2015 post UK election discussion

[Seanjd]

Doesn't really matter though in the most part though.

The vast majority of Daily Mail readers with an interest in politics will never vote for a party to the left.
The opposite can be said for Guardian readers

The only vaguely popular paper in the land which, from a political perspective, isn't preaching to the converted, year in, year out, is The S*n, which has a circulation of ~ 2 million. Most S*n readers will never change their party allegiance. Maybe 250k of them will be swayed by what's said there, but even that's probably an over-estimate.

It's just an easy argument to make to blame the press.

I actually think you've touched on it a bit there. It's easier to sway somebody who doesn't have an interest in politics through bombardment than somebody who does. Loads of people who don't have a real interest in politics vote, and loads of people who don't have a real interest in politics read news papers.

I live in St Helens, a Labour safe seat. I know a large number of working class people who I would say have been directly influenced by the right wing press to vote conservative. I don't usually use anecdotal evidence but I think it's quite important in this instance. People I work with who have previously voted labour cited Miliband 'stabbing his brother in the back' as a reason to vote Con, as well as the SNP fear. I do question whether those opinions would have been formed, or cemented, without a lot if help from the right wing press.

 

[Seanjd]

What's the online readership numbers. Most middle class people don't buy newspapers anymore.

I would suspect online readership follows a similar relative trend to circulation, ie; a lot more people read the Mail website than Graun. Go and have a look, I'm sure you can find the data somewhere.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I think there are enough floating voters, ultimately the ones who matter, who read newspapers and are influenced by them. I would point to the huge attack on the Labour SNP partnership as a working example of it.

The actual numbers from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results suggests otherwise.

In life, the simplest explanation is often the most accurate, and the simplest explanation is that a lot of voters feel more comfortable with the Tories running the country rather than Labour, were wooed by the Lib Dems last time round but have failed to see the moderating effect that the Lib Dems have had, so they moved to the Tories.

 

[bigbadjeff]

I have said before, you get in the polling booth & think ' who is going to put more money in my pocket?' They get the vote I live in NI so have no axe to grind.

 

[Woolly Blue]

It's laughable that you've just compared those two

Heh, I didn't start the comparison, they were thrown out as being papers on either side of the debate, which they are.

 

[Seanjd]

The actual numbers from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results suggests otherwise.

In life, the simplest explanation is often the most accurate, and the simplest explanation is that a lot of voters feel more comfortable with the Tories running the country rather than Labour, were wooed by the Lib Dems last time round but have failed to see the moderating effect that the Lib Dems have had, so they moved to the Tories.

That doesn't disprove my point that the press are still largely important. Loads of these marginals up for grabs went Tory. My point is that the SNP fear smear and the Miliband character assassinations definitely had something to do with it.

 

[Seanjd]

I have said before, you get in the polling booth & think ' who is going to put more money in my pocket?' They get the vote I live in NI so have no axe to grind.

Who is 'you'? Cause I don't. I have no doubt many people vote selfishly, I also think swathes are misinformed.

 

[Joey66]

The actual numbers from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results suggests otherwise.

In life, the simplest explanation is often the most accurate, and the simplest explanation is that a lot of voters feel more comfortable with the Tories running the country rather than Labour, were wooed by the Lib Dems last time round but have failed to see the moderating effect that the Lib Dems have had, so they moved to the Tories.

The fear fActor of the SNP helping Labour to govern, and the failure to promise a EU referendrum meant labour votes went to UKIP not away from the Tories simples!

 

[marty mcfly]

The actual numbers from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results suggests otherwise.

In life, the simplest explanation is often the most accurate, and the simplest explanation is that a lot of voters feel more comfortable with the Tories running the country rather than Labour, were wooed by the Lib Dems last time round but have failed to see the moderating effect that the Lib Dems have had, so they moved to the Tories.

Occam's Razor. That's the biggest mistake people made. They didn't appreciate the difference the Lib Dems made.

I even wonder if Cameron would have preferred another coalition. I think he had more in common with Clegg and Alexander than his back benchers.

 

[McBain]

You control the Left through manipulation of the 'working class' media.

Commonly referred to as 'The Sun Disease'.

 

[marty mcfly]

Who is 'you'? Cause I don't. I have no doubt many people vote selfishly, I also think swathes are misinformed.

I think everyone votes selfishly...... As they should do. Game Theory basically states that's how things should work.

 

[Woolly Blue]

... definitely had something to do with it

Yea, probably, in fact almost certainly. But enough to make the difference we've seen ?

No. Labour screwed up / misjudged the situation, call it what you like, but if Labour try to convince themselves they're a victim of some conspiracy they'll repeat the mistakes and are going to miminise their chances of getting elected next time.

 

[marty mcfly]

The fear fActor of the SNP helping Labour to govern, and the failure to promise a EU referendrum meant labour votes went to UKIP not away from the Tories simples!

I think it definitely played a role. But ultimately after 5 years of austerity Labour should have been able to convince the electorate enough to win a majority.

They would have too if they voted for David Milliband as leader and not Ed.

 

[Seanjd]

Yea, probably, in fact almost certainly. But enough to make the difference we've seen ?

No. Labour screwed up / misjudged the situation, call it what you like, but if Labour try to convince themselves they're a victim of some conspiracy they'll repeat the mistakes and are going to miminise their chances of getting elected next time.

Labour know damn well they're up against a difficult fight because they're up against the press as well as their opposition. There is no conspiracy, it is clear for everybody to see. Why else would Miliband come out with his 'taking on Murdoch' stuff? Cause he knows he has absolutely nothing to lose, as long as there is a semi popular Tory party and a slightly left leaning Labour Party, they will not win.

 

[Seanjd]

I think it definitely played a role. But ultimately after 5 years of austerity Labour should have been able to convince the electorate enough to win a majority.

They would have too if they voted for David Milliband as leader and not Ed.

I mentioned this earlier, do you think the foreign secretary who presided over one of the most unpopular wars in a century would be electable?