http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... 5407?f=rss

Basically The Sun knows it'll struggle to sell papers otherwise

The PM fails to grasp the plain truth and the media DOES influence people’s decisions. You think Derren Brown’s attempts to control you are theatrics, a news paper has all it needs to influence people. It is also The Sun, so we will get:

1 - Negative stories about Brown
2 - Positive stories about Cameron
3 - Pictures of pert tits on beguiling girlies in various states of undress

If that’s not reinforcement by reward, then I don’t know what is.

Brown has yet to grasp this simple concept.

[quote=Harriet Harman]"We may be the underdog but we won't be bullied... this underdog is biting back,"[/quote]
So the party in power is the underdog? So why is this.. oh yes the complete [LIFTED] up of the country they have done
Also does that make HH an underbitch
[quote=Harriet Harman]She added: "Let us say don't get bitter, get better. Don't get outraged, get out there. Don't get mad, get mobilised." [/quote] I wish she just get the hell out of here


Also the main reason (in my totally cynical viewpoint) is that News international just dont believe that Labour can win and also there isnt enough time in the political calender to introduce any new laws to curb there power. So its time to butter up to flibbydibbygibbity man

Strange, The Sun comes out for the Tories in England & Wales but the Scottish branch of The Sun refuses to come out for the Tories in Scotland.

Let's face it, Rupert Murdoch has a major say in the outcome of many National elections. It should be something we all bare in mind when make our decisions.

It's the Sun wot won it. Or something.

Personally I couldn't give a [LIFTED] which Party my newspaper recommends, though I may read into their reasons why. I make my own decision, and have in fact made it already.

To be fair that was a headline in the Sun, and they're known for a bit of self-adulation.

I imagine a lot of people vote on fairly subjective and even possibly shallow criteria - self-interest, basically - but I can't imagine there are enough people that dim that they could sway an election. Apart from anything else, paper readership has been slumping for years and is now quite straited demographically. With the first past the post constituency system we have, it takes bunch of people to 'force' candidates, not a certain part of the population spread around the country.

Jon

Not strictly true the amount of media criticism that labour and brown has faced ( justly and unjustly) has inflated the accusations to be greater than the offence in peoples minds. When story after story is highlighting labour problems and gloryfying the tories people are faced with limited information so is going to give an unbalanced veiw. If everyone told you from birth that the universe was geocentric you'd believe it, as a member of the general public, so if the major newspapers and tele programmes are constantly reporting failiure which in itself is bias by publication the public are going to only know that.

I know I'd vote my labour candidate out because my veiw is that they are a weak, divided party that need some time in opposition to question where their core values are in relation to what britain needs. But I find myself questioning whether labour are weak because of media savagery resulting in labour becoming weak and divided. However the media could just be reflecting the oppresive boredom of the current vanilla government.

If the Tories won the last election they would have done little different. New Labour carried on Tory policies and so they are two sides of the same coin. The only difference is that Labour actually put money into government services. They and the Tories still believe low taxes for the rich creates wealth, so expect another disaster soon enough because no one is fixing the problems.

Gordon is a lousy leader but there are few credible alternatives. Alan Johnson is possible but the party needs to move to the left to keep its supporters or risk losing them to the BNP.

Well it is different as labour massively increased spending on healthcare (when we needed it), education and social welfare when the tories were fighting elections on asylum seekers. Come on there were swathes of differences only thatcherite economic deregulation was left.

Things we have with labour that more than likely wouldn't have under the tories (looking at both historic policy, manifesto, voting patterns and evaluation of all these):

-A minimum wage
-Independant bank of england: with no clumsy interest rate rises
(http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-co ... tes-uk.gif) vs
(http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs ... ate-uk.php)
-Sure start scheme
-tax credits
-energy allowance for pensioners (£200 - £300)
-national health service spending increase
-85,000 more nurses
-32,000 more doctors
- doubling in funding for under 18 education per pupil from £3000 to £6000
- overall crime down 30%
- record police numbers in cities
- devolved power
- paternity leave of 2 weeks
- GLC: london mayor etc
- 25% increase in child benifit
- Good friday agreement PEACE IN NORTHEN IRELAND
- 30,000 more teachers in schools
- Rights to 4 weeks paid holiday
- 1,000,000 pensioners out of relative poverty
- banned fox hunting
- Free TV licences for over-75s
- Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
- Waiting times for operations halved
- Free local bus travel for over-60s
- Over 1.5 million child trust funds have been started
- Free eye test for over 60s
- Five, six and seven year olds in class sizes of 30 or less
- Free entry to national museums and galleries
- Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent
- Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales
- House of lords reform (got rid of the hereditary peers)
- Congestion charge in london
- Compensation for miners
- pay increases for frontline education and healthcare staff (docs, nurses and teachers)

Those are all contestable in some way ofcourse because noone goes unharmed but alot of those it is difficult to argue with while remaining on the point.

That is what we wouldn't have had if the tories were in power but what would have been the same:
- War on terror
- Iraq war
- privatisation of canteens and secondary service in hospitals
- other PFI
- The time of the recession


What would have changed since 1997 under the tories:
- continued deregualtion (argued by cameron as the way forward don't forget)
- The severity of the recession being much worse due to lack of economic stimulus
- The banks would have collapsed (as cameron and his party argued against bailing out banks)
- an extended recession
- wild interest rates
- unemployed absolutely ignored


Ok you can tell me " you don't know what would have happened under the tories" well search your feelings and tell me you couldn't see that.

Labours 2008-10 period has been excessively unimpressive however with more focus on the Iraq war and people control through terrorist laws than the social, political and economic reforms of 1997-2005. People have impressively short memories and sight into the past.

Whatever bad things happened under labour would have likely have been seen under the tories with greater effect and without any of the extra teachers, nurses, doctors and police to help our under invested nation.

Either way, Labour lose.

And thank Christ for that!

Let's not forget what Labour have done to civil liberties:

The Terrorism Acts
ID Cards and the National Identity Register
The ridiculous new child protection database
Criminal Trespass
No Protesting outside Parliament or within 1km of Parliament Square (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act)
"Forward Intelligence" Teams (ie. Police spies)
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
The power of arrest for summary and minor offences (instead of just "serious arrestable offences" as they were)
The Criminal Justice Act (limits rights to trial by jury)
The Civil Contingencies Act - grants HMG extreme powers in case of non-defined "emergency"
Control Orders & House Arrest
ASBOs
They also wanted to extend detention without charge to 42 days.
It's now illegal to photograph Police or anything which is "likely to be useful" in preparing an act of terrorism.

Oh and my other favourite:

Outright refusal to grant free prescriptions to English people, despite the fact that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have done so. Oh, and then denying the English people their own Parliament so that they could vote to do it for themselves!

I'm voting Lib Dem next election come hell or high water.
Labour have no mandate in England. If England ditched Wales and Scotland the Tories would never have lost power.

And another: Abolition of the House of Lords Judicial function in favour of a "Supreme Court". And if they win again, total abolition of the Lords.

I think the quote is meant to be redolent of the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people do" and I tend to agree with the implied sentiment.

Having said that Murdoch has his own political agenda. He is a fanatical Right-wing born-again Christian, a notorious libertine (NOT libertarian) in his own life, but as is usually the case demands higher standards of the rest of us. Murdoch wants to be "left alone to make money" and if being "left alone" involves the ability to pay slave wages, make people work in dangerous conditions, exploit, cheat and misinform, then so be it. His major News channel is "Fox" News and notwithstanding how cuddly the "Fox Network" is made to appear in "The Simpsons" Murdoch used it ruthlessly to spread lies and innuendo about Obama in the US elections. He is using it now to spread FUD about Healthcare ("Death" comittees in the UK etc.).

So Murdoch will do his level best to do two things:
1. Spread lies and half-truths about Labour to ensure he backs the "right" side
2. Try to con Cameroon it woz the Sun wot wun it if\when he does.

As I noted at the outset, people are perfectly able to resist this rubbish, but in an increasingly regimented and de-humanised society like our own people tend to follow the herd (or what they perceive is the herd). Millions don't watch X Factor for fun they do it becuase everyone else does, and so on....

The Sun really are a waste of paper. News International barely pays any tax here, Sky is based offshore so also pays little tax. I expect Cameron to be as pathetic as Blair in regulating the media.

New Labours anti citizen legislation is very off putting. I am not a natural Tory so would rather vote Green or Liberal to get a better government.

As far as the House of Lords, the government botched it. I am actually in favour of hereditary peers. Though I would preface it with a regular appearance, and sufficient residency to pay income tax. That would exclude Lord Ashcroft who does not live here, and all the backwoodsmen who appeared to block the ban on fox hunting. If they made regular appearance then they are truly worthwhile. There were some very knowledgeable peers who worked.

As would I, since I disagree with all the compromises of our civil rights but it would be a fallicy to cay that labour haven't done better than the tories would have.

If I am old enough come the general election I will also be placing a vote for the liberals.

You can add biometric passports to the list too.