Who's listening?
In politics, you should always ask yourself why people are saying the things that they're saying.
At the moment, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are competing for the ear of a single man - Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail. It's the paper which both men believe has a direct line to the voters of Middle England and which, although it's traditionally Tory backing, is willing to heap praise or pour ordure on to the heads of leaders of either party.
Dacre has long been close to Brown. So much so that he attended the funeral for the Brown's first child, Jennifer. The two men may disagree about much - not least Europe and the need to cut taxes - but they also recognise that they are kindred spirits in other ways - not least their aversion to what they would regard as the spin and lack of substance of Messrs Blair and Cameron.
Yet it was Mr Cameron who won the first round of the "Battle for Dacre's ear" with his promise of a tax cut to back marriage. The very next day (a coincidence?) Gordon Brown went onto the radio to remind people that he was a son of a Church of Scotland minister before going on to announce a U turn on Super Casinos. You've guessed it, he was rewarded with a glowing editorial in the Mail.
Today at PMQs I suspect both men were trying to drop a word in the ear of Dacre and, whilst they were at it, Middle England too. David Cameron asked about the crimes committed by those released early from prison. Meantime, Gordon Brown announced a review of whether cannabis should be upgraded to Class B from Class C. Just the sort of thing Mr Dacre might like.
Both men may be disappointed today as I suspect the Mail may focus on their enemy of choice - that's right, the 91Èȱ¬.
I'm 
Comments
Both leaders pandering to the Daily Mail - how depressing politics has become.
I watched PMQ's earlier and I also wondered why Gordon now only seems to wear blue ties. I remember in the early days of New Labour he seemed to only sprout red ones. What's going on?!
I heard Nick make these very points to Andrew Neil and panel on the Daily Politics this morning after PMQs. I do not understand why everyone is scornful about politicians "pandering" to the Daily Mail if indeed it represents a vast swathe of current public opinion in the United Kingdom with a circulation of over 2million. Why does Helena Kennedy cringe about this and Nick seems to think it is worth repeated mention? The 91Èȱ¬ invariably invites left-wing journalists such as David Aaronovitch and Kelvin MacKenzie of the Daily Mirror onto its panels. It used to be Michael White of the Guardian who made regular appearances. Is this more acceptable? What puzzles me is why the 91Èȱ¬ as a news organisation is forever focused on the print news media and their journalists. Don't have them as panellists - get experts in their field to speak on the 91Èȱ¬. If you did not forever promote your colleagues in the print press we would not know whether Mr Dacre was impressed or not - unless we bought or read his newspaper out of choice.
I've decided how to make my fortune! Put in a bid for the House of Commons catering contract and install the worlds largest Custard Pie plant with a conveyor belt to the front bench arena. "The House" has become so much like its other infamous namesake with crazy inmates seeking attention and the " Top Prize" that we may as well go the whole hog and have visual slapstick to go with the half baked policies they are currently flinging at each other. Well I know we always have had Theresa May's shoes but I don't want to seem sexist.
Well I'm just glad I'm off on my hols next week before I die of boredom from this lot. How do you put up with it all?
As an avid and proud reader of the Daily Mail for these last ten years I can tell you it was the only opposition party around whilst the Tories were naval gazing!!
Thankfully all has now changed.We have an opposition at last!
I can also tell you that Daily Mail readers loath the Labour Party and all that it stands for.If they start supporting G.B their sales will go into frefall!!
Oh no!
Does this mean that we can expect a return to "hanging and flogging" from both of them any day soon?
I'm no 'dope' but re-grading cannabis isn't an answer to the drug problem in the UK. When it is legal in other parts of the developed world, cannabis consuming Britons will pour scorn over any proposal to increase the severity of the crime.
Cameron, it pains me to say, has a point about early release schemes. Quite wrong!
As for tax breaks for wedded couples - what an idiotic policy! The Tories are so out of touch with everyday reality. Already, divorces cost thousands upon thousands of pounds. Splitting assets, solicitors, child maintenance etc. Does fresh faced Dave (remember they guy who's just like you) really think couples are going to take into consideration a tax-break on top of all their other emotional and financial hardships? When will the Tory party learn that not everything boils down to money.
Buying a lower divorce rate with a tax-break - what will they think of next?!
Nick,
I am sure that you know better than I do but isn't it time to get back to the original purpose of PMQs. The requiremenst that the Prime Minister answers questions. Planted questions, and using the occasion to make grand announcements just devalues the exercise and diverts attention from the need for Brown to answer for his actions.
The truth is, most newspapers are simply populist. The Sun supported Thatcher in the 80s; helping her win two landslide victories and then supported the New Labour campaign in 1997. As for the Daily Mail; I really think that which ever party comes up with the best answer to house prices will probably get the Mail's support...and it's readers.
Ken from Glos (Gloucester? Glossop?) says Daily Mail sales would go into freefall if the paper starts supporting Gordon Brown.
This shocks me.
A world without the Daily Mail cannot be allowed to happen. Along with the fizzling-out of New Labour, us lefties would have nothing to take the mick out of.
Shame on Brown and Cameron then.
My touchstone is that if Paul Dacre and his paper doesn't approve of it - whoever it is must be doing something right.
RE: Ken from Glos
I've never understood why anyone would be 'proud' of the newspaper they read, beyond trying to make some kind of ill-advised statement about their social standing. By the partisan nature of the things you're basically just saying:
"I am proud that I seek to reassure my existence by reading something that I already know I will agree with."
That's the beauty of the internet age. I can read stories from any number of different sources (including those all important newspapers) and see the different perspectives. And yes, challenge myself by reading a perspective I won't instantly agree with.
Being "proud" of reading the Daily Mail is being proud of sitting in a cosy middle-class bubble where life is easy- I don't know why you'd want to boast to people about that...
Ken is actually right. The Daily Mail were the de facto opposition for years, taking on the issues that my party had neither the bottle or gusto to address. Yes, the paper can be both cantankerous and unfair but the reality is that it speaks for a lot of people. The Guardianistas can bang on about progressive politics all they like ,but they're in a self-righteous, faintly absurd minority.
Gordon Brown has a touch of the Paul Daniels about him lately.He lets David Cameron set the agenda then pulls a rabbit from his hat it's such an obvious stategy.The Guardian columnists think he is a genius,what's new? As for the Daily Mail if it were a political party I don't think many would vote for it.
Now where did I put that Prince CD.
Don't miss , Nick.
Oh no...
One of the most valuable lessons I ever learnt at school was when our 'current affairs' teacher asked us one day which newspaper did our parents read.
As we trotted out the various rags, Times, Mail, Express, Sketch, Mirror etc. he shocked me by then telling us that he could probably predict which political party our parents voted for.
As my parents read the Express, he correctly predicted that they voted Tory (I never have voted for any mainstream party - I will always choose the independent candidate).
To my mind, there is no doubt that for unsophicated non-political people, the subtle drip, drip of bias emanating from the press can have a profound influence on the reader.
So, political leaders find that it is very worthwhile to curry favour with these newspaper editors/barons.
It would be healthier for democracy if the people learn a bit more about politics and could then 'see' the bias present in some reportage, and filter it accordingly.
I used to read the DM, as it was a convienent tabloid size but, particularly after a trip to Australia, where I found the media incredibly positive on the whole, eventually I simply grew tired of the DM 'rant' mode and simply stopped reading it and I feel a lot better without it.
Nick
The more we hear the more we know that the changed character of Gordon (no spin)Brown and New Labour is cosmetic - of the lipstick on a pig variety.Gordon is a son of the manse but with hymns on his lips and lies in his teeth.
Pity the opposition is so inept.
If the Daily Mail is a direct line to Middle England voters, then we're all doomed.
Fortunately I don't see a circulation of 2 million out of a population of more than 60 million as being a "vast swathe". A disappointing number of people to be willing to read bigoted hatred, to be sure, but hardly a vast swathe.
Have to agree with the last commenter - ken from glos. I have never EVER, EVER had anything published in the Daily Mail, because I have the absolute barefaced cheek to clearly support Tony Blair.
On the other hand every other paper in the country will publish something I send in. What a prejudiced and narrow minded paper it is.
Unfortunately, like the Murdoch empire, (which does publish all ranges of opinion), the Mail holds sway with many.
I recently spoke with some Mail readers whose hatred for Blair had been fed by the Mail, conspiracy junk and all. It took me all of fifteen minutes to explain WHY they and the Mail were SO wrong about the man. In the end, I felt a touch of missionary satisfaction! (Of course they'll STILL read The Mail.)
If Brown wants to win the Mail over he'll have to cash in on his friendship with the editor, as did Blair with Murdoch, seemingly. That's life today!
That'll mean taking on the New Conservative & New, New Labour stuff that differentiates Brown from Blair, while trying to hold on to middle England (er ... Britain).
I think Blair's task in the Middle East might be somewhat easier.
In the meantime, Mr Brown AND Mr Cameron, what are you going to do about the radicalisation problems which have bred for the last 20 years in some British mosques, and are still being permitted so to do?
What do you mean you hadn't thought of that one?
Both leaders are pretending to be nice to the middle classes (to con them out of their vote), whilst enacting or promoting policies that squeeze them almost out of existence.
Both leaders pretending to be different from each other, when chasing the same globalist unipolar dream?
Is it any wonder that the mass of the British electorate are totally turned off by politics?
Then we have the supinely craven media presenting them both as genuine leaders, when they are merely puppets of the global banking families.
We need a Pro UK party to really make a breakthrough and that will be difficult with the media excluding them and promoting he Rothschild's' agenda.
The intrusion of the Press is interesting.
May we be informed who owns the Press and the reason for their interest?
Nick R
Re my note of the 19/07/07 will you help on this one? I trust that you regard it as part of your responsibilities to keep your readers fully informed.
As a political commentator you will also know why the Mail is "traditionally Tory backing". Will you also enlighten us on why this should be the case?
Many people are just beginning to ask whether these "newspapers" are really newspapers or just propaganda instruments and if the latter who is personally responsible.
I am happy to make a choice on which newspaper I buy, and make up my own mind. I totally object to the institutional left wing bias by the 91Èȱ¬ for which I am forced to pay.