Echoes of Eighty Three, and That Sinking Feeling

[f4f3]

The news that the Guardian has chosen to endorse Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats in the General Election hardly came as a surprise to me (they supported the attempted coup against Brown last year, and have been anti-Labour for a while now) but it still left me with a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. 
The first general election I was eligible to vote at was in 1983. At that time moderate and senior Labour politicians had jumped ship to form a new political party, the SDP. A lot of what they said was reasonable, a lot of their thinking sound. I was at Glasgow University at the time, and the SDP leader Roy Jenkins won a bye-election to become our local MP. I think I saw Roy, David Owen and Shirley Williams speak at the Union more than once, and they were all polished performances.
I wasn't tempted to vote for them - my belief then, as now, was that only Labour could deliver, was even vaguely interested in delivering, relief from poverty for the greatest numbers - but I did respect them in a way that would have been unthinkable for Thatcher's Tory party.

Going into the election the SDP/Liberal alliance were running Labour a very close second in share of the popular vote, against a background of the Falklands War, three million unemployed, and bitter industrial unrest. Clearly well over 50% of the voters were against the Tories, and when I went to bed 19 year old me hoped to see that reflected the next morning.

When I woke up, the Tories had a 144 seat majority and I was sick to my stomach.

My fear for this election is that the result of splitting the anti-Tory vote will be the same as it was then. That we won't have a hung, or balanced parliament, that instead we'll have a three figure Tory majority on 40% of the vote.

To me that's a horrible prospect, and one that the Guardian's stance only makes more likely.

I really, really hope that I'm wrong.

1983 Votes summary (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983)

Popular vote
Conservative			42.44%
Labour			27.58%
SDP/Liberal			25.38%
Scottish National			1.08%
Ulster Unionist			0.85%
Independent			0.28%
Others			2.39%

[edit] Seats summary

Parliamentary seats
Conservative			61.08%
Labour			32.15%
SDP/Liberal			3.54%
Ulster Unionist			1.69%
Others			1.54%

Comments

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Frankly I find it disgusting that any newspaper can be allowed to wear any political affiliation so clearly on its sleve. It biases the paper, its readers and doesn't help the democratic process one bit.

Conversely (there's a lot of contradiction in my political views - I am aware of this) I actually find small comfort in the fact that one of those with the staunchest affiliation feels able to change it.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

I prefer that a newspaper declare its political affiliation so openly than try to claim "balance and fairness" while sticking the knife into every other party bar its chosen one.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I'd prefer they just reported the news with as little bias and slant as is humany possible myself, but that's just me living in cloud cuckoo land again.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

They do, in my opinion, as do some other newspapers in this country. The more ethical newspapers may well have a particular political slant, but take out the comment pages and you're usually left with an honest attempt to report the news as straightforwardly as possible.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think the news is reported fairly straight in all of the broadsheets - one of the Guardian's maxims is "Comment is free, but the facts are sacred".

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Any paper is going to have a political stance, whether declared or not. That will either be the stance that best suits its owner (as in the Murdoch press) the one which brings in the most advertising (The Star, The Express) or one which will attract readers (The Guardian, The Torygraph, The Mail).

I'd rather see those views expressed overtly, and be able to take that bias into account (as I used to when reading the FT, before it became a Murdoch paper) rather than have it hidden.

I suppose The Independent is an example of a paper in the UK which has no consistent editorial line.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

That'll be why I don't have any particular use for any of them.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Fair comment. As a wise man once said "Nobody makes you read the papers."

I read newspapers, and listen to the BBC news because I want to be informed, because I think that improves my ability to form my own opinion about what's happening in the society I live in. That doesn't always make me happier, in fact it's been known to make me miserable (and probably will, next Friday) but, again, nobody makes me read the papers.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

When I feel the need to be informed about something (which I have made an effort with in this election) I tend to fall back on the BBC, which I know isn't a model of impartiality either, but the press in this country is a disgrace so I don't fund it any more than I am legally obliged to.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

The BBC is good for interviews and comment, but the average newspaper has 10 or 20 times the amount of copy devoted to a story as the BBC - I get detail from the press.