Burnham

[Bromptonaut]

Think you have swallowed the spin of the Sun.
That headline was published on the day of the election. By the time they cast their vote that day by far the majority of people would not have read the headline

You don't think they had the paper delivered or picked it up from a news stand in the morning and voted in the evening?

As a rail commuter I'd have been half way to London before the polling place opened at 07:00.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

By the time they cast their vote that day by far the majority of people would not have read the headline

Seems unlikely. But even if true that headline was just the culmination of the Sun's campaign.
If you were to argue that there is little evidence that the media influenced people's voting intentions, you'd be on firmer ground as it's notoriously difficult to prove.

 

[icowden]

Ah its always heartening to know people have to resort to personal attacks on me rather than deal with the actually points raised.
Nothing like playing the man when you are bereft of the ability to debate the issues raised
PS You know nothing about me, my voting habits or what I base any votes upon- however it doesn't stop you making things up and reaching judgements

OK - in 1992, the Sun claimed "It was the Sun wot won it". Whilst that's disputed, Murdoch Press was roundly backing the Tories.
By 1997 the Murdoch Press was all for Tony Blair and there was a Labour Landslide. Blair is even the godfather to one of Murdoch's children.

The relationship soured, and Murdoch backed the Tories again in 2010 - they won. Again in 2015, Murdoch Press backed the Conservatives, did their best to make Milliband look like an idiot (he wanted to improve press regulation and break up media monopolies) and, surprise, they won.

Murdoch backed May, and it was strongly suggested that he was instrumental in Gove's return to the Cabinet. He met with Truss and had many, many meetings with Boris and Sunak., although by Sunak's time his power was waning a lot as people turned to social media instead of dead tree press.

Murdoch Press backed Trump's first Presidential Campaign and Starmer had many meetings with Murdoch to curry favour before the election. Lo and behold, Murdoch backed Starmer - "Time for a Change".

I suppose you think the above is just a series of massive coincidences?

 

[UglyWithaSidePart]

I'll dance a jig when the printed press dies.

 

[BoldonLad]

OK - in 1992, the Sun claimed "It was the Sun wot won it". Whilst that's disputed, Murdoch Press was roundly backing the Tories.
By 1997 the Murdoch Press was all for Tony Blair and there was a Labour Landslide. Blair is even the godfather to one of Murdoch's children.

The relationship soured, and Murdoch backed the Tories again in 2010 - they won. Again in 2015, Murdoch Press backed the Conservatives, did their best to make Milliband look like an idiot (he wanted to improve press regulation and break up media monopolies) and, surprise, they won.

Murdoch backed May, and it was strongly suggested that he was instrumental in Gove's return to the Cabinet. He met with Truss and had many, many meetings with Boris and Sunak., although by Sunak's time his power was waning a lot as people turned to social media instead of dead tree press.

Murdoch Press backed Trump's first Presidential Campaign and Starmer had many meetings with Murdoch to curry favour before the election. Lo and behold, Murdoch backed Starmer - "Time for a Change".

I suppose you think the above is just a series of massive coincidences?

Correlation and causation, now, what's that phrase... Correlation does not imply causation ... or something like that

 

[briantrumpet]

"What, you expect me to actually do something for my ministerial salary? Oh heck!!"

 

[icowden]

Correlation and causation, now, what's that phrase... Correlation does not imply causation ... or something like that

So you think that every PM or potential PM has just cosied up to Murdoch for shoots and giggles?

 

[BoldonLad]

So you think that every PM or potential PM has just cosied up to Murdoch for shoots and giggles?

I think that most (perhaps not all) Politicians will cosy up to anyone who they think may give them some coverage.

It is, or course, always possible that things are the opposite way around, everyone likes to back a winner, perhaps Murdock is simply skilled at picking them?, perhaps he could have made a living as a bookie?

 

[secretsqirrel]

"What, you expect me to actually do something for my ministerial salary? Oh heck!!"

View attachment 16119

I guess that extract needs more context as the 2 posts don’t make much sense.

 

[briantrumpet]

Another open goal Starmer ignored and hoped would just go away.

 

[briantrumpet]

He's got 322 nominations, BTW, so there won't be a contest. No surprise.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Another open goal Starmer ignored and hoped would just go away.

View attachment 16201

Slightly better than Starmer. It's a step in the right direction. Is it enough?
Meanwhile Starmer has paid tribute to Bonnie Tyler.

 

[briantrumpet]

Slightly better than Starmer. It's a step in the right direction. Is it enough?
Meanwhile Starmer has paid tribute to Bonnie Tyler.

Whatever any politician does on Israel/Gaza, they'll always be 100% wrong in someone's view.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Slightly better than Starmer. It's a step in the right direction. Is it enough?
Meanwhile Starmer has paid tribute to Bonnie Tyler.

I am trying to think of a Tyler/Starmer related pun but nothing springing to mind.

 

[First Aspect]

Starmer's tribute was totally eclipsed by the others.