If children didn't believe in Santa, thousands of grown men wouldn't dress up in fur-trimmed red jumpsuits, put on false beards, and give children unwanted gifts in tents every year. Perhaps some would, but they'd probably be arrested. For the past fortnight, TV and newspaper editors in the UK have pushed aside stories of famine …
"the focus on immigration, when you compare it to the increase in population through birth is very minor" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pprojnr1009.pdf. It is, and will be, a major part of population increase in the UK.
"Regardless, as far as I'm aware, net migration, as far as I'm aware, is still returning to the previous rough figure". Wrong. It is remaining at the high level that has been since 2000 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/miga1110.pdf
The conflation of concern about immigration, and the presumption of racism is a nasty new orthodoxy.
So, you tell me why there are large numbers of British workers that can't be employed even to pick vegetables? Who's fault is that?
Could be they can't find British workers provided with transport / accommodation and guaranteed employment without experience, work history or references?
"Why does the influx of immigrants being white mean it's not a racist issue?"
Because it's not racist to hate micks, krauts and day-gos; froggies and cloggies; gypsies, spicks and wops. Obviously.
(Says a "mick", before you start.)
And of course..
***or is it a case of the farms only managing to survive because of that cheap labour being around?***
And, of course, EU subsidies, without which British agriculture would be bankrupt.
But Europe's evil innit?
Even with the rebate we pay far more into the EU than we get out of it. We could pay those subsidies directly, why do we need to have it administered by a remote bureaucracy that hasn't had its accounts signed off for the last decade or more?
The EU adds administrative costs and sucks up a load of money that we could use to benefit our own people instead of paying for other countries' failed economic policies.
Wakey, wakey Howard
Our farms are massively subsidised by Whitehall already. The EU adds more subsidies. Without the EU we could top up our subsidies to save the farms.... or not.
But it would still cost us less than being in the EU, because our cost of membership includes lots of other things we wouldn't have to do - massive Brussels bureaucracy, bailing out Greece, etc.
You'll be saying the EU makes the sun shine, next.
benefit our own people...
by which you mean ashcroft?
cos you know thats what would happen if those self serving bastards at westminster got their greedy mitts on it.
meanwhile the 'ordinary' people of the UK would be crippled meeting the cost of non subsidised food
great idea that one, i think you should take the rest of the day off
Just to correct you
'Even with the rebate we pay far more into the EU than we get out of it. We could pay those subsidies directly, why do we need to have it administered by a remote bureaucracy that hasn't had its accounts signed off for the last decade or more?'
The EU has never had its accounts signed off - they can't get them to balance.
EU Tax drain
My gf works in academic research (climate change actually) which involves very regular worldwide conferences (holidays) all paid for by EU grants. She constantly tells me it costs the UK nothing because Europe pays for it. When I try and explain the error of her thinking, she says I just don't understand. Maybe she should read the Sun to become more informed.
"bailing out Greece,"
Other countries in the *Eurozone* are committed to baling out Greece.
The UK does not have the Euro as its currency.
It *is* committed to support arrangements to *all* other countries through the IMF.
The real issue with Greece is how much crap is circulating as "Credit default swaps" between UK and other banks. IE the laid off odds traded by the merchant gamblers of the City of London.
Sound familiar? This is *exactly* the pattern of nonsense that brought on the last world banking crisis but with a different source (Greek, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish, hell let's just call it the *Southern* debt, that's been accumulating for *years*) instead of US banks dishing out mortgages to Otis Q Crackhead.
Same s**t, different bucket.
Perhaps this time when the gamblers say "Save us" HMG will have the b**ls to say "no".
Just a thought.
Naughtyhorse, you must be very young. Anyone old enough to be buying the groceries when Heath took us into the (then) Common Market will remember with a shudder what happened to food prices. The EU has never subsidised food, at least not for Europeans. It subsidises farmers.
The EU...subsidises farmers.
Not really. Not effectively, anyway.
On the continent, it subsidises small farmers and co-operatives to maintain a standard of living and the kind of countryside that proves so popular in, for example, Provence and Tuscany.
In the UK, it subsidises giant factory farms (because these were the emphasis of Government in the post-war austerity years and now are the only farmers rich enough to matter to politicians) and provides grants in order to help City bankers turn small Provence/Tuscany type farms into golf courses and leisure spas. It also levies fines where ancient forgotten footpaths are not disabled-friendly and, should you happen to produce enough milk to make a profit, it fines you double that profit.
Enough. It's bringing my famer's son side again, and the associated massive risk of suicide.
rather more Elliot Carver
I cannot see him as Soze
News International does not need to be financially sound....
or even to be widely read to have influence. It simply needs to identify a significant market segment (say like the Sun) and then to produce headlines and stories that play to that niche's perspective of the world in order to start to have influence over politicians and the public.
Murdoch's Fox New may only have 5.8 million viewers in the US but that is a guaranteed 5.8 million votes for the Republicans in the main. And it is on givens that parties build financial and solid bases to compete for power. The arguments around immigration and racist stories about muslims have had a major impact on the growth of parties like the BNP since the politician on the doorstep having their stories of favouritism re-inforced by the Sun, Mail and Express will have an impact.
People are like children, they trust those in power or seeking power to tell them the truth and the newspapers are seen as the people telling the truth, one only has to see the impact of the Telegraph's reporting of the MP expenses scandal (which was not always as accurate as we are led to believe) to see why the people believe them. And one good piece of journalism allows you to have lots of bad journalism which is all taken at face value.
The one piece in the article which is accurate however is that Murdoch is not the "Bad Man", media in general fits that role perfectly. At the end of the day all media sources have one objective to sell their view to the biggest possible audience and if that means publishing salacious gossip or using underhand tricks to generate stories then so be it. They all do it.
In terms of the new media, yes politicans now see the benefit of using Google and other internet outlets to increase their visibility and make them seem brave, clever and with it. The new media will do the same as the old and abuse that desire for their own personal (and I really mean personal) profit.
And they wonder why we don't want to vote or engage with politics; their mates in the media (the arbiters of the public interest) have shafted them.
Those 5.8 million Fox News viewers would otherwise all be lining up to vote Democrat? Typical elitist nonsense - all these poor chavs/rednecks are just too stupid to work out where their best interests lie and must have them determined by the evil Murdoch empire, if only we could persuade them to read the Guardian and watch the BBC instead of Fox ...
All watched over...
.. I knew this was Orlowski as I get the voiceover from the series that was on BBC2 recently (which yeah, wasn't his voice but was involved) in my head when reading.
Great article, thanks.
I shall use it to annoy those gloating in my fb feed of his "demise"
Title goes here
He may have been given power, but it was because he hasd power.
Personally I read two news sources the Reg and BBC. You wont catch me buying a paper.
However, The utter tosh that they did not know what was going on it total crap.
They need to go to prison and the laws reformed so that the papers have the same rules as the TV media.
Be careful what you wish for.
You really think that Murdoch knew what was happening at ground level in a division that made up less than 1% of his empire? If so that would be a pretty epic case of micro management in his organisation of nearly 60 000 people.
You want new laws? The Telegraph's parliament expenses scandal story was based on illegally bought information. Guardians wikileaks story was based on illegally obtained information. I'm in no way supporting the behaviour towards Milly Dowler and similar cases, but we should be careful abut throwing out the baby with the bath water. ALL newspapers use private investigators. The PI that has brought about the current hysteria - also worked for the BBC's panorama. They need better morals but moralistic laws are usually pretty bad.
He's notorious for micro management
Haven't you read up on his management style? The fact the News of the World made up less than 1% in financial terms, is itself pretty telling, given how much he used to obsess about it. It's not about income, with Rupert.
In fact, within twenty minutes of Rupert's statement during testimony, that he would phone the editor off the News of the World "maybe once a month", we had Piers Morgan (of all people) asserting that he would get phoned at least once a week, by Rupert, for upwards of twenty minutes, to discuss what news stories they were running with.
The 1% thing is a smoke screen: The Times loses Rupert money, but it's still a flagship product. The telling thing about the old man, is how much more the influence mattered to him, than the money. It doesn't matter where you think he got it, or whether you think he got it without merit: he still loved having it and trying to use it.
What influence did the NoW give him? The power to make Kerry Katona a household name? It never had a politics related story in it unless a (usually tory) politician was caught with a prostitute. He may well have called up every week to see what the story was, but thats very different from knowing how the story was obtained, who obtained it and what their names were - I suspect he couldn't care less about that.
Personally I'm much more concerned by the power of the state owned BBC, which we are all effectively forced to pay for through the TV tax. If people didn't like what Murdoch published then they simply wouldn't have bought it!
Get to the point: the 1% thing is a smoke screen.
It was Britain's biggest selling news paper. You really think that didn't matter to him? Your arguing business logic over a guy whose business is anything but logical.
"Murdoch's mythical power owes a great deal to Labour's failure to win the 1992 General Election"
Only if you slept, soundly, during the entire 1980's.
This article really is all over the place. Assertion presented as fact, ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with the conclusion.
"The Beeb avoided immigration because of the (genuine) historical racist overtones: however immigration really ceased being a racist issue after May 1 2004, when the largest wave of immigration the UK has ever seen began – and which was almost entirely white."
So it couldn't have been a racist issue because almost all the immigrants were white; instead, it was merely xenophobic. Was that your point?
How the left has always argued
If you don't support us you're xenophobic/homophobic/ islamophobic (insert boo-word of choice here). There's a case to be made for the benefits of immigration, EU membership etc. Why don't you try making it instead of insulting your opponents?
Here's a question or two
If Thatcher had referred The Times bid to the regulators and said to Murdoch "I don't want or need your support, do what you like", what would have happened? If Murdoch had stayed entirely neutral, would Kinnock have won? Would Blair have lost?
Yep, spot on
I think Andrews’s article describes the power of the Murdoch myth quite accurately. As an example, click on over to www.thedailymash.co.uk, check out the article the day before Murdock appeared on telly at the commission, title "Are you scared yet? Britain spent last night staring at the ceiling with its duvet clutched tightly under its chin". This, satirically of course, highlights our collective British view of Murdock as this all powerful Soze type. Then look at the article following the event, title "Murdochs know far less about NI than you do".
The collective view has been challenged, that event showed the reality of Murdoch simply didn't match up to the Myth, turns out he's not that threatening at all.
Now this Chase Carey dude, he looks like a right scary monster!
Ah yes the Daily Mash
That's me persuaded. The Daily Mash suggests it therefore it's true.
How about the suggestion that the mash and orlowski are constructing a neat straw man.
Nobody is seriously suggesting he is the devil incarnate "merely" a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
If you can dismiss (or mock) the fancied suggestion that he is the devil incarnate you risk* minimising the fact he's a nasty piece of work.
(*unless this is your aim from the start)
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist
Different fictional character
He's no Keyser Soze but he's definitely Citizen Kane material.
Fox News. Need I say more? Well I'll elaborate the plethora of right wing nuts that they employ what is largely their hate, all day long, day after day, and who runs that evil show?
Oh and not forgetting how he empowers women in the UK on daily basis by getting them to get to display their .....
Nobody watches it.
Maybe he is giving his audiences what they want? I dont agree with what they put out, and therefore i dont watch/read it - but who the fuck am I to tell other people what to watch/read? I'm pretty sure they wouldnt agree with what I watch/read as well!
The people who choose to watch Fox news or read the Sun, are the people who already believe in that stuff.
You are so wrong here
You said yourself, 5 million people watch it. This may seem insignificant in a country of approx 300 million, but remember that not that so many people there watch the news. Furthermore, those that do watch the other news channels tend to do so because they're free thinkers. Most of those that watch Fox News obey Fox News. So in light of that, 5 million obedient viewers is quite an army to be able to lobby with.
Are these real operational losses or accounting losses to avoid paying tax? How much does News Corp or its subsidiaries charge the papers for 'services'?
Probably an accident waiting to happen
I found this article interesting because I was coming to much the same conclusion myself - for a while. Somehow I couldn't quite see that the profits or readership size of Murdoch's empire (at least the UK part) justified his level of influence in the UK. The statistics in the article are interesting and confirm what I'd learned from other sources.
But thinking further, there is one very good reason why Murdoch's newspapers are a lot more influential than the apparently much larger BBC news output. It appears acceptable for newspapers to conduct political campaigns, without pretending to be balanced, whereas (say) the BBC at least has to pretend to be unbiased.
So I think that makes Murdoch's newpaper business the largest political organ in the UK and this is probably why it has a lot of political influence. That's not by accident of course - Murdoch subsidises key newspapers from the rest of his business precisely because of their political impact.
So in a sense. we have set ourselves up for this by not requiring political neutrality in newspaper publishing and not limiting the size of newspaper groups based on political influence (but only on market share in a business sense). Given that newspapers are the one area where these two "freedoms" co-exist, perhaps it's not surprising that this is where problems have arisen.
the most amusing part here in the comments..
..besides all the twisting and scraping to support the conspiracy of Murdoch being the evil person the *competition* wants him to be, is that they cannot apply the same logic to other 'media moguls' the same.
using the defensive logic of the satan-claus theory (deliberate!) defenders, then ALL major news outlet owners have the same influence and must be held accountable for every misstep their outlets perpetrate. You cannot release the Sulzbergers and the Soros's from the same liability, responsibility, or scope of influence that you demand of Murdoch.
Conversely, if those news outlets who are caught manufacturing stories, misreporting lies, and selling a candidate for President (being "in the tank" or the "journoList" issue) are to be considered separate "mistakes" and not an indictment of those outlets' owners, then you must give the same benefit of the doubt to Murdoch as well.
Lies and media distortion are the same evil regardless of if it supports your prejudices or not. Advocating or supporting anything else is simply at best, using politics and media to destroy a competitor in definite violation of anti-competitive laws. At worst, it's trying to force an ideologically based purge of opinions that you don't agree with.
We've done horrific wars to defeat the latter.
Announcement ( The New Wizard of OZ ) playing down under
Wendi's part has been filled by a lady with real balls
Cowardly Lion , Tin-man, Scarecrow applications for parts ( pun) are totally oversubscribed
This Orlowski bloke...
... he's some nut that pays you to allow him to publish random nonsense in your publication right? It's not like you pay him or anything, I assume - after all bull farmers will give you their waste products for free.
1992 Evening Standard headline: Labour to introduce 60% tax
I've never had a post deleted on a forum before (and I managed get my first too). Seem to get lots of articles like this that ignore the fact that there is no balance in newsprint, the above headline was on election day. You forget it was Kinnock vs John Major he wasn't exactly telegenic either, fear and outright lies won that election. The right then as now employ columnists and newspapers to do the dirty job of making the public sector, unions etc. the scapegoat for all the nations ills, the conservatives don't have to make an argument the papers do it for them.
Whats your point? The right use fear of increased Taxes. The left use fears of increased Cuts. Same difference and it pretty much sums up the political system of the UK!
Also the left leaning press is just as large as the right leaning press (left is actually far bigger if you subscribe to the view that the BBC is left leaning) The difference is that the left press is more fragmented.
Btw - I think some of you seem to forget that ENGLAND votes Conservative by a large majority every election - its the other nations which allow Labour to gain power occasionally. Is it that much of a surprise that Conservative leaning papers are the best selling when countries like Scotland basically have a separate press - almost all supporting Labour?
Murcoch's an influential guy....
But honestly, his competitors gave him a lot of his chance. His generally right wing news organizations exist largely because they are are a foil to the more lefty mainstream press.
And if he was REALLY influential, he wouldn't be getting investigated and subpeonad the way he is. With criminal investigations going on in the U.S. and UK, its going to be tough on the Murdoch family's finances if guilty verdicts come down. I doubt the arrests will get as far as Rupert, though.
A foil to the more lefty mainstream press?
Strange, I see it a little differently. Murdoch isn't just countering the perceived bias in lefty mainstream press, he's countering the well-known lefty bias of reality.
The New Wizard of Oz Sequel - The case of the missing small round objects - Act 1
Johnny, whose name implied he had some but didn't, was trounced by Wendi whose sex implied she didn't but obviously did. Ed who shared his with David wasn't wearing them that day so was out of the picture. Gordon always said his were stolen by Tony who rented them as needed anyway, or so Cherie said. Rupert had upside down golden ones and had them fearlessly protected by Wendi and she checked them often. James got rid of his as he was sadly awaiting a pair like Rupert which probably will not happen as his sister Liz has a bigger pair that work anyway. Boris had the biggest ones in town but claimed parliamentary privileged to play with them so no one could watch except by appointment. The Royals all claim theirs are better as they have crowns and are bright blue ( ouch ) and they wear white gloves in case they have to handle ( Do not say play with ) the ghastly things
Stay tuned for Act 2.
Politicians did it to themselves.
Pol "Did you really swing the last X elections"
RM "You better believe it and if you know what's good for you you'll see things my way"
If any group in power is *so* afraid of the exposure of their private lives or that someone can influence so much public opinion they fear that person then frankly they are *not* in power.
And they let him. They believed the hype.
Thumbs down for the politicians, *not* the article.
The point is that its not possible to have a sensible debate on Europe as there have been so many lies. We pay money to Europe in an attempt to bring all European countries infrastructure etc. to a good level. The countries that bankroll this have tended to more than get their money back in exports from their (now free markets), so may have been good for the Uk. The Euro has messed things up, but Germans like to fix things rather than run away at the first sign of difficulty.
Ah yes.... a flood of unskilled eastern europeans which the country can't do anything about (who mostly came over to do jobs that the Great Unwashed simply WON'T do because they're better off on the dole) leads to a kneejerk reaction which effectively bans every other category except the ones at the centre of the complaints (categories who don't have access to council housing, benefits, etc and who are mostly skilled people doing jobs the Great Unwashed CAN'T do because they mostly can't be bothered getting off their asses and getting some training.)
For all those moaning about skilled foreigners being cheaper, therefore reducing incentive for employers to hire locals - for the most part those foreigners have had to entirely fund their own training/education, unlike here. That they're cheaper is a myth - employers can't take on foreigners unless there are no suitable local applicants and they have to pay some fairly stiff fees to the home office to get them approved.)
It's been pointed out repeatedly that 80-90% of the housing shortages in the southeast are a result of _internal_ migration. Imagine the stink kicked up if people get told they can't move from Manchester to London to hunt work.
Why pick on
Why pick on 'specifically the past two Prime Ministers'?
Why was the Rusting Woman called 'Murdoch's poodle' when she was P.M.?
BTW was anybody else reminded of Ernest Saunders when Rupe was at Westminster the other day?
Last time I looked in here, there was no problem in Fukushima. Now I learn that Mr Murdoch only is influential because british politicians somehow are under the collective delusion that he is influential. And his influence is vastly overrated. Why don't you write a self help book - sort of: "Murdoch's no danger to political careers, it' all in your attitude"?
Hindsight - what a thing
Alright, just because he looked a bit doddery - perhaps intentionally - and employed what someone else whose identity escapes me now very accurately described as the Mafia Defence (ie falling asleep, looking puzzled as to why he's even there, and occasionally exclaiming "What??! Who??!!") doesn't mean he's suddenly a harmless old teddy bear, maligned. Murdoch is nasty, and his nastiness is clearly visible in the nasty culture prevalent in his organisation, which is - to anyone not stupid or courting controversy/pageviews - obviously a reflection of his personality and personal creed. I know the Reg loves being contrarian, but that's no excuse to be plain daft.