2.4 million voters desert Tories since Mitchell became their media adviser

by **Tony Bennett** 22.04.10 8:39

On 4 March, Clarence Mitchell was appointed second-in-charge to former News of the World editor Andy Coulson to help run the Conservatives' election campaign.

On that date, the 'poll of polls' average put the Conservatives on 38% - 39%.

Now they're at 32% to 33%.

A drop of around 6%.

With around 40 million voters, that's a loss of around 2.4 million votes

by ufercoffy 22.04.10 8:47

Maybe it's been a 'marketing ploy' to keep Labour in government, especially as Nick Clegg is having a hard time now.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.04.10 8:57

ufercoffy wrote:Maybe it's been a 'marketing ploy' to keep Labour in government, especially as Nick Clegg is having a hard time now.

I think it's worth looking at James Murdoch, the Murdoch heir-apparent...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...and what he is doing at the moment.

He is getting upset because Murdoch's man, David Cameron, may not win (see today's news).

by Ruby 22.04.10 10:24

I emailed you this earlier Tony; think it's also worth posting here:
"If the Lib Dems actually won, it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 22.04.10 10:36

Ruby wrote:I emailed you this earlier Tony; think it's also worth posting here:
"If the Lib Dems actually won, it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes, thank you, very relevant.

Here's Hugh Muir's piece in today's Guardian . I am bolding it and enlarging it because of the signficance I attach to it:

From Hugh Muir's Guardian diary: "Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election. You will," says the bright new poster for the bright new Independent and as a rallying point for new readers and a morale boost for staff, that seemed fine. But these things have a momentum of their own and Rupert is known to be a spiky type and so picture the scene at Indy HQ yesterday afternoon as both James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, the heaviest News Corps guns save for Rupert himself, went striding into the office of Simon Kelner, the editor-in-chief. There was no eavesdropping, say observers, but brows seemed furrowed. "It looked for all the world like a mafia capos visit," one told us. Puzzling. Scary.

NOTE:

Rupert Murdoch = Freud Communications = Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch = Clarence Mitchell = Blair/Borwn/Cameron = Meetings on yachts off Greek islands = the McCanns

by Laffin Assasin 22.04.10 11:40

Welfare ‘reform’ and David Freud’s defection to the Tories
By Fred McDowell
Wednesday, 18 February 2009

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

any connections ?

SEE BELOW from Wikipedia - yes, David Freud and Mathew Freud are related:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Anthony Freud, Baron Freud (born June 1950) is a British journalist, businessman and welfare adviser. He is the great grandson of the inventor of psycho-analysis Sigmund Freud.

Educated at Merton College, Oxford, Freud first worked for the Financial Times as a journalist where he spent four years writing the Lex column. In 1983 he was hired by the firm then known as Rowe & Pitman. He worked on more than 50 deals, raising more than £50bn in 19 countries. Many were high profile, including the flotations of Eurotunnel and EuroDisney, while he orchestrated the rescue of the Channel Tunnel railway link and National Air Traffic Services. His role in the deals, earned him a great deal of publicity and occasionally criticism. By 2003, Freud had become the vice-chairman of investing banking at the firm, now known as UBS AG. However, he retired early at the age 53, admitting to boredom with the City. He later served as the chief executive of the Portland Trust, which aims to promote the peace process through economic means in Palestine and Israel.

In late 2006, Freud was appointed by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to provide an independent review of the British welfare to work system. His recommendations called for expanded private sector involvement in the welfare system for substantial resources to be found to help those on Incapacity Benefit back into economic activity and for single parents to be required to work earlier. While his recommendations on single parents were immediately adopted and speeded up, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, other restructuring measures were soft-pedalled. However, he was later rehired as an adviser to the government when James Purnell was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2008. He worked to produce a white paper, published in December 2008, which would require most people receiving benefits to either participate in some form of employment or prepare themselves to find work later.

In February 2009 it was announced that Freud had joined the opposition Conservative Party. He was given a life peerage as Baron Freud, of Eastry in the County of Kent, and become a shadow minister for welfare in the House of Lords.

by Ruby 22.04.10 12:39

Top trend on twitter #NickCleggsfault lol!

EvanHD Extraordinary. Twitter parodies undercut media attacks on Clegg (#nickcleggsfault). Telegraph ends up defending itself. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Laffin Assasin 22.04.10 14:21

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Rebekah Wade, who Kelvin McKenzie told us supports McCanns 110%

Murdoch-Wade posse crash Independent's office – that's pretty uncool, isn't it?Rattled News International heavyweights respond to Cleggmania with visit to Simon Kelner's office

Things are hotting up. Hours after the traditional British election egg was thrown at David Cameron's shoulder, we learned this morning that James Murdoch and his enforcer, Rebekah Brooks, nee Wade, burst their way into the offices of the Independent to give executives a hard time.

More in the link.

by Laffin Assasin 22.04.10 14:22

Laffin Assasin wrote:Welfare ‘reform’ and David Freud’s defection to the Tories
By Fred McDowell
Wednesday, 18 February 2009

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

any connections ?

SEE BELOW from Wikipedia - yes, David Freud and Mathew Freud are related:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Anthony Freud, Baron Freud (born June 1950) is a British journalist, businessman and welfare adviser. He is the great grandson of the inventor of psycho-analysis Sigmund Freud.

Educated at Merton College, Oxford, Freud first worked for the Financial Times as a journalist where he spent four years writing the Lex column. In 1983 he was hired by the firm then known as Rowe & Pitman. He worked on more than 50 deals, raising more than £50bn in 19 countries. Many were high profile, including the flotations of Eurotunnel and EuroDisney, while he orchestrated the rescue of the Channel Tunnel railway link and National Air Traffic Services. His role in the deals, earned him a great deal of publicity and occasionally criticism. By 2003, Freud had become the vice-chairman of investing banking at the firm, now known as UBS AG. However, he retired early at the age 53, admitting to boredom with the City. He later served as the chief executive of the Portland Trust, which aims to promote the peace process through economic means in Palestine and Israel.

In late 2006, Freud was appointed by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to provide an independent review of the British welfare to work system. His recommendations called for expanded private sector involvement in the welfare system for substantial resources to be found to help those on Incapacity Benefit back into economic activity and for single parents to be required to work earlier. While his recommendations on single parents were immediately adopted and speeded up, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007, other restructuring measures were soft-pedalled. However, he was later rehired as an adviser to the government when James Purnell was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2008. He worked to produce a white paper, published in December 2008, which would require most people receiving benefits to either participate in some form of employment or prepare themselves to find work later.

In February 2009 it was announced that Freud had joined the opposition Conservative Party. He was given a life peerage as Baron Freud, of Eastry in the County of Kent, and become a shadow minister for welfare in the House of Lords.

Who edited my post ?

by lillyofthevalley 23.04.10 13:33

Laffin Assasin wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Rebekah Wade, who Kelvin McKenzie told us supports McCanns 110%

Murdoch-Wade posse crash Independent's office – that's pretty uncool, isn't it?Rattled News International heavyweights respond to Cleggmania with visit to Simon Kelner's office

Things are hotting up. Hours after the traditional British election egg was thrown at David Cameron's shoulder, we learned this morning that James Murdoch and his enforcer, Rebekah Brooks, nee Wade, burst their way into the offices of the Independent to give executives a hard time.

More in the link.

Well then lets hope she recieves the right amount of Karma the full 110% thumbsup

by Laffin Assasin 23.04.10 15:30

More "Lord Freud" with a bit of E.I thrown in, Clarence Mitchell has appeared at quite a few E.I organised events.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Kids Company discussion with Camila Batmangelidjh; Lord Freud; Mary Riddell. Highlights.

by Laffin Assasin 26.04.10 14:11

James Murdoch specifically threatened Alexander Lebedev 's son, Evgeny. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 26.04.10 23:30

Laffin Assasin wrote:James Murdoch specifically threatened Alexander Lebedev 's son, Evgeny. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

QUOTE

James, and his number two in London, Rebekah Brooks—a key confidant of the Murdoch children who was also involved in the confrontation with Kelner—had convinced the elder Murdoch, long sympathetic to Labour Party leader, Gordon Brown, to let them endorse the conservative leader, David Cameron, in the race. Alarmed by Cameron’s fall in the polls, the two have pressured their papers to pull out all the stops in an effort to aid the Conservatives and undermine Labour and the Lib-Dems.

“It is my job to see that Cameron fooking well gets into Downing Street,” proclaimed Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of the Sun, to a group of journalists from rival papers, recently.

Even Murdoch Sr. has lectured his son on such overt partisanship—and on the lack of any pretense otherwise. James, in his heated exchange with Kelner, threatened to investigate Evgeny Lebedev, the son of the Independent’s new owner, Russian businessman, Alexander Lebedev (also the owner of the Evening Standard). Murdoch Sr.—long of the view that it is ill-advised to personally attack other publishers, lest there be a ricochet effect—is said to have remonstrated that it is especially out of bounds to threaten family members.

James is sometimes described as trying to out-Murdoch his father. That may be too much Murdoch even for Rupert.

UNQUOTE

There was me thinking that the British people would make up their own minds which party was best to run Britain

by **Tony Bennett** 27.04.10 0:07

More on that Cameron deal with Murdoch on Murdoch's yacht off a Greek Island last year -see the passages in blue:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The BBC is caving in to a Tory media policy dictated by Rupert Murdoch

Mark Thompson is jumping from the second storey because he fears a new government may throw him from the roof

(378)Tweet this
(557)Comments (…)

Jonathan Freedland guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 21.00 GMT

Like a man who fears he's about to get knifed in the heart, so plunges the blade into his own leg instead, the BBC has decided its best strategy for self-preservation is to suffer a little pain now to avoid a lot of pain later.

The strategy review unveiled today offered up a couple of radio networks and half its web pages by way of a sacrifice. The latter sounds like a smart decision. The core business of the BBC is broadcasting – it's there in the name – and if it has to make a choice between radio, television and an uncountable number of web pages then radio and TV should always come first. (Full disclosure: I present The Long View, an occasional series on BBC Radio 4.)

But the axing of 6 Music and the Asian Network looks so dumb, you almost suspect it's a ruse. What better way to demonstrate the depth of public affection for the BBC than to trigger a Twitterwave of protest? If it's not a stunt, it's hard to explain why the BBC would cut two networks that all but embody the corporation's mission. 6 Music exists partly because if it wasn't there, the market would never invent it: a specialist channel offering not the hamster's wheel of a repetitive playlist but curated, eclectic music. "Like friends playing each other bits from their record collections," Jarvis Cocker said yesterday.

As for the Asian Network, the BBC director-general says British Asians will now be served across the rest of the BBC's output. Sounds nice, but something tells me Radio 2 is not about to clear its schedule for an hour of Bollywood and bhangra, or current affairs in Bengali. So those programmes – a perfect example of the BBC serving the entire nation – would be lost.

With luck, the BBC Trust will see sense and veto those two proposals, deciding that since 6 Music only costs £9m and the Asian Network £12.1m – sums that would barely cover Alan Yentob's taxi bill – axing them is not worth the aggravation.

In need of more attention might be the services for teens. I don't pretend to be a regular user of Switch or Blast, but I'm troubled by the BBC's argument that its role in providing for teenagers will be "secondary" to that of Channel 4 and others. Troubled because the corporation's future depends on Britons getting the BBC habit early. Troubled too because the move is a concession to the whiskery rightwing argument that the BBC should meet only those needs that are not provided for elsewhere. If the BBC has no need to address teens because C4 already does that, why does it bother with sport, given that Sky does that; or news, since there's always ITN? Follow that logic, and the corporation would end up exactly where its commercial rivals want it to be: as a subscriber service for a handful of tiny audiences whose niche tastes are so unprofitable no one else will cater to them. The strategy review should have held firm on the principle that underpins the universal licence: that everybody in Britain should get something from the BBC.

So why has Mark Thompson done it? Because he feared that if he didn't jump from the second storey window, an incoming Conservative government would push him off the roof. He is right to be anxious. The Tories have indeed signalled a hostility to the BBC that is rare, if not unprecedented, in an opposition. Why might that be? Two words: Rupert Murdoch.

People often speak of the unique influence of the media magnate, with his combination of economic and political muscle, but "influence" doesn't quite capture it. Instead David Cameron has simply allowed News Corp to write the Conservative party's media policy.

Start with the BBC. Murdoch, with son James, can't stand it – regarding it, a senior figure in broadcasting tells me, as "like the Ebola virus: they can't destroy it, so they try to contain it". They dress up their opposition in pseudo-intellectual free market blather, but the reality is much earthier than that: the BBC is a rival, and therefore an obstacle to their commercial ambitions. The smaller and weaker the BBC becomes, the more money News Corp can make.

So the Murdochs constantly demand a cut in the licence fee. Last year Cameron nodded dutifully, and called for an immediate freeze in the licence fee. That would have marked an unprecedented break in the multi-year financial settlement that is so integral to the BBC's independence – preventing it from constantly having to make nice to the politicians to keep the money coming in.

Second only to their loathing of the BBC is the Murdochs' hatred of Ofcom, the regulator that stands between them and monopolistic domination of the entire UK media landscape. They particularly dislike Ofcom snooping into pay-TV, an area that makes billions for Sky. How odd, then, that a matter of days after the regulator published a proposal that would have forced Sky to charge less for its sport and movie channels, Cameron, in a speech on quangos, suddenly singled out Ofcom, suggesting it would be cut "by a huge amount", possibly even replaced altogether.

That's the pattern in one area after another. James Murdoch laments the success of BBC radio in outstripping the commercial alternatives. Ed Vaizey, the Tories' would-be broadcasting minister, suggests selling BBC Radio 1 and letting commercial stations use the frequency.

Sky wants to keep exclusive access to the Ashes, rather than seeing them return, free to air, to the BBC or C4, and the Conservatives agree. Not at first, it's true: initially they quite liked the idea of "listed" sports events, of such national significance they would be available for everyone to see. But someone must have had a word with the shadow culture secretary, because the position was soon straightened out – in perfect alignment with Sky's.

Any doubters should play a game of spot the difference. Hold a copy of James Murdoch's 2009 MacTaggart lecture in one hand, and a clutch of Tory policy positions on the media in the other. Then see if you can tell them apart.

The unsophisticated will imagine this works crudely, with Cameron pulling out his notepad and taking dictation from Uncle Rupe. And maybe it does. News Corp's latest preoccupation is gaining access for Sky to the wiring that delivers broadband, the "ducts" currently wholly controlled by BT. Interesting to note, then, that Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the party high command dined with the News International top brass in Davos in January – only for Osborne to announce that very week that he wanted to break up BT's monopoly on those "ducts".

Perhaps this is merely a happy alliance of like-minded folk who share what culture secretary Ben Bradshaw calls a "free market fetishism". Maybe the Tories coolly weigh up the policy alternatives, with no thought to the endorsement Murdoch's Sun has given them and withdrawn from Labour, and just happen to reach a conclusion that matches News Corp's business interests perfectly.

Rather more likely is that a Conservative government would repeat one of the ugliest chapters of the Bush-Cheney era, when the White House allowed the oil and gas industry to write its energy policy. When it comes to media, the Tories are already doing that – handing the pen over to Rupert Murdoch. Don't say we weren't warned.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.10 13:11

Well, it looks like Rupert Murdoch's SKY NEWS has just won back a few hundred thousand voters for his new bessie mate David Cameron after the news channels have gone berserk posting clips of Brown describing an Lancashire woman as 'a bigot' for, er, being concerned about the national debt and pensions.

Funnily enough, one thing that this BBC news item omitted:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...was the fact that Brown's off-the-record comments were record on a SKY NEWS running microphone.

Fancy not giving credit where credit is due!

The relevance to Madeleine McCann?

This increases the chances that David Cameron's new mate and employee Clarence Mitchell will find an influential post in a Cameron government, and from that position continue to manipulate the media on Madeleine McCann - and other issues.

by vaguely1 28.04.10 16:23

Actually it put him back up in my estimation. I wish he hadn't apologised though.

Cameron has just lost voters because he's ......Cameron.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.10 7:52

What a surprise (not).

Rupert Murdoch's/James Murdoch's newspaper The Times backs the Conservatives for the first time in 18 years:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course, The Times editor has full editorial independence and is in no way affected by the fact that the Murdochs employ him.

If the Conservatives get back to power next week, Clarence Mitchell will no doubt get his reward.

by Ruby 01.05.10 10:37

Please say it won't be so Tony.
How are you, by the way?
Been missing you on here lately.
Lots of celeb support for Clegg on Twitter; personally I hope LibDems thrash the others so Murdoch (& son) can go whistle.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.10 11:00

Ruby wrote:Please say it won't be so Tony. How are you, by the way?
Been missing you on here lately.

Family illnesses and other commitments have kept me quieter than usual. You noticed?

Lots of celeb support for Clegg on Twitter; personally I hope LibDems thrash the others so Murdoch (& son) can go whistle.

The polls suggest Conservatives winning most seats and possibly even obtaining an outright majority. Quite a few people do not finally make up their minds until they are actually in the polling booth. I suggest that many may hold their noses and vote Conservative to avoid the possible uncertainty of a 'hung Parliament'. Have you noticed Peter Mandelson sucking up to Nick Clegg recently? IMO this is very significant

by Ruby 01.05.10 11:27

Sorry to hear you've had family members poorly and I wish them a speedy recovery Tony.

I hadn't been aware of Mandy's sucking up to Nick Clegg but it became a standing joke on those televised leadership debates when GB and DC kept saying 'I agree with Nick' and even became a trending topic on Twitter. lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.10 12:12

Ruby wrote:I hadn't been aware of Mandy's sucking up to Nick Clegg...

Mandelson leaps to the defence of Nick Clegg:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Ruby 01.05.10 15:26

He's a fickle one... changed his mind already politicshomeuk Mandelson rules out Clegg, says choice is 'Labour or Tory' [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.10 15:33

Ruby wrote:He's a fickle one...

Um, I would substitute 'fickle' with 'Machiavellian'. He's not called 'The Prince of Darkness' for nothing.

WIKIPEDIA:

Quote

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian philosopher/writer, and is considered one of the main founders of modern political science. He was a diplomat, political philosopher, musician, and a playwright, but foremost, he was a civil servant of the Florentine Republic...He is most famous for a short political treatise, The Prince, written in 1513, but not published until 1532, five years after his death. Although he privately circulated The Prince among friends, the only work he published in his lifetime was The Art of War...Since the sixteenth century, generations of politicians remain attracted and repelled by the cynical approach to power posited in The Prince and his other works. Whatever his personal intentions, which are still debated today, his surname yielded the modern political word 'Machiavellianism' - the use of cunning and deceitful tactics in politics.

Unquote

by aiyoyo 01.05.10 21:47

Murdoch is but a whore who prostitutes himself to whoever stands the most chance of winning. He is just betting.

He doesnt give two monkeys who or which party runs the country. All he is concerned is protecting his money.

by littlepixie 01.05.10 22:30

I am deserting them also. I really wanted to vote for David Cameron - I hated the way people had tried to "do him down" because he speaks with a posh accent and has a posh upbringing.

All my in-laws are very posh, I have more than one close multi- millionaire friend but over the years I have learned they are no better than me, worry about the same things I do and their values and morals are the same as mine.

Yet my Conservative candidate cannot answer my emails questioning why Clarence Mitchell is working for them whilst at the same time working for Kate and Gerry McCann!

by aiyoyo 01.05.10 23:01

Polling figures are never accurate in the first place.
Anyhow imo using the percentage to work out the figures may not be the best reflection of actual million of people because only a tiny fraction of a crossed section of people would have been tested and responded to the polls, which does not represent the bigger picture in totality.

Moreover, its a sad fact that UK systems are so established by now. There is nothing much any wannabe prime minister can promise in their campaign because there simply isnt any money left in the coffers to promise anything.

Margaret Thatcher had sold Britain down the Thames by privatising every national assets, causing a widening disparity of the rich and the poor of such a magnitude beyond bridging. There is only the superduper rich or the down and trodden in UK who can live rather well - the former for obvious reason, figuratively speaking for the latter.

The suffering middle class is lefting sinking because everything they earned is taxed to the hilt with more and more struggling to stay afloat that they end up joining the poor category. We all know about tax havern for the filthy rich and there is nothing any government, no matter the political party, has done or rather successfully done in curbing that so far.

Cameron, like his other Lib Dem opponent, has not come up with anything special that made people stood up and pay particular attention. In short, Cameron doesnt have any stronger selling points than his opponents. In fact, he will be yet another puppet if elected. He will be there doing what his predecessors had been doing all along ie fiddling petty cash expenses (excuse the pun), again at the great expense of the suffering middle class.

If Cameron wins (hoped not) it would simply be because 1) people were glad for any opposition just to get GB out; and 2) and mainly because the papers (murdoch) are behind him. Its the media that makes the election hence by extension the candidate.

There is really v. little difference between the Tory and New Labour really. Labour under Tony Blair has emulated Tory, going even to the extent of coming up with 'new labour' - more like copycat Tory really. Why were they ashamed to be good old Labour I wonder?

I hope the Lib Dem wins.