The Sun sets on Dave
The biggest untold story of the past week has been the SUN setting on Dave Cameron. First they accused him of bring a traitor and for his decision to back the call for an inquiry into the Iraq war. Then "love a lout" speech (that, incidentally, not a phrase that passed his lips). Next Saturday's paper carried "David Cameron has stumbled from one disaster to another in his week of woe". His decision to challenge the Speaker's ruling was his last alleged error. Could it just have something to do with the fact that Rupert Murdoch's been in town?
I have never been one of those who thought it was "The Sun wot won it". No newspaper's editorials are that important. BUT if the nation's biggest selling daily and its sister paper - the News of the World - now start to deride David Cameron and what he stands for that will prove to be profoundly significant.
It will also be Cameron's first test. William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith were turned on by the once Tory press. In response, they turned. How will Dave react?
I'm 
Comments
its just media pantomine. the public want to see a bit of resilience from their politicians, so the sun is seeing how cameron rolls with the blows.
as the next election will be close probably the sun will be mixed in its coverage....but will probably come out with an editorial line which is that political parties are out of touch with ordinary people and remote, which is the prevailing mood in the country...and offer little support to any main party and will support single issues.
I agree with Nick鈥檚 view that it isn鈥檛 鈥淭he Sun wot won it.鈥 Looking at David Cameron鈥檚 performance curve compared to The Sun鈥檚 editorial line, The Sun is just sniffing the wind ahead of casual followers of politics and trying to look ahead of the game. It鈥檚 classic positioning.
Given Rupert Murdoch鈥檚 wobbling and The Sun鈥檚 delay, this raises some interesting questions about qualities of judgement and true level of representation. I hear the smart money is on a hung parliament but stick by my prediction that Labour will remain in power for at least 20 years.
John Reid took a positive, mature, and friendly approach in response to media probing, with an emphasis on partnership as a key value. Whatever David Cameron does, I hope he learns from being sand blasted. It will be helpful when teaching his own party the value of patience and kindness.
David Cameron's main trouble is his smugness.
Not a very attractive feature.
Maybe it was the influence of the Sun that helped Labour win in 1997.
If so, they should hang their heads in shame. They are in part responsible for the appalling waste, duplicity and ministerial incompetence of the past nine years.
"Things can only get better . . ." Mmmm . . . let me think on that one for a while.
Nick,
You raised this on The Daily Politics last Wednesday and seem obsessed by what is in the Sun. You are not thinking of a career change are you?
鈥淕ravitas and Chips, oh and a dollop of catchup (ketchup) please mate鈥
Interesting in our UK Political system that news and media have such a profound influence on what we voters may think.
Actually, it seems to be that 鈥淒ave Cameron鈥 is doing a good job for once. Dave is trying out new suits and sets of clothes as he makes his way into leadership.
Honestly if the Tories came up with a total glamour model new Tory leader we really would be wondering about Mr Cameron.
So with some less weighty view of Cameron, on his webcam, he comes across as genuine and learning. And who does he remind me of, before ego and faith made him a bit of a lame duck? Why of course Tony Blair.
Now the question is as the new Tory leader flexes and makes good his leadership over the next year, whether the Tory hounds allow him to develop his 鈥済ravitas鈥.
Maybe as I get my fish n chip supper one day I鈥檒l be reading whether the Tories responded to the media or let Cameron get good at leadership, he has the ingredients and is merely trying out 57 varieties of sauce before the recipe is right, maybe, just maybe he will get his mettle sorted in time to be a Blue contender to the prospective overweight red contender in the other corner on the ballot paper.
Being a bit of a libertine myself, I hope for better clarity as these two get stuck in. As an old fashioned liberal I believe they are all fair game and all deserve brickbats to harden their hides and make politics robust.
It would be a major success for Cameron, and a significant boost for British politics generally, if he managed to promote Toryism successfully and continue to increase his share of the vote in the face of continued opposition from the Sun. The day we can stop regarding this wretched paper's obsessions as some sort of lodestar for British politics is the day we have magnificently matured as a political nation. Cameron is the first Tory leader in ages who potentially has the personal reach to outmanouevre the agenda of the 'Sun', an agenda which does not suit him in any case.
Who cares what is printed in Sun editorials. The Sun is read by a small number of active voters, and of those a vanishingly small number read its editorials and political "analysis" wedged inbetween kiss n' tell stories, bare breasted women and the latest financial or sexual exploits of professional footballers.
I hope the Sun gets it completely wrong and Charles E Hardwidge is wrong also. How Murdoch can support Brown and his tax n' spenders is beyond me.
David Cameron should be congratulated for opening a genuine debate on law & order, something sadly lacking for many years. Successive home secretaries terrified of a bad headline from the tabloid press have spent their time announcing a new tough line on this or a crackdown on that, and the result violent crime up, police detection rates down, prisons full to bursting point (yet no prison building programme to speak of)and fear of crime on the increase.
It may not have gone down well with the SUN but David Cameron is surely right to focus on crime prevention as well as punishment. We can either have a policy that sounds tough or one that stands a chance of working.
One of the reasons this Government has been so ineffective is that they have legislated according to which way the Sun is pointing that morning. This is undoubtedly due to Tony and Gordon's special relationship with Murdoch. Murdoch has his own agenda which has very little to do with British interest or the good of the British people, and lots to do with his own profitability and power. So if Cameron is not loved by Murdoch's papers then at least we finally have the prospect of not being governed under Murdoch's agenda.
It is nothing new in these days of press inventiveness to find a politician saddled with a phrase he/she never uttered. Remember poor old Jim Callaghan who was haunted by his-never asked- question: "Crisis, what crisis?".
I am not quite sure that the issues that the Sun are attacking David Cameron are legitimate. I happen to think that where the war in Iraq is concerned, an inquiry is of paramount importance. As a nation we were taken into a War that was illegal and may have been totally illegitimate, and one that was planned abysmally. I for one would like to see those responsible held to account. This is after all a democratic country.
Regarding the speaker's decision to prevent David Cameron calling the Labour leadership in to question, the leader of the opposition had every right to appeal against such an absurd decision. I would like to know on which grounds the speaker thinks that who is to be our next Prime Minister is of no interest to the House of Commons. I do not understand why the question was considered irrelevant, when the topic was who rules the country. What more is the leader of the opposition to do? I am appalled by the reaction that both issues have sparked. I want to see my government, and it's speaker held to account, and no more of this petty attack on the man who is attempting to get to some answers.
Is the Sun really that influential any more Nick, post Kavanagh?
The Sun has been anti-Cameron for ages. I found this out when I switched to it and stopped buying The Times because of it's obvious pro-Cameron bias. Murdoch has been hedging his bets all along. It's more significant in my opinion to see the Mirror put DC's head on an ice-cream cone with the headline "Mr Softy" on thursday. When the left wing press accuse you of being soft, then you have to start worrying.
Nice timing. You made the point before Murdoch gave Gordon Brown a pulpit in today's Times. The Sun attacks Cameron, the Times boosts Brown's as a world statesman. The question remains, why has Murdoch plumped for Brown?
Why is Murdoch wobbling? Could it be that he is dying? He certainly appears to exhibit the confusion and mortal confusion of a doomed man.
The Sun might not be as influential as it was in 1979 (or even 1992) but it's still the most widely-read paper in the Country; the people who read it (me included) might not follow the editorial word by word but a big headline or even just a throwaway remark go a long way in establishing one's opinion.
That said, if Murdoch seriously thinks Gordon Brown will be his trump card then that is a shock in itself; for the first time since he's arrived in Blighty, Mr Murdoch has failed to detect the pulse of Middle England. Middle England reads The Sun. Middle England doesn't want Gordon Brown at No 10.
The Sun is actually doing the Tories a favour by giving 'Dave' some stick: we've seen the glitz, now give us the beef and if he can hold his nerve under the attacks then he's the man to lead Britain after Blair.
David Cameron would give his own credibility and that of the Tory party a substantial boost by openly deriding The Sun and all it stands for. The alleged newspaper has negligible influence with voters whose minds are open to persuasion, but simply reinforces the prejudices of its readers. In short, The Sun is read only by the simple-minded.
I don't think that The Sun can sway an election by itself.
However, it is one of a number of 'litmus tests' that an aspiring PM will have to pass in order to appear credible to the electorate. So far, judgement has generally been withheld by the media and the electorate, but The Sun could be the first of many opinion formers to come out against Cameron.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at growing opposition to Cameron as I find his various mutterings and initiatives frankly ridiculous. Yes, the Tories need to change the perception of themselves, but they need to do that in a genuine way rather than Cameron saying what is least expected of a Tory leader - the electorate are not stupid! As a 26 year old, the bull he is coming out with is immediately apparent, despite targeting my generation with vlogs or whatever. I don't care about what Cameron drones on about while washing the dishes - I care about what the rank and file membership would pressure him to do (i.e. banning gay people?! Banning the 21st century?!) if the party won an election.
The Sun is one of many media outlets that have graciously pulled the punches with Cameron, partly out of dislike for Blair and partly out of prospective boredom with Brown, in order to see if he has anything to offer. Yet he has consistently marked himself out as someone who will say anything in order to get elected (maybe even more so than Blair). It is just a matter of time before Cameron is regarded as a figure of derision, more so than Blair ever was.
In the last general election, Michael Howard and the Conservatives won the popular vote in England despite the Sun's support for Mr Blair and New Labour. The Conservatives got 50,000 more votes than New Labour in England.
I do hope you're right, Nick, when you say that you don't think editorials in the Sun are important enough to win elections. But sadly, I'm not convinced. Please don't underestimate just how utterly moronic the average Sun reader is: these are people who need to be told what to think. The vast majority of the British electorate don't even begin to understand the issues which they vote for at election time, so it's much easier to go with whichever party their favourite paper tells them to vote for?
Remember the 1992 election? All the opinion polls predicted Labour would win. Are you sure that the headline in the Sun on election day had nothing to do with the Tories' surprise victory?
I've never understood the apparent "influence" of the Sun - and in particular of its former political editor, Trevor Kavanagh. Surely the Sun is the newspaper of choice for those who, almost by definition, don't "do" politics? I wonder how many Sun readers actually bother to vote...
IMHO the real test for David Cameron will not be whether the Sun (or any newspaper) supports or opposes him. Nor will it be the fast approaching local government elections, though it will be interesting to see how a party with no stated policies fares at the polls. In my view the acid test will be when 'Dave' takes a firm stance on a controversial issue. If instead he is allowed to remain in his current policy-free zone he may indeed win the next election, but God help us all if the Tories are elected purely because they were able to dodge all the important questions.
On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch has said in an interview that he has changed his mind about climate change.
"What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences. The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."
David Cameron has several hurdles to cross before he is fully endorsed by the electorate. If he steers clear of controversy, he will be able to dodge trouble; but he will not become any wiser. Politics is evidently a dirty game and newspapers like the Sun will place a number of banana skins for the Tory leader to slip on. So David will have to take the bull by the horns and confront issues like a real leader should and show his party and supporters that he has pragmatic solutions. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have buried the hatchet enabling the Labour party to reinvigorate itself, solidly behind Brown. Labour is very much back in the picture and Tory strategists will by no means have an easy ride anymore.
Just remember that the Sun's number one task is to sell copies, like any newspaper. However, it seems that tabloids are less scrupulous in how they achieve that goal than the heavies.
Maybe the Sun is setting on Dave Cameron because they have given up on Tommy Sheridan. The political interference factor was extremely high there, too.
I'm posting because I began by looking for somewhere to feed back that I like this blog and the idea of it.
But isnt it a bit stuffy to keep calling it a weblog?
For all the elitists on here: even if the Sun is the choice of the simple-minded (and this is somewhat arguable despite my personal distaste for it), it is read by people whose voting patterns are governed by a general feeling of the personal qualities of party leaders, rather than measured debate of policy. They are often small 'c' conservatives, wanting lower personal tax, better public services and punishment for transgressors without knowing or caring too much about how this is achieved. A sizeable proportion of them will vote, and with their heart not their head. As Blair knows, the way to govern in this day and age is to get elected by saying the right things, then to claim that any initiative or campaign pursued when in power is absolutely in line with manifesto commitments, regardless of whether this is true or not. Policy can be changed later, image often can't. The Sun's sensasionalist headlines do affect opinion-forming of leaders and as such are influential in determining who gets elected. This of course reinforces the unfortunate fact that the most charismatic politician will win the day, not the one who will necessarily do best for the country.
Which ever way our 'Dave' reacts I'm sure our 'Nick' will put the most positive spin on it.
First we had the "Iron Lady", then the "Cardboard Man". Now we have the "Bendy Toy" - what next?
"As a nation we were taken into a War that was illegal and may have been totally illegitimate, and one that was planned abysmally"
PLEASE, in the name of all that is good, stop talking about me 24/7. Even I'm getting tired of your obsession with me. I want a restraining order.
The Sun is merely echoing the tactics of Hermann Goering in 1946 when he said "the people cam always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Somewhat similar to reaction to the Iraq War protests.