Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Sun abandons Labour - so what?

At precisely 12.05am, while Cranmer was working frantically at his desk throught the midnight hours as he has done all week, night and day (quite literally), in order to fend off Mephistopheles and the rest of the demonic horde which presently plagues him, he received an email from The Sun.

The Sun has never before emailed His Grace, and neither would His Grace particularly wish them to again. He wondered why he was being spammed with the lastest about some D-list celebrity or scurrilous gossip about nothing worth reading.

It appears that the paper has decided to rat on Labour. Or rather, to re-rat back to the Conservative Party. And, for some reason, this is the story all over every newspaper, political blog, and on the lips of political anoraks (of which His Grace may be one: he certainly feels like such a limp garment at the moment).

It was, of course, purposely timed to detract from the Prime Minister's big moment.

Poor man. He had worked very hard on that speech. One could tell.

Years ago, The Sun was indeed influential. But that was in the age when newspapers were read by millions and the press barons were courted like one entreats the powers of divinty. They interceded between the rulers and the ruled: they received the lively political oracles from the learned and wise, and distilled them into bite-size chunks of sound-bite vernacular for the lesser-educated proletariat.

But that age has gone. The world has changed. Newspaper circulations have plummetted just as much as mass party membership has declined.

When, back in 1992, the paper boasted "It was the Sun wot won it", there was a perception that it had. It was ludicrous, of course. It had simply sensed the lack of appetite for Neil Kinnock, and backed the likely winner of that general election. The Sun did not win it for John Major. It is a commercial enterprise and was simply giving its readers (or picture viewers) what it sensed they wanted to read (or see). It follows trends and views: it does not create history or form opinion.

Cranmer has no doubt that politicians will always be invited on to the yachts of the rich and powerful. But the rich and powerful will increasingly be subsumed to those who innovate and control the new media. Rupert Murdoch and his son James will doubtless retain some influence, but the future belongs to the likes of Stephan Shakespeare and Tim Montgomerie who, while not possessing their own yachts (as far as His Grace knows), are clearly at the helm of the new age of political campaigning.

Some traditional Labour votres will this morning be spluttering over their cornflakes, feeling betrayed by the rag that brings them their morning fix of tittle-tattle, banal comment and soft porn.

They should never have relied upon it to give them their daily bread. Its influence is overrated: its self-perception of its political omnipotence absurdly exaggerated. Mr Cameron would be wise to smile over his marmite on toast this morning. But The Sun alone will not 'win it' for him.


Anonymous martin sewell said...

....and yet any thing that helps seal the fate of this God forsaking Government is surely something to lift the spirits a tad is it not?

30 September 2009 at 09:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

The Sun may not ‘win it’ for Mr Cameron. The Conservatives have subcontracted their future triumph or defeat, to the Irish vote on the Lisbon (Constitutional) Treaty.

For if the Irish vote ‘Yes’ – then what becomes of the right-of-Centre patriot?

30 September 2009 at 09:26  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I agree Your Grace. I suspect that the vast majority of Sun viewers do not even bother to vote. However, as Mr Sewell has already commented, every little helps.

30 September 2009 at 09:27  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

I think that the Sun may influence some floating voters but at the same time could loose Labour readers, after all most of us tend to read a newspaper of our own political persuasion. Or perhaps it was loosing ex-Labour readers and felt it had to change its stance in order to keep them. I suspect that if the traditional Labour voters go elsewhere, it is unlikely to be the Tories, but more likely the BNP.

30 September 2009 at 09:34  
Blogger Red Kite said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 September 2009 at 09:34  
Blogger Red Kite said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 September 2009 at 10:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post is spot on

30 September 2009 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

I think there is more to what you say. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Express and other right-leaning newspapers have not changed their values, say, from the 1980s.

This suggests that during the run-up to the 1997 General Election Labour realigned its values towards the values of the right-of-Centre press; hence, New Labour. This may have had the effect of suppressing the range of criticisms available to the right-of-Centre press inducing it to support (at least tacitly) the New Labour project.

Where, it is suggested, New Labour went wrong, strategically, is its obsession with rectifying socio-economic inequalities (taxation and welfare) and the rolls of red tape issued on the basis of EU Directives.

People may not be able to state which EU Directive impels them to change a light bulb so that they sit in a kind of twilight in their living-rooms – but what they do know is that New Labour are responsible for the twilight.

30 September 2009 at 11:47  
Anonymous Rob said...

Personally I was rather disappointed that Gordon Brown didn't get really tough in his speech. I had hopped that he'd step up to the plate and make the 2010 elections interesting but the Labour Party Conference I think has totally failed to make it big in my minds eye.
More of my thoughts here:

30 September 2009 at 11:49  
Anonymous Bethel said...

Your Grace
The Sun is however the seat of Mystic Meg, a truly great asset of such provenance and age. Marvellous really, how she keeps going.Bit like you!

30 September 2009 at 12:08  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I always thought that the phrase "Sun Readers" was a bit of an oxymoron.

30 September 2009 at 13:53  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Labour's rent-a-harridan Harriet Harman has just denounced the Sun's "news-in-briefs" on Page 3, but didn't seem to have trouble with the paper's morals after it switched sides to Labour. Or had Mandelson refused to take her muzzle off over the issue?

30 September 2009 at 17:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Sun is quite influential in forming opinions especially with regard to white van man and Labours response to the Sun changing sides was quite undignified and in many ways offensive, this will no doubt give ammunition to the Sun whom will now not just oppose Labour they will no doubt wage their own personal aganda against them, as for me let em get on with it, Labour have destroyed England and discriminated against the English, hopefully independence and a parliament of our own is nigh.

30 September 2009 at 17:46  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@Anon 17:46

Whilst having every sympathy for your wishes, the likelyhood of an English parliament is tiny. And, even were we to have, one, it would have about as much power as a district council following the latest eu power grab.

Let's hope the Irish can cut it for least that would put Call Me Dave on the spot to have a referendum of our own

BTW, has anyone noticed the news blackout of the Irish referendum? It's non news here. Could it just be that the polls are showing a potential no vote that our august national new broadcasting body, the BBC, simply can't bring itself to report what's going on? And the other channels don't seem to be any better, either. Or has Brussels issued their equivalent of a D notice?

30 September 2009 at 18:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sunday April 7th, A.D. 30 in Jerusalem;

'Satan Defeated! It's The Son wot won it!"

This should be our perrenial headlies, whatever the vagaries of the earthly city.

30 September 2009 at 18:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One good thing about not knowing how to respond, on here, is that other interesting responses accumulate!

Yes, Grumpy - I've been wondering about the 'eire' silence. Someone over on CH said Cameron has finally come out against allowing us a referendum, though!!!

How closely it's all related to this strand or even this blog, is just as unclear, but I think it is related. And perhaps the relationship is less disquieting than Sinister.

The extent of the deceit reminds me -- for anyone who has time to read on: I once accompanied some seemingly nice people I'd known for years to a party. As the evening wore on, I began to understand the meaning of Mephistophilean(?) deceit - for nothing in that house reflected truth or reality. Every piece of artwork - and some of the furniture - represented some aspect of trickery or 'trompe l'oeil.' I'd never seen deception so extolled (before, or since).

The impression extended to the hosts. So proud they were of the dog they swore was a Yorkshire Terrier -- but I happen to know Schnauzer when I see it: dyed or not. And as I talked to the family matriarch, I gradually realized that her face was at least 80 years old, but had no fold or wrinkle on it.

On leaving, as I thanked the (married) hostess for her hospitality, she made it clear she was a lesbian... More nauseated than I'd ever been in my life, I escaped to the nearest car home.

Lies. Half-truths. Deliberate obfuscation. Filth. And the distinct impression that we should neither expect nor give anything else. This, folks, is 'life.' The Sun and Modern Britain, is it?

The War in Heaven is done. But yes, we need the Son here again: and Hosts of Heavenly Hosts. Kudos to Anon above for pointing in that direction.

Let it be soon, Lord, Please.

30 September 2009 at 20:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Construct a sentence that includes the words:





Who knows? You could end up writing headlines for one of News International's publications.


30 September 2009 at 21:22  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


The National News-media is far more influential by what is does not say, then what it does say.

I take your point about the News-papers, especially the Sun being increasingly less powerful. But the fact remains, that "if it is not BBC/SKY/ or national press at least, it is not news." Indeed for other then those directly involved, it might as well not have happened at all, as far as governments doing anything positively worthwhile about it is concerned.

There is almost no point in a whole heard of Flying Saucers landing on Parliament Square, at 2pm on a Thursday, if the MSM do not report them doing so.

Likewise, it does not matter one inch, if the evidence that AGW is a gigantic establishment inspired, hocus-pocus based scam act, becomes self-evidently beyond doubt, ( which it most surely has,) unless the BBC and The rest of The MSM finally 'comes clean,' on the matter. The worlds governments will still sacrifice the lives and living standards of their own populations, simply because the carrots are so generously provided, and the stick so cruelly threatened.

We KNOW, that if it is not reported, nothing is going to happen until it is. News is only AUTHORISED when it is about to become main-stream. In reality being authorised is the definition of main-stream.

What we believe we collectively know, is of course often different to our own individual reality. We choose which to give more validity. We usually choose the easier to psychologically handle alternative, therefore the WRONG one. Rather like an averagely intelligent lab-rat.

The BBC, and the Guardian both claim, and are seen by many to be, supporters of The Labour Party.

Yet they have MORE power to get a Conservative government elected, then does the Daily Mail, or The Sun.

After all, which is more dangerous. A declared enemy, or a false friend? Take the BBC for example. The BBC likes to pretend it is every bodies friend. Yet it promotes national and International terrorism, more enthusiastically then a greedy pimp sells class A Pussy.

Sorry to lay another paranoid trip on you all, but please try to answer this question?

Why do so many people persist in trusting a political/financial system, known by some as 'The Firm' or 'The Company,' that has self-evidently proved time, and time again, can not in any circumstances be TRUSTED.

All political agendas ( which means ALL agendas ) are handed down from the top. This includes the radical agendas far more then the reactionary ones. Political reactions are predictable. Which is why it is so important for the establishment to invent finance and therefore control the radical ideologies that provoke the inevitable political reactions.

We are divided, thus we are ruled.

Some may prefer 'The DEVIL,' others 'The Deep Blue Sea,' and I am sure it does make some kind of difference. However what exactly, we can only guess at, and will never know for sure.

In the END the establishment will get their own way, because they always have in the past. If they want us ID chipped, in The EU with no way out, bankrupt beyond salvation, or in debt up to and beyond our eye level, fighting with each other, or indeed at peace with each other, then that is what the establishment will one day get, whatever the cost, and by whatever means it takes.

The only thing voting for political parties will be shown to have ultimately affected, is the relative amounts of wins the red or blue team got on the way to the establishments Brave New world.

The Sun or The Moon/Guardian, in the end it really does not change much. If The Sun was REALLY trying to get a Cameron government elected, surely it would be far more effective for the Sun to continue to claim to be supporting Labour, while covertly stabbing them in the back. Very much like Murdoch did Thatcher on a very regular basis?

Murdoch just like The BBC is pro-establishment. Mainly because in the end they both know who is really pulling the strokes, and calling all of the shots, and it sure is not political parties.

30 September 2009 at 23:09  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


I have been talking to a few of my many Irish Republic customers over the last week, and the news is not good. It seems that the Irish economy is even worse then the UK's. Yes, this does in fact seem possible, it is worse there then any of them thought imaginable, so I am told. Street violence has taken place, which is most likely the reason why the establishment have instructed the BBC/SKY to ignore the place for a week, as much as possible.

What this means for the coming vote? Time will tell.

But for those of us who still believe it helps, please spend some time today to pray for the well being of our Irish friends.

30 September 2009 at 23:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Old Grumpy

There was an article in yesterday’s The Daily Telegraph (Comments section).

‘Why Irish eyes are smiling over the Lisbon Treaty’ by Sarah Carey of the Irish Times.

She reported that the EU pouring money into Ireland and particularly into its banks.

She completed her article by stating:

‘No one cares about the democratic deficit anymore.’

If that is true, then the Irish have decided to exchange democracy for dictatorship.

It reminded me for some reason of a few lines in a poem by W. B. Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

The Second Coming (1921)

1 October 2009 at 08:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares about Cameron - he's just another oiley, slimey, self seekeing, detatched from reality power mongerer.
To be preferred by the gutter press above Brown says more about him than it does about Cameron.

1 October 2009 at 10:32  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older