pores!

Since most newspapers do not want to obediently tow-the-line like the BBC - in the political sense, at least, maybe they are beginning to realise there is more 'mileage', in making a more determined effort to raise public awareness about the disasters that have resulted from so many of this governments botched policies - ALL of them very expensive as well!

[Paul D]

The Yorkshire Evening Post has always been Labour-leaning (except in the immediate aftermath of a Labour councillor dubbing it a "squalid right-wing rag", after which it went a bit anti-Labour for a while). I don't tend to read its sister paper, the Yorkshire Post, so I don't know whether it will be any more amenable to CCHQ overtures

[NorthernMonkey]

Tony Makara, I don't know which Manchester you live in, but it certainly isn't the same as the rest of us.

Manchester falling down? What a completely idiotic thing to say. Manchester has been the most successful city in the UK over the past 10 years.

It's your kind of patronising, do-down whingeing which stops Mancunians from ever voting Tory thank goodness.

I'll bet my last pound that on May 1st, Manchester will stay firmly red again. I await with glee for the first Tory commenter to argue "it's because they're all too thick to know what's good for them".

[Tony Makara]

Labour take the voters of the city for granted and their monopoly on power means they can't blame anyone else for the social breakdown that is everywhere. How come everyone, apart from the Labour party, knows that Manchester is a broken city. Ever been on a late night bus in Manchester or had to deal with smackheads hassling you for money as you stand waiting for a bus? The city is infested with drugs and guns and the drug culture developed in the slums of Salford and Moss Side, the slums the Labour party are responsible for. Answer me this, why is it that all the deprived areas around our country are Labour strongholds? Could it be a case of cause and effect?

[NorthernMonkey]

So if Manchester is such a cess-pit then why do the people of Manchester keep voting Labour in again? Is it because they're stupid Tony?

And what possible evidence do you have that the Tories would do better? Or are you just going on blind faith? If anything, the evidence points to the Tories doing a lot worse for us.

I've lived in Manchester all my life and it's never been as bad as what you say it is. In fact, things have dramatically improved since 1997. You're just making stuff up in order to bully Mancunians into voting Tory.

[Richard]

"So if Manchester is such a cess-pit then why do the people of Manchester keep voting Labour in again? Is it because they're stupid Tony?"

And if Labour are so wonderful, why does the propserous South East continue to vote Tory?

[Yet Another Anon]

Ever been on a late night bus in Manchester or had to deal with smackheads hassling you for money as you stand waiting for a bus?
It isn't just Manchester or even just the cities though, thats happening all over, happens in Macclesfield - it's a result of the post war liberal consensus and it's time that consensus was smashed for good and a hardline criminal justice regime put in place. People pestering people for money on the street or causing trouble on the streets should be stuck in jail and forced to do hard labour much as they would have been made to 100 years ago, back in Elizabethan times people caught begging who were not severely disabled were publicly flogged before being sent on their way - bringing such measures for general anti-social behaviour would soon sort it out.

[NorthernMonkey]

I'm assuming 'Yet Another Anon' is a parody, so I won't reply to that.

Richard, the reason why those in the SouthEast vote Tory is because the Tories will probably serve them best. They know that Tories will tax the rich less than Labour, so they vote Tory. I disagree with them, but I understand why that is.

Now, why the SouthEast is prosperous is another matter. Is it because Southerners are more intelligent than Northerners? No. Is it because they have a different government or tax system? No. Governments have tended to reward the South East at the expense of the North, so that's why the SE is more prosperous.

But nonetheless, Manchester is still more prosperous than any other Northern city and yet it continually votes Labour they do a good job for Manchester.

[roy s]

"They know that Tories will tax the rich less than Labour, so they vote Tory". What a silly glib remark. If you really think thats the reason for voting Tory - wherever you live - then most of the arguments for and against any party are pretty much wasted - is that what you're saying? Okay then try my generalisation for size: the north votes Labour because it is full of public sector employees who know Tories will knock many of those jobs on the head.
Just as glib, and probably more accurate....

[Sean Fear]

Surely you've answered your own question. Mancunians vote Labour because they benefit from voting Labour, because tax tends to get redistributed from South to North, particularly to areas of deprivation like Manchester. People in the South East vote Conservative for the opposite reason.

In general, the South East doesn't get rewarded at the expense of the North, but does it does have a much bigger private sector, has better trade links, is close to the City, and has more graduates and professional people as a proportion of the whole, all of which contribute to its prosperity.

[NorthernMonkey]

Firstly Sean, Manchester is not 'deprived'. Parts of the city may be, but that could be said of anywhere. There are parts of Greater Manchester which are very wealthy.

And the South East does get rewarded at the expense of the North. Look at Crossrail, the Olympics, the Millennium Dome, Wembley...the list goes on. What does the North get? Nothing. So I don't buy your argument that Mancunians vote Labour to redistribute wealth from South to North because that barely happens now. They vote Labour because they do a good job of running the city and fighting for our interests. Not to mention Northerners are generally more progressive than conservative dullards in the South.

[Oscar Miller]

Northern Monkey - all your examples of South East rewards are for inner London. Outside London the South East is continually put at a disadvantage because it is supposedly 'advantaged'. That means the serious pockets of deprivation across the South and South East never get the investment that is poured into the North - that is true across the public sector. The discrepancy is huge and made worse by the way European funding works. Labour only pours money into its heartlands.

[Oscar Miller]

Northern Monkey - and by the way your comment about Southern dullards gives the game away - scratch a supposed 'progressive' and you find a smug little prejudiced twerp lurking just beneath the surface.

[Sean Fear]

Oscar Millar, quite so.

I agree that there parts of *Greater* Manchester that are very prosperous (some of which vote Conservative), as are Didsbury and Withington, within the City boundaries. But constituencies like Manchester Central, and Gorton are among the poorest in the country.

WRT redistribution, there's absolutely no doubt that public spending as a proportion of GDP is way below the national average in the South, and way above the national average in the North, notwithstanding Crossrail etc.

[Yet Another Anon]

I'm assuming 'Yet Another Anon' is a parody, so I won't reply to that
What you choose to reply to is up to you, I'm being serious - indeed many countries around the world still apply such penal codes based on what were legal systems left them by the British Empire, Singapore doesn't tolerate troublemakers and do they get the sort of anti-social behaviour on the scale there is in this country - no.

all your examples of South East rewards are for inner London. Outside London the South East is continually put at a disadvantage because it is supposedly 'advantaged'
Having London at it's centre does advantage it to a great extent though because it provides somewhere for people to travel into to work, it's not just about London, most major cities get huge investment in supposedly worthy cultural things - museums, art galleries, opera, civil service offices. London, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds - in all these cases the city centres are getting vast sums of money poured into them, London is getting the lions share though.

[Tony Makara]

"what possible evidence do you have that the Tories would do better?"

Simply compare areas run by the Conservatives with those run by Labour. No-one can claim that Conservative areas are run down and dilapidated but many Labour areas are in serious social decline. NorthernMonkey your bizarre idea that we think northern voters are stupid for voting Labour is a non sequitur, you are just using this debate to create prejudice against Conservatives with such a claim, if anything voters are not supporting Labour or any of the parties. I feel many voters in these areas just give up on politics altogether because they feel completely let down. As you will know Labour councillors in the area can be returned by as little as a 15% turnout. Hardly a ringing endorsement for any of the parties. People just give up and this allows people to run the area 'without' the backing of 80% plus of the voters. The Conservative party should make the most of Labour's demise by going into places like Manchester and showing that there is an alternative.

[Paul D]

These days I live in the 2nd most deprived ward in Bradford. It is monolithically Labour

I can understand the rich voting Tory to keep them rich. I have never understood the poor voting Labour when they keep them poor

[NorthernMonkey]

Oscar - you don't think that Crossrail benefits the whole SouthEast? If not then you're the twerp pal.

Sean - of course spending is higher in the North and so it should be. When London gets everything going it should have to share some of its wealth with the rest of the country.

And Tony - the reason why those in deprived areas vote Labour is because Labour will actually help to give them a chance in life where as your party will punish them for being poor (see Thatcher and Major). The poor were worse off under the Tories, so why should they vote for them?

And yes, the Conservatives do have this attitude that people who don't vote for them are thick - you only have to read Paul D's post to see that. That's why snobbish phrases like 'client state' are used by your party because they can't stand the fact that inner city folk don't vote for them.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean - of course spending is higher in the North and so it should be. When London gets everything going it should have to share some of its wealth with the rest of the country."

My point is that public spending - as a proportion of GDP - is higher in the North than in London - a point made, inter alia, by Ken Livingstone, who has argued that London is very heavily subsidising the rest of the country (although that point is also true of East Anglia and the South East). One may consider it entirely appropriate that such subsidies are being paid (inevitably there will be some transfer from richer to poorer regions) but it is undeniable that they are being paid.

"And yes, the Conservatives do have this attitude that people who don't vote for them are thick - you only have to read Paul D's post to see that"

Your reference to "dullards" suggests that you believe the same thing in reverse. As it happens, I wouldn't regard those inner city inhabitants who vote Labour as thick, but instead pursuing rational self-interest, given what they get from Labour.

[Tony Makara]

I think its fair to say that where Conservatives see 'one nation' Labour sees 'one class' and uses that class to piggyback its way into power. The Labour perception of the Conservative party as being engaged in some kind of class-hate against the poor is ridiculous. The only class distinctions in our country come from the Labour party who are still fighting the class-war, well that is when they are not sucking up to champagne socialists for donations. I'll leave you with a little piece from the Sunday Times.

"The richest 1,000 people in Britain have seen their wealth quadruple under Labour, according to The Sunday Times Rich List published today. Even under Gordon Brown’s brief premiership their fortunes have soared by 15%, just as the financial squeeze and faltering house prices have hit ordinary people."

[NorthernMonkey]

But the last Conservative government was certainly not 'one nation' Tony, they were anything but.

Sean: "As it happens, I wouldn't regard those inner city inhabitants who vote Labour as thick, but instead pursuing rational self-interest, given what they get from Labour."

Well this is what I mean - the idea that Labour likes keeping poor people poor is not only crudely offensive, but wrong and there's no evidence for it.

Poor people have got richer faster under this government than under Thatcher or Major. Even welfare reform has been more extensive under Labour than it was under the Tories.

[Yet Another Anon]

a point made, inter alia, by Ken Livingstone, who has argued that London is very heavily subsidising the rest of the country
London is heavily reliant on the rest of the country for natural resources, for stone for roads and building, for food, fuel & power. The army has been heavily dependent on Scottish recruits over the years, Ken Livingstone likes to play to the crowd, if he was standing for Mayor of somewhere else then no doubt he would say that that place was paying too much and getting too little.

Even welfare reform has been more extensive under Labour than it was under the Tories.
It hasn't, it's been more expensive and in fact since 1979 reforms have only really altered the system very slightly - JSA and Income Support are little different than Supplementary Benefit, Unemployment Benefit or National Assistance in form; The State Pension age has only been raised a few years despite the population having aged significantly, far from making it more difficult to get a State Pension they have made it far easier - too easy, rewards for higher payments of NI contributions have been scrapped, the NHS takes more money than ever from NI contributions and yet is not related to how much NI contributions have been paid, vast numbers of people are classed as incapacitated not because they are severely ill or disabled, but because definitions of such are hugely beyond what they were even 35 years ago - we live in a hypochondriac society where people are cajoled into going for all kinds of tests they don't need, told they are depressed or ill and given pills when really it is because society likes to discourage people from taking responsibility for their own lives that is making them ill, all these self help gurus telling people what to do because people have given up on sorting out their own lives.

And the media just encourages people in their hypochondria, while actually personal healthcare has very little to do with the nation and in fact water quality, air quality, availability of good food, transport, information all are the primary causes of good health in society, the media pushes the propoganda demanding ever higher spending on the NHS and new drugs, more tests.

The media is also mostly anti The War on Terror and opposed to a proper crackdown on crime.

[Oscar Miller]

Oscar - you don't think that Crossrail benefits the whole SouthEast? If not then you're the twerp pal.

Oh good gracious Northern Monkey - Crossrail is a scheme plugged by Ken Livingstone for years - its a Londoncentric scheme. Since coming to power Labour has systematically starved the South and South East of funding and resources. They even poured loads of money into moving Eurostar from Waterloo to Euston so that it would benefit people from the Midlands and North rather than Southerners. They are obsessed with such low tactics.