Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

[Zhivago]

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

[Son of Mathonwy]

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

Starmer and Drakeford are both highly successful people with some measure of normality offset by their time in politics and level of power. They're difficult to compare because they have had quite different paths. My take is that Starmer is more 'normal', but I can certainly accept that you disagree. There's not a lot in it.

Personally, I think when we compare Starmer with previous Labour Party leaders (rather than Welsh Assembly leaders), he comes out as unusually clean regarding political contamination in his past. You may disagree. But in the end, what can we do? Give up on getting rid of the Tories at the end of this term? Because Starmer is the only person who can actually make that happen. For all Starmer's flaws, I presume you'd prefer him to Johnson?

[Digby]

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

[Son of Mathonwy]

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

[Zhivago]

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

Starmer and Drakeford are both highly successful people with some measure of normality offset by their time in politics and level of power. They're difficult to compare because they have had quite different paths. My take is that Starmer is more 'normal', but I can certainly accept that you disagree. There's not a lot in it.

Personally, I think when we compare Starmer with previous Labour Party leaders (rather than Welsh Assembly leaders), he comes out as unusually clean regarding political contamination in his past. You may disagree. But in the end, what can we do? Give up on getting rid of the Tories at the end of this term? Because Starmer is the only person who can actually make that happen. For all Starmer's flaws, I presume you'd prefer him to Johnson?

As it happens, no - but only because the Tories committed to scrapping the 15 year limit for expat voting. Labour's position is at best unclear, and probably is in favour of keeping it at 15 years. I live abroad and have done so for almost 9 years now, so that change is one that I'd very much appreciate, lest I become disenfranchised.

[Digby]

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

[Stom]

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

[Digby]

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

[Zhivago]

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

[Stom]

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

[Digby]

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

[Zhivago]

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

[Stom]

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.

But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

[Zhivago]

As would not having a whining can't do attitude.

There's more than enough money on the left to fund a publication, there's just not the unity and drive. They'd rather argue between themselves as to the purity of their vision.

Mind I'm also constantly amazed at the lack of use of the stock market by the left

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

[Digby]

And I'll note again you don't have to start the size of the Guardian. You can start smaller and build, if you can't build either nobody is interested which is telling in itself, or you're not doing it well which is also telling.

They've had decades to be working on this and so far haven't made any progress. They have decades to work on it, if they fail to organise in the first instance that's also telling when it's so often stated they face this big problem in the media

[Stom]

I disagree. Operating costs are around 250-300m euros for the Guardian. Where do you think the left would get such money? Labour get about 40 million annual in revenue from all sources. The trade unions have been in terminal decline since the 80s. The left doesn't have the money for such costly endeavors, that's why it focuses on cheaper options such as social media. There are a few leftist publications, such as Tribune, but they are pretty niche.

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

You mean that the main reason the left doesn't get elected is because they don't have a clear marketing and PR strategy that everyone buys into?

Gosh, I wonder who said that.

Good thing is: that's fixable. See Marki-Zay Peter over here - though you wouldn't consider him left, he's probably left in today's climate, but he's definitely a conservative.

That's what's frustrating about it: a media on their side wouldn't change things. So your argument is moot because you accept the problems are of the left's own creating, not because of a biased media, that's just an aside/symptom.

[Zhivago]

What's the Guardian, then?

I mean, come on. We're not talking about political parties funding a newspaper. If the Guardian can keep itself afloat, so can another with a less...elitist outlook than the Granuiad.

And that's not really the point being made here.

While there are hurdles to setting up a more anti-establishment newspaper, there are also hurdles to setting up ANY newspaper now, as investment is going to be hard to come by. Couple that with, with, a bit of the corruption you talk about and you do get a difficult situation.
But you don't get through a difficult situation by focusing on what you can't do.

It's called having a dose of humility and accepting the reality. Besides, the main reason the left doesn't get elected is that it is too disunited, and fights too many side battles.

You mean that the main reason the left doesn't get elected is because they don't have a clear marketing and PR strategy that everyone buys into?

Gosh, I wonder who said that.

Good thing is: that's fixable. See Marki-Zay Peter over here - though you wouldn't consider him left, he's probably left in today's climate, but he's definitely a conservative.

That's what's frustrating about it: a media on their side wouldn't change things. So your argument is moot because you accept some of the problems are of the left's own creating, not because of a biased media, that's just an aside/symptom.

fixed that for you

The biased media is a fact of life. Building a left wing media is not a short term project. There are quicker wins to be had. The most pressing one is finding the right leader. Starmer isn't the right leader. Corbyn clearly wasn't either. But there needs to be someone out there who combines the seriousness of Starmer with the passion of Corbyn.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

You don't fix an unbalanced/monopolistic market by hoping some competitor will take down Microsoft, Amazon or Facebook. You need regulation. And the same is true here. There's only enough space in the market for a handful of profitable national newspapers and we can't afford to wait decades for the market to magically improve the situation.

We can't allow individuals (who just happen to be billionaires) to have such huge influence on people's opinions. Rules concerning shareholder control (for newspapers above a certain market share) need to be adjusted to prevent this (eg ultimate control by an individual or group of related individuals needs to be outlawed).

[Digby]

Why not bring change over decades? Change comes slowly to those who want it. And again, they could already have been doing this for decades, you can't not do something and then complain it's not been done, well not and sound sensible. That's making to HMG saying they cannot fix the sewers in the next year or so because some idiots have gone decades not addressing the problem

Also if the cruel media keep Labour locked out of power how are they going to gain enough power to effect the changes which will make it easier for them to gain power?

I am if one can bring forward a sensible bill in the realms of media publishing not averse to some changes being made, but blaming other people for thinking differently and for a present reality not being what you want isn't going to change much.

[Puja]

I have to say, this is a fascinating display of the persistence of the 'free market will solve things itself' dogma.

"This industry has high barriers to entry, there are only a few conglomerates in the market, and very little regulation. This has created an oligopoly which reduces consumer choice and raises the barriers to entry even higher."

"Why don't you just create new entrants onto the market instead of complaining?"


Note, the complaint here is not (necessarily) that the papers aren't owned by nice people, it's that over 60% of the market is directly owned by two men, across five papers (not counting the Sunday editions as separate entities) and most of the other 40% is tied up by another three men. All 5 are billionaires and they have a incredible hold over the market - they can hire away any writers they want, they have influence over vendors and distributors, there is little to no regulation to prevent collusion and market-fixing, and if they face any competition, they are not averse to using their papers as a loss leader. Hells, the Metro is given away for free every day - how exactly is a non-billionaire owned paper supposed to enter this market?

It is a market failure condition and "just try harder and complain less" isn't the solution. What we need is breaking up the oligopolies, instituting regulation to promote editorial independence, and actually having a regulator that has both the power and the desire to regulate (at bare minimum to punish bare-faced lying). What we're getting is Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom by hook or by crook.

Puja

[Stom]

I have to say, this is a fascinating display of the persistence of the 'free market will solve things itself' dogma.

"This industry has high barriers to entry, there are only a few conglomerates in the market, and very little regulation. This has created an oligopoly which reduces consumer choice and raises the barriers to entry even higher."

"Why don't you just create new entrants onto the market instead of complaining?"


Note, the complaint here is not (necessarily) that the papers aren't owned by nice people, it's that over 60% of the market is directly owned by two men, across five papers (not counting the Sunday editions as separate entities) and most of the other 40% is tied up by another three men. All 5 are billionaires and they have a incredible hold over the market - they can hire away any writers they want, they have influence over vendors and distributors, there is little to no regulation to prevent collusion and market-fixing, and if they face any competition, they are not averse to using their papers as a loss leader. Hells, the Metro is given away for free every day - how exactly is a non-billionaire owned paper supposed to enter this market?

It is a market failure condition and "just try harder and complain less" isn't the solution. What we need is breaking up the oligopolies, instituting regulation to promote editorial independence, and actually having a regulator that has both the power and the desire to regulate (at bare minimum to punish bare-faced lying). What we're getting is Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom by hook or by crook.

Puja

I agree, though. My point was more that 'the left' needs to get its marketing and PR right whatever the situation with the papers. If they can do that, they'll win half the battle. Again, look here with MZPs win. Really, it's something worth studying:

Former marketing exec turned politician hires another marketer to help run a campaign focused on telling the truth and...well...wins.

[Digby]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

[Son of Mathonwy]

The free market will not do anything, but it also doesn't stop much.

And really what's the alternative? If you don't like the Tories in power when they're setting the rules why bother to have the hope the Tories will do something to fix/alter a system which aligns with their interests? So it needs change to who's in position to make the decisions, and that in part we're told needs a new media offering.

I doubt there's anything that can be done overnight, it's going to take I assume years of diligent and often frustrating grind. If someone has a better idea by all means mention, I just don't happen to agree those currently in power making important reforms in the name of decency looks likely, basically the horse has to go in front of the cart

This isn't a free market, unless you're a billionaire.

You agree the situation is a problem but you're happy for the solution to take decades to arrive, if ever. Obviously you don't think it's much of a problem. I'd prefer a problem to be fixed a little faster than that.

What's the alternative? Regulation, as several people have said. This could be implemented immediately.

Of course the Tories won't do it, so we need someone else.

[Puja]

In amongst all of this, the usual papers seem to be turning on the Tories of late. The Mail on Sunday have run an "investigation" showing that Rees-Mogg's taken £6 million in director's loans from his company without declaring it. Maybe they are starting to look at the possibility of backing Starmer.

Puja