What does The Sun get out of backing Cameron?

[cunning fergus]

More than just "donations". It's a whole web of corrupt practice.

Murdoch wants Cameron to shut down or restrict half the BBC outlets - especially the ones that are in competition with his commercial empire. He wants the BBC website no longer to carry the comprehensive (free) material that it currently does. Reason? He wants his media websites to be able to charge punters for what they won't buy at the moment.

Murdoch is simply buying the support of a future Tory government. And he's getting it cheap.

Sounds like sour grapes to me, no doubt you were not moaning when the Sun backed Labour in past elections

Anyway the BBC are hardly a paragon of competitive enterprise are they; the sooner they get to stand on their own 2 feet the better. Those that want to pay for Bargain Hunt and Miss Jocelyn can do so. That would be fair.

Personally I find it odd that the Govt and EU meddle so often into the way SKY does its legitimate business, in the past its competition rulings increased the amount subscribers needed to pay to watch the Premiership as they needed additional subscriptions to Setanta and now ESPN.

More recently OFCOM have now been able to meddle in the fees SKY are charging......so much for caveat emptor. No wonder Murdoch is pissed off Labour have decided to bite the hand that fed them.......not unlike the way taxpayers have been treated.

 

[The Large One]

Sounds like sour grapes to me, no doubt you were not moaning when the Sun backed Labour in past elections

Anyway the BBC are hardly a paragon of competitive enterprise are they; the sooner they get to stand on their own 2 feet the better. Those that want to pay for Bargain Hunt and Miss Jocelyn can do so. That would be fair.

Personally I find it odd that the Govt and EU meddle so often into the way SKY does its legitimate business, in the past its competition rulings increased the amount subscribers needed to pay to watch the Premiership as they needed additional subscriptions to Setanta and now ESPN.

More recently OFCOM have now been able to meddle in the fees SKY are charging......so much for caveat emptor. No wonder Murdoch is pissed off Labour have decided to bite the hand that fed them.......not unlike the way taxpayers have been treated.

Now that sounds like sour grapes.

 

[Gwylan]

More recently OFCOM have now been able to meddle in the fees SKY are charging......so much for caveat emptor. No wonder Murdoch is pissed off Labour have decided to bite the hand that fed them.......not unlike the way taxpayers have been treated.

It's not the taxpayers who are being charged, Ofcom is seeking to have the amount that Sky is charging other broadcasters reduced as it believes that it's abusing a monopoly position.

The public will benefit from this one as it means that costs should come down.

 

[Set of Tracksuits]

I think, generally, the allegiances are as follows:

Sun - were Tory til '97, then Labour until now
Mirror - Labour
Mail - Tory
Express - Tory
Guardian - Labour (although they've said they're not backing them this time)
Times - were Tory til '97, then they were Labour, now they seem unsure
Telegraph - Tory
Independent - well, not sure really, I think they may have come out for the Lib Dems

 

[cunning fergus]

It's not the taxpayers who are being charged, Ofcom is seeking to have the amount that Sky is charging other broadcasters reduced as it believes that it's abusing a monopoly position.

The public will benefit from this one as it means that costs should come down.

I dont understand, surely its about what people are prepared to pay. Frankly if you can't afford it then you can't have it........its that simple. In my view its not the job of the Government to interfere with how a private firm prices its products and services, and certainly not 'luxuries'. I can't afford a Lambo what they going to do about that?

I wont hold my breath for the other consumer quangos to reduce the prices of more important essential costs like Council tax, Petrol, Gas and Electricty. They wont though.

The taxpaying public would benefit from not paying a TV licence but we know that wont happen either.

Its pathetic really.

 

[clapham_gull]

Sounds like sour grapes to me, no doubt you were not moaning when the Sun backed Labour in past elections

Anyway the BBC are hardly a paragon of competitive enterprise are they; the sooner they get to stand on their own 2 feet the better. Those that want to pay for Bargain Hunt and Miss Jocelyn can do so. That would be fair.

Personally I find it odd that the Govt and EU meddle so often into the way SKY does its legitimate business, in the past its competition rulings increased the amount subscribers needed to pay to watch the Premiership as they needed additional subscriptions to Setanta and now ESPN.

More recently OFCOM have now been able to meddle in the fees SKY are charging......so much for caveat emptor. No wonder Murdoch is pissed off Labour have decided to bite the hand that fed them.......not unlike the way taxpayers have been treated.

Complete misunderstanding about the nature of the Ofcom ruling I'm afraid.

They don't care (or wish to interfere) with the cost of the Sports Channels to the general public.

 

[Insider]

Times - were Tory til '97, then they were Labour, now Tory, owned by News International (Murdoch), who also own the Sun (and Sky).
Independent - name says it all, independent

BBC have also been accused of being pro-Labour by the Tories, but I would say they are independent.

The Sun's sway in this country is astounding - thank God they don't back the BNP. Read Piers Morgan's book, he basically says that Murdoch decides who he wants in, and generally that is who gets in. I would be amazed if he doesn't get his way on Thursday - although a hung parliament would be interesting and a huge pie in the face for Murdoch.

If the Conservatives do not get in, the party members have to look long and hard at their history of electing poor party leaders, who are out of touch and unelectable. Even David Cameron is like a blindfolded striker, 12 yards out, with an empty goal. Personally, I am astonished Ken Clarke was not elected. He would be a great PM. Labour must learn from this mistake, and bring Milliband (Blair without the insecurity and arrogance) in asap. I still like Harty's theory that he could still be PM this time. Hung parliament, Labour-LibDem coalition, on the stipulation it isn't Brown as PM...

 

[clapham_gull]

Independent have come out for the Lib Dems (again).

The Sun was originally a Labour Party by the way.

I way be wrong, but I'm lead to believe that the Sun's readership has generally been predominantly Labour voters.

 

[cunning fergus]

Now that sounds like sour grapes.

Why? People moan about Murdoch cause he has backed the Tories, but no doubt didn't when he backed Blair.

The fact is that Murdoch and SKY have been f***ed over by politicans who have their own axes to grind, so why the whinging when he seeks to protect his business interests......he's no different from Alan Sugar or Theo Paphitis supporting Labour.......or do they not have interests to protect?

This whole issue of who the papers back is bullshit anyway, and no doubt there will be simpleminded folk who will be persuaded by the bias of the Sun, Mirror, Mail and Guardian they are only catering for their markets.

There will be just as many voting who will lack political objectivity and vote for the party their Dad did or because their posting vote has been taken by another family member or because on TV someone seems a nice man. f*** me what's the difference!

 

[beorhthelm]

I way be wrong, but I'm lead to believe that the Sun's readership has generally been predominantly Labour voters.

i'd describe the Sun as right wing working class. maybe in more distant past it was more left wing.

i felt Time is always centre right, even through the Blair years (though that isnt necessarily different from backing Blair). BBC would be best described as centre left, its definatly filled with left leaning personal, but makes a good go at being even handed.

best bet for truly independent paper is Financial Times, if one accepts business will continue in some form whatever government is in power. there political coverage is presented as back drop and context for the business world top deal with.

 

[clapham_gull]

The fact is that Murdoch and SKY have been f***ed over by politicans who have their own axes to grind

In what way ? They appear to be doing very nicely.

 

[Insider]

Good guide here if you want to make your own mind up:

BBC News - Where They Stand: Guide to party election policies

 

[cunning fergus]

Complete misunderstanding about the nature of the Ofcom ruling I'm afraid.

They don't care (or wish to interfere) with the cost of the Sports Channels to the general public.

You think so I dont. BT, Virgin and the rest have a couple of choices, they dont have to pay the fees SKY is charging them for its services and enter the market against SKY to compete for Sporting rights (like SETANTA).

They could pay the SKY fee and then undercut SKY and hope to increase their market share.

Fact is they have choices and so do consumers. SKY TV is not an essential services and it shouldn't be up to Government to meddle in such trivialities when petrol is up to 1.20 a litre.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

You think so I dont. BT, Virgin and the rest have a couple of choices, they dont have to pay the fees SKY is charging them for its services and enter the market against SKY to compete for Sporting rights (like SETANTA).

They could pay the SKY fee and then undercut SKY and hope to increase their market share.

Fact is they have choices and so do consumers. SKY TV is not an essential services and it shouldn't be up to Government to meddle in such trivialities when petrol is up to 1.20 a litre.

But it's a monopoly. Even the Americans have laws that break up monopolies. Murdoch's achievement in Europe is to convince ALL governments not to break up his monopoly. The threat of him turning nasty is all that takes to achieve this.

 

[clapham_gull]

You think so I dont. BT, Virgin and the rest have a couple of choices, they dont have to pay the fees SKY is charging them for its services and enter the market against SKY to compete for Sporting rights (like SETANTA).

They could pay the SKY fee and then undercut SKY and hope to increase their market share.

Fact is they have choices and so do consumers. SKY TV is not an essential services and it shouldn't be up to Government to meddle in such trivialities when petrol is up to 1.20 a litre.

As I said, you've completely misunderstood the ruling. It's a very common place thing that would pass by in America without comment.

It's all about ensuring that television channels are available on a number of platforms or equipment if that's easier to understand.

Nothing to do with Sky dominating the football coverage, rather more to do with them also dominating the sale of equipment to view it.

The free market doesn't like that, I didn't have you down as a communist but each to his own.

The ruling also allows (well actually encourages) Sky to place pay per view services on Freeview, something they were never allowed to do before which somewhat proves my point. It will increase their viewing figures.

So a very capitalist right wing ruling, greasing the wheels of the market and ensuring competition. Thatcher would be proud of it.

Sky will thank Ofcom in the future, since having to rely on a dish on the side of the house to watch a channel is going to look a bit dated in the not too distant future.

Lord Bracknell, I honestly don't think it has much to do with "monopolies", more to do with the capitalist obsession with breaking up industries that control the whole supply chain. Comrade Fergus needs to embrace the market.

 

[John Byrnes Mullet]

The Sun has always been the worst read in politics but always the best read for footie imho. I agree with what the guys says about Murdoch backing Cameron because of trying to take power from the beeb.

 

[clapham_gull]

The Sun has always been the worst read in politics but always the best read for footie imho. I agree with what the guys says about Murdoch backing Cameron because of trying to take power from the beeb.

Funnily enough the Sun has some of the best political writing although there is very little of it.

Their political chief of many years is considered to be best.

Unfortunately this passes most people by, because they put their politics on page two.

Any journalist will tell you that page two is the least read page of any newspaper, but in the case of the Sun it obviously never gets read at all.

 

[cunning fergus]

As I said, you've completely misunderstood the ruling. It's a very common place thing that would pass by in America without comment.

It's all about ensuring that television channels are available on a number of platforms or equipment if that's easier to understand.

Nothing to do with Sky dominating the football coverage, rather more to do with them also dominating the sale of equipment to view it.

The free market doesn't like that, I didn't have you down as a communist but each to his own.

The ruling also allows (well actually encourages) Sky to place pay per view services on Freeview, something they were never allowed to do before which somewhat proves my point. It will increase their viewing figures.

So a very capitalist right wing ruling, greasing the wheels of the market and ensuring competition. Thatcher would be proud of it.

Sky will thank Ofcom in the future, since having to rely on a dish on the side of the house to watch a channel is going to look a bit dated in the not too distant future.

Lord Bracknell, I honestly don't think it has much to do with "monopolies", more to do with the capitalist obsession with breaking up industries that control the whole supply chain. Comrade Fergus needs to embrace the market.

Nope, you are missing my point......albeit I have made a few.

Ofcom has forced SKY to reduce its prices to other providers for SKY Channels, on the basis that this increase consumer choice.

I would argue its got f*** all to do with OFCOM BT, Virgin and the rest should get off their arses and do someting about it. SKY did in the 90s so they deserve to be in the dominant position (similar to Microsoft with their products).

SKY should not be forced to cap its prices, and you are assuming getting onto Freeview for them is a positive......maybe it will increase market share, but what about the integrity of the product darling......we dont want it to be available to the oiks on freeview.

There's the nub sports channels and the like are not essential, if the Govt want to help consumers they could abolish the TV licence so we could have some real competition in the UK market or address another more important consumable like Petrol.

In our straightened times I would suggest more people are concerned about the price of petrol than SKY channels.

Uber Thatcherites like you may disagree.

 

[clapham_gull]

.....similar to Microsoft with their products.

.. and look what happened to them in the land of the free.

This ruling is good for Sky in the long run, they will realise that trying to dominate the receiving equipment is a bit of a short term view.

Bit like Microsoft with the internet. They didn't see it coming and it's worth nothing that in just a few years the majority of the people accessing it won't be doing via a Microsoft product.

As for Sky their means of distribution is looking terribly dated.

 

[cuthbert]

Independent have come out for the Lib Dems (again).

The Sun was originally a Labour Party by the way.

I way be wrong, but I'm lead to believe that the Sun's readership has generally been predominantly Labour voters.

Someone with a good memory. The Daily Herald was a Labour supporting newspaper losing lots of money in the early 60s, it relaunched as The Sun and was still Labour supporting. It still lost money and after a couple of years or so was bought by Murdoch and relaunched again as a tabloid I would guess about 1969. I used to read the old Sun and bought the tabloid on the first day but never since.