The Tory press hopes to shove the Labour party to the Right
Not content with telling people how to vote in the election, the Tory press is now looking to ensure the Labour party chooses a candidate it likes.
Thus we’ve seen positive coverage of so-called Blairite contenders such as Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna (who has dropped out of the race and endorsed Kendall) and hostile coverage of the supposedly ‘Left’ contenders such as Andy Burnham.
The Times and the Telegraph ran cheerful profiles about the ‘refreshing’ Ms Kendall. Even the Sun gave the ‘bold’ MP for Leicester the sort of warm coverage usually reserved for the Conservatives, as she ‘trashed most of Ed Miliband’s policies’ and backed free schools and more defence spending.
Meanwhile, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, who has secured the backing of more Labour MPs, is bloodied in the familiar style of the general election coverage.
Today’s Sun is an exaggerated form of the general trope:
“Andy Burnham today makes a desperate bid to prove he is not a union puppet.”
That’s not from an editorial column. It’s the first line of a news story.
Despite the facts being much the same – criticism of Ed Miliband and Labour’s past, pro-business talk – the contrast with the Kendall coverage is striking. The paper pulls Burnham apart for ‘aiming to woo business’ after ‘speculation Mr Burnham is Unite union chief Len McCluskey‘s choice as leader’.
The Sun says column lays it out:
“The hasty U-turn by top Labour MPs since their election disaster is jaw-dropping.
Who knows now what Andy Burnham actually stands for? One minute he’s Ed Miliband’s class-war henchman. The next he claims ‘the entrepreneur will be as much our hero as the nurse’ and admits Labour DID spend too much.
Pull the other one. And let’s see him say it to Red Len McCluskey’s face.”
(The U-turn point is interesting. If MPs had stuck to their previous positions, the same papers would be saying they are ignoring the verdict of the electorate, and had learned nothing from past mistakes.)
The piece goes on to praise Caroline Flint, who is running for deputy leader:
“Caroline Flint was another Miliband front-bencher. But there’s a difference between her and Burnham when she says she wants to appeal to Sun readers. She sounds genuine.”
What has Caroline Flint done to please the Sun? Under the Burnham news story, a piece on Ms Flint begins:
“Labour needs to start attacking benefits scroungers as much as bankers if it wants to regain power, says shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint.
The party’s deputy-leader hopeful said it must speak to Sun readers and aspirational voters once more.
She added the party should be comfortable giving a ‘kick up the backside’ to those choosing to live on benefits.”
Note the contrast here. Flint is praised for sounding ‘genuinely’ more conservative than Burnham.
Meanwhile, I’ve not seen any coverage of another ‘deputy leader hopeful’: the high profile Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy, who received an increased majority on a joint Labour and Co-operative Party ticket in the general election.
Ms Creasy is thought to be on the Left of the party, and is probably best known for taking on payday loan scammers Wonga.
She ‘sounds genuine’ too, though I won’t hold my breath about Sun coverage.
Because what we see is the right-wing press hoping to move the Labour party to the right, and influence the terms not just of the leadership election debate but of future general elections.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Read more:
The Sun wants to scrap the Human Rights Act…after using it to defend its reporters
Daily Mail says Syrian refugees turn Greek holiday town into ‘disgusting hellhole’
62 Responses to “Never mind the unions. What about the Sun’s influence on the Labour leadership contest?”
AlanGiles
Patrick: It just seems strage that Umunna who is never normally backwards in coming forwards should withdraw with such a weak excuse – he should have thought about all the Ed Miliband bashing he had seen in the weeks before. I don’t care if the man is gay – he just comes over as yet another pompous and condescending careerist, but what I do object to is sudden “girl-friends” popping up as extras in the soap opera world of politics, who are there for no real reason. If he is gay (and a lot of people tend to this view) why not be honest about it and say so, instead of employing what looks like a beard?
Kendall as I have said elsewhere is another Blair – constantly mithering about “change” for it’s own sake – sometimes you can change things for the worse. Blair even called himself a “change-maker”, which apart from being terrible English had an unfortunate side-effect – his change to war-monger made the people of the UK much less safe as the 7th and 22nd July 2005 proved, and Kendall is Blair’spreferred successor – who, in their right mind, would accept advice from that man? (except of course the despots and dictators who employ him for large fees)
AlanGiles
Patrick: Perceived “homophobia” see the reply I have given you above, b ut lets come to this: a dead dog wearing a red rosette would have won from the Conservatives in 1997, as would Dennis Skinner, Dennis Healy or even Ed Miliband. people were sick to death of the sleaze and hypocrisy of the last Conservative years 1990-97 – the fact that the Conservatives were fighting among themselves didn’t help then, or in 2001 and in 2005 Michael Howard hadn’t had time to wash the dreadful Duncan-Smith years from the public conscience.
John Major’s real problem was that for many tories he wasn’t Mrs Thatcher. Milibands problem was that he wasn’t Blair or his older brother. While people continue to want Blair’s placemen/women in charge I suspect whoever wins the leadership contest this year will not win in 2020 whether that is Burnham or Kendall (I honestly don’t think Creagh or Cooper have much chance – who outside knows about Creagh (or Kendall, but she is at least getting publicity) and everyone will remember Cooper is Mrs. Balls.
In the end it doesn’t really matter because they are all identikit politicians. Burnham has the advantage that he sounds like an “ordinary” man and not like the pompous-plum-in-the mouth North London men, or women who aspire to make the Queen sound common
AlanGiles
I think you have to be entirely honest about what you believe in, otherwise you get into all sorts of trouble (the Conservatives with the third Heathrow runway, for example). I am totally against Heathrow and equally against Hs2 – because of enviromental issues. I do not think decimating what little is left of the English countryside so close to London is worth it to allow businessmen to get to Birmingahm 30 minutes quicker, at expensive prices for them, and even more expensive price for the natural world and the people they will inconvenience with the building and excavation work.
The trouble with far too many politicians of all parties is that they believe in what Groucho Marx said: “these are our principles – and if you dont like them, – well, we have others”
Say what you believe or else you come across as an untrustworthy phoney.
Ejacques1938
Self-serving, safe and vacuous wannabe Labour leaders. If they’ve got the answer it was a bloody silly question. Think I’ll concentrate on some gardening and DIY.
Patrick Lilley
Your latent homophobia (are you a self hating gay?) seeps with further comment onto the page: Ed M was forced to get married for Pete’s sake to comply to Victorian moral standards.
And even in the act of denial. You are insuniating and assuming he is a lying closet. That Chuka is paying or at least using a girl to act as his escort. This is rumour and gossip and any Labour party supporer should not be wasting time and using abusive terms like “beard”. And putting quotes aroudn the word “girlfriend”
Who are these “a lot of people” who you say tend to this view? I live and work and socialise at the heart of London gay and ethnic minority communites (including loads of hookers, cottagers, people on Grindr, Adam4Adam, Skruff or Growl) and have run gay events in South Londonfor the last 25 years with attendances of 100,000 people and I enjoy a good gossip and know ppl who do….and I have never come across ANY rumour or activity on Chuka. I have been on the board of the UK biggest LGBT black community organisatoin too… again nothing on my gaydar.
The only thing: he is thin skinned. (cf his walk out on telly interview).
That does not reflect on his sexuality.
I loathe this rumour based on nothing from what I have seen heard or felt.
So can you please withdraw you “phobic innuendo or back it up.
(Enough on Chuka – to be careerist? I dont really like that as character trait but hey is Andy B, Yvette C etc ? Prob.
Did it take more balls to pull out than stay in?
Knowing that would generate fevered (in you case) questions about his private life?