Tuesday, June 18, 2024

 


BBC Question Time: analysis suggests overuse of right wing voices

Is the national broadcaster’s flagship political programme Question Time sacrificing standards in favour of promoting provocation?

On the air since 1979, the BBC’s venerable Question Time is an important part of Britain’s political life, including during election campaigns. Millions are likely to tune in to the leaders’ special on 20 June. The leaders of the country’s four largest political parties by number of MPs (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and the SNP) will be quizzed by a studio audience.

At Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media, and Culture, we are conducting ongoing analysis of how guests have been chosen for the programme over the last decade. Our findings so far – published here for the first time – reveal that while the Question Time producers have broadly balanced the main political parties, they have frequently relied upon a small number of right wing guests to provoke entertaining debates.

Impartiality and representation

Like most public service broadcasters worldwide, the BBC believes that impartiality is a core tenet of its approach to covering political debate. Coverage should be unbiased, balanced, and objective, with no favouritism towards any side. This is monitored by the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, which can levy fines or even end a broadcaster’s licence if impartiality rules are repeatedly flouted.

To test how this is applied to Question Time, our researchers compiled a dataset of all editions of the programme from September 2014 until July 2023 – a total of 352 programmes with 1,734 guest slots across the nine seasons, filled by 661 different people.

The programme’s producers go to considerable lengths to provide panels with a representative view of British political life. During the timeframe of this study, there was never an all-male panel and rarely one that was entirely white. Given the format of Question Time, it is not surprising to find that both Labour and Conservative politicians were well represented throughout the nine seasons.

Among the smaller parties, the SNP had a significant presence. This reflects its status as the ruling party in Scotland (though in coalition with the Scottish Greens between August 2021 and April 2024) and its position as the third-largest party in Westminster since the 2015 general election. The Green Party consistently appeared each season, although its appearances declined from a peak of five in 2015–16 to just one in 2021–22. This was despite its vote share growing to 2.7% in 2019. The Nigel Farage-led parties Ukip, the Brexit party, and Reform UK also declined from a peak of 16 appearances in 2015–16 to just one in each of the last three seasons in the sample.

Repeat appearances

Many guests made repeat appearances, with the political parties relying on panellists who shine in the combative atmosphere of Question Time. Labour’s shadow cabinet members Emily Thornberry and Lisa Nandy were most often featured. Perhaps surprisingly given some of the criticism of the show, in this timeframe, the Greens’ former leader Caroline Lucas appeared more often than Farage.

Removing politicians from the list of most frequent guests shows that several high-frequency panellists are being used, most of whom come from the political right. The regularly featured journalists are typically opinion columnists who contribute to right wing press outlets such as the Mail or The Telegraph, or who make appearances on right-leaning broadcasters like GB News and TalkTV.

The Spectator wields significant influence, with the top five most frequently used panellists all writing for the magazine. In contrast, there is no comparable influence from left wing publications. The most frequently featured writers from the left were Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar (six appearances) and former Guardian columnist Giles Fraser (five appearances).

In booking guests, the Question Time producers clearly consider both the show’s public service nature — holding senior politicians to account — and the requirement to make the programme entertaining for a mass audience. The tendency to overuse panellists who write or broadcast for right wing media outlets suggests an emphasis on heat over light.

The Question Time bias question

Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance. But the overuse of right wing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from left wing publications is notable.

Debate programmes such as Question Time are subject to the same stringent rules on impartiality as news programmes. But academic research has tended to focus mostly on analysing impartiality in news bulletins. Our findings suggest that researchers should also pay attention to the balance on political debate programmes.

The commitment to due impartiality can indeed mean that impartiality occurs over time – but the evidence does not demonstrate Question Time is achieving this. Instead, it may be sacrificing the BBC’s reputation for impartiality to create provocative programmes.


Matt Walsh, Head of the School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article


Labour landslide could see Tories winning just 72 seats, poll finds, as Rishi Sunak's party faces 'electoral extinction'

Labour and the Conservatives will face off in the July 4 election. 
Picture: Getty

By Kit Heren@yung_chuvak
16 June 2024

The Conservatives could end up with just 72 seats after the next General Election, according to a new poll that also projected a Labour landslide.

According to analysis by pollsters Survation's of 40,000 surveys, Labour are ahead in 456 seats, which if borne out on July 4, would give Sir Keir Starmer's party a majority of 262.


If the Tories won 72 seats, it would be less than half as good as their previous worst election, when they had 156 MPs after the 1906 election.

They won 365 seats at the 2019 vote. Labour won 203 in 2019, so would more than double their number of MPs if the model were correct.

The Conservatives have insisted that the only poll that matters is the election itself on July 4.

Read more: Rishi Sunak says 'Hindu faith and duty' guide him as PM, and insists he is patriotic despite Nigel Farage's attacks

Rishi Sunak. Picture: Getty

Survation's projection had the Liberal Democrats on 56 seats, the SNP on 37, and Reform UK on seven.

In its interpretation of the findings, Survation said: "Since Farage's announcement to take over as leader of Reform UK, we've seen a rise in their vote share in national polling, and now we are seeing how this can result in seat gains.

"Unsurprisingly, Reform are making significant gains in places where the Conservatives are losing the most, and are currently the leading party by vote share in seven seats. Reform are also currently performing better than the Conservatives in 59 seats."

The Survation study for campaign group Best For Britain used the multilevel with poststratification (MRP) technique to model results in constituencies. Survation polled 42,269 people online or over the telephone between May 31 and June 13.

It is the first MRP analysis since Nigel Farage returned to the political frontline.

Keir Starmer. Picture: Getty

A separate poll also suggests bad news for the Conservatives.

The Savanta study for the Sunday Telegraph gave Labour a 25-point lead, with Sir Keir Starmer's party on 46%, up two from last week, and the Tories on 21%, down four points.

It is the lowest share that the Conservatives have had with the pollster under Mr Sunak.

Chris Hopkins, political research director at Savanta, said: "Our research suggests that this election could be nothing short of electoral extinction for the Conservative Party.

"The hopes of Conservative candidates are being shot to pieces by poll after poll showing the Conservative Party in increasingly dire straits - and we're only halfway through the campaign.

"There's a real sense that things could still get worse for the Conservatives, and with postal votes about to drop through millions of letterboxes, time is already close to running out for Rishi Sunak."

Reform UK were on 13%, up three points, the Liberal Democrats up two points on 11%, the Greens up one point on 5% and the SNP down one on 2%.

Savanta surveyed 2,045 UK adults from June 12-14.


Sarwar to vow ‘change’ for young people as he unveils Scottish Labour manifesto


Scottish Labour Party leader Anas Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar will today unveil Scottish Labour’s election manifesto, declaring that a vote for his party is a “vote to change Scotland for this generation and the next”.

The Scottish Labour leader will launch the document later today and is expected to urge voters to think about the next generation of Scots when they cast their vote on July 4th, pledging that Labour would “look after young people from cradle to career”.

Sarwar is expected to particularly highlight Labour’s commitment to scrap minimum wage age bands and its pledge to ensure the minimum wage “is a genuine living wage”, with Scottish Labour claiming that more than 200,000 people in Scotland, including 40,000 young people, would see their pay rise as a result.

READ MORE: ‘Could SNP and Tory talk of a Labour landslide fuel complacency on the left?’

Sarwar will say: “This election is an opportunity to deliver change for everyone in Scotland right now. But this election is also about the next generation of Scots and the future we build for them. Giving them back hope and opportunity.

“Opportunities for their own future so that every young Scot can fill their true potential and hope for Scotland’s future. A vote for Scottish Labour on July 4th is a vote to change Scotland for this generation and the next.”

The Scottish Labour leader is expected to add: “We will do this by improving access to apprenticeships, supporting first-time buyers, creating those jobs in the industries of the future and delivering a pay rise for 40,000 young Scots.

“Labour will look after young people from cradle to career. No matter a child’s background they should leave education equipped with the skills they need for work and life. Labour will spread opportunity at every age, because every child should believe that success belongs to them.

READ MORE: Sign up to our must-read daily briefing email on all things Labour

“Under the Tories, thousands are stuck in poverty pay – and under the SNP, youth unemployment has risen and opportunities have been taken away.

“I promise the young people of Scotland that this is not as good as it gets. This election is the chance to deliver a decade of national renewal, and this manifesto is a blueprint to a brighter future. It’s an opportunity to change Scotland for this generation – and the next. It’s an opportunity we need to make sure we don’t miss.”

Scottish Labour said its manifesto will “outline the first steps of change” that a UK Labour government would deliver for Scotland but also “look ahead to the change that a Scottish Labour government could implement after the 2026 Holyrood election”.

As well as reflecting many of the policies included in Labour’s national manifesto, Scottish Labour said its manifesto will also set out specific changes the party believes are needed in Scotland, including a ‘skills to school’ programme with reforms to careers advice developed in partnership with the private and public sector.

Scottish Labour launching manifesto and Greens call for jet super tax

Anas Sarwar's general election manifesto to target the youth vote with an eye on the 2026 Holyrood vote.


Manifesto: Anas Sarwar is promising 'look after young people from cradle to career'.

STV
June 18,2024

Scottish Labour is launching its manifesto on Tuesday with a focus on the nation’s young people and an eye to Holyrood’s next ballot in two years.

The party will make the pitch for a Labour government at Westminster including proposals to increase the living wage for what the party estimates would be 200,000 people in Scotland.

The manifesto will include the mortgage guarantee scheme for first-time buyers, support for creative industries and the banning of zero-hours contracts previously announced by Keir Starmer.

The party will pledge to “look after young people from cradle to career”.

But there will also be a section dedicated to Scottish Labour plans if the party wins the 2026 election.

Reform to apprenticeships, improving standards in education and boosting the use of technology in the NHS will all be on the cards if Labour takes the keys to Bute House in just under two years.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens are calling for a “super tax” on private jets ahead of the party’s manifesto launch later this week.

The party is also calling for tax breaks on aviation fuel to be removed and the phasing out of short-haul flights.

And First Minister John Swinney is calling on Sarwar to “stand up” to UK Labour leader Starmer over the two-child cap, a policy Starmer said he would not reverse as prime minister.


Scottish Labour manifesto outlines 'six first steps for change'



Scottish Labour has launched its general election manifesto with the party setting out its "six first steps for change".

Anas Sarwar has pledged his party will:Deliver economic stability with tough spending rules to grow the economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages low

Cut NHS waiting times by investing in our NHS and funding 160,000 additional appointments every year in Scotland, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.
Set up GB Energy in Scotland, a publicly-owned clean power company, to create jobs and cut bills for good, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants

Make work pay with a "New Deal for Working People" that will ban zero-hour contracts and deliver a living wage for 200,000 Scots

Create jobs and opportunities for young people by improving access to apprenticeships, supporting first-time buyers, and creating 69,000 Scottish jobs in the clean energy industries
Maximise Scotland’s influence using the UK’s footprint on the global stage to promote Scottish businesses, boost exports, and investment to create jobs


8 hours ago
Craig Meighan


Scottish Greens to propose £1,000 per head private jet
 ‘super tax’

The Scottish Greens are set to propose a £1,000-per-head private jet tax in the party’s manifesto.

The document, due to be released this week, will include the measure in a bid to reduce the number of private flights, as well as removing tax breaks on aviation fuel and phasing out short-haul flights.

Scottish Green co-leader Lorna Slater pledged “bold plans” to cut the number of aircraft taking off.

“We are in a climate emergency, with the evidence all around us. It is obscene that a small number of very wealthy people are jetting around the globe in climate wrecking private jets,” she said.

“There is absolutely no justification for something so needless and destructive, not when the stakes are so high and the consequences are so severe.

“By introducing a super tax on these flights we can cut the number of jets in our sky and ensure that those who are polluting our planet are paying for the damage they are doing.”

5 hours ago


The UK Green party’s plans aren’t perfect but they offer a much-needed attempt at climate leadership
Green Party co-leaders Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer pose with supporters at their general election manifesto launch at Sussex County Cricket Ground in Hove on June 12 2024.
Associated Press / Alamy Stock Photo / Kirsty Wigglesworth


THE CONVERSATION
Published: June 18, 2024 

The Green party’s target is to take four seats at the upcoming UK election. Recognising it has no chance of forming a government, its manifesto is written from the perspective of a future pressure group within Westminster.

In doing so, the party highlights some key ideas and steps that could help the UK achieve meaningful climate action. This provides a refreshing attempt to outline an alternative way forward, at a time when climate leadership is severely lacking from other parties.

The Greens’ manifesto has climate action woven through it and the wording often emphasises the link between climate and socioeconomic issues, as the impacts of a changing climate could push more people into poverty and disrupt global food supply chains. It states: “The solutions to the climate crisis are the same as those needed to end the cost of living and inequity crises, making the future not just more liveable but fairer for us all too.”

The Greens argue that a rebalancing of the economy is required to achieve such a just transition. While the party stops short of calling for degrowth (producing fewer unnecessary goods and services in favour of more socially beneficial economic activity), the focus on a carbon tax and push for investment in public services and renewables could deliver a similar impact.

Get news that’s free, independent and based on evidence.Sign up for newsletter

The party also wants to change how success is measured in the economy, calling for “new indicators that take account of the wellbeing of people and planet, and track our progress towards building a greener and fairer future”. This is the first time an established party has explicitly reframed what the measures of a successful nation should be.

The manifesto embraces an agreed basic standard of living and a set of planetary boundaries that our activities shouldn’t push us beyond, based on the theory of “doughnut economics”. By comparison, the existing model focuses almost solely on economic growth as the key measure of success.
Steps to decarbonise

One of the key issues the Greens want to address is the fact the UK’s housing stock is some of the worst in Europe. A vast programme of insulation and decarbonisation measures is needed across all tenures, and the Greens earmark £50 billion over the length of the parliament for retrofitting buildings. One issue here is that they don’t specify how the current supply chain could be scaled up to achieve this.

The manifesto does recognise that to reduce the UK’s carbon impact, buildings can’t just be demolished and rebuilt. Circularity is needed with zero extraction of new materials in the construction of new homes and buildings.

The Greens propose to tackle this with planning applications to include whole-life carbon and energy calculations. Plus, all materials from demolished buildings will need to be considered for reuse, and increased rates for the disposal of builders’ waste would ensure that this is financially viable.

Significant investment is also needed to upgrade the UK’s energy networks to enable decarbonisation, with another proposed £50 billion assigned to electricity generation, transmission and storage. The manifesto also highlights the potential for greater community involvement in – and direct benefit from – new solar and wind farms, which research suggests can speed up the provision of decentralised energy generation.

Where the Greens diverge most widely from the current energy decarbonisation orthodoxy is on nuclear. Their proposal to cancel funding for research on new technology, namely small modular reactors, appears reactionary at a time where its potential is still being explored
.
The Green Party would not fund research into small modular nuclear reactors. stocker1970/Shutterstock

In transport, the Greens recognise that simply rolling out the sale of electric vehicles is not enough. They want to expand public transport and active travel (walking and cycling) through a £13 billion investment to deliver public transport as a service rather than for profit.

But this would depend on giving local authorities in England the powers that London has to act as bus operators. Combined Authorities in Greater Manchester, South and West Yorkshire are currently transitioning to a franchised system, but a full “London-style” network is some way off.

The Greens are also the only party to take the bold action of proposing a frequent flyer levy, although they do not detail how it will work. Typically, proposed plans for such levies increase on a sliding scale as the number of flights increases, therefore targeting the 15% of people who make 70% of the trips.

There are also proposals to remove the aviation fuels exemption from fuel duty and introduce a domestic flight ban on journeys that can be done by rail in less than three hours, making this manifesto is an exemplar of action targeted at reducing high consumption in the form of frequent flights.
How would they deliver it?

With all this investment, there’s inevitably a question about how the Greens would pay for their plans. Figures in the manifesto suggest significant government borrowing is needed for such radical changes.

On environmental measures alone, an average annual capital and revenue spend of £40 billion would be required, including £7 billion to be invested in climate adaptation. The entire manifesto requires a budget deficit of £65 billion a year for the next five years, gambled against the as yet unknown costs of inaction.

There are some other ideas on funding. A carbon tax would make polluters pay while providing money to invest in the green transition. And taxing multi-millionaires and billionaires could help fund public services, including renationalised utilities such as water companies.

There is also a question of how practical the plans are. Nothing within the Green party manifesto relies on tech that has yet to be invented or impossible interventions. This is not the stuff of techno-optimism. But there are no cities, regions or devolved nations in the UK that have yet adopted the root and branch transformation this manifesto would require.

However, surveys show most people in the UK want decisions on the overwhelming evidence for climate change and the nature crisis, in order to create a more resilient society. The Green manifesto, then, is an imperfect but sorely needed attempt at climate leadership that reflects the urgency of significant rather than iterative change. That should be welcomed in an election where you could otherwise be forgiven for thinking that a response to the climate emergency was an optional extra.

Author
Richard Sulley
Senior Research Fellow, Sustainability Policy, University of Sheffield



This is billed as a ‘change’ election – but Britain’s electoral system means hardly any seats are true multi-party contests



THE CONVERSATION
Published: June 18, 2024 

With all polls pointing in the same direction, the 2024 election will deliver seismic change. It is being seen as a contest that will practically wipe out one party and deliver a large majority to another. But the reality for most of the voting public will feel quite different, at least at the constituency level.

The Electoral Reform Society has estimated that more than 100 of the UK’s 650 parliamentary seats haven’t changed hands for 100 years or more. Millions of voters, therefore, reside in what the society describes as “one party fiefdoms”.

The data shows that 28% of constituencies have been held by the same party since the second world war, and that 38% have remained under the same party’s control for 50 years or more. The Conservatives dominate in 94 of the seats which have not changed hands for over a century; Labour holds 17 of them.

Prior to the dissolution of parliament last month, Labour held over 200 seats. It is highly likely that very nearly all of these seats will return a Labour MP again.

Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.Get newsletter

Meanwhile, opinion polls have suggested that the Conservatives are currently on track to win between 66 and 140 seats. These “wins” are more than likely going to be seats the party already currently holds.

Read more: Election 2024: how many seats every party in Westminster is defending – and what they are aiming for on July 4

Strong polling trends also indicate that the Liberal Democrats will retain the 12 seats they won in 2019 and any SNP seats are likely to be among the 48 they won in 2019.

Given these figures, it is not difficult to see how almost half the seats are likely to be represented by the same political party as before the election was called.
When is a marginal not really marginal?

Even though 13 parties were represented in the Westminster parliament when it was dissolved for this election, and even though many more parties will be listed on ballot papers, barely any constituencies are truly what can be considered multi-party contests.

Under first-past-the-post, the majoritarian electoral system used for British general elections, voters’ choices are limited at the ballot box.

Sometimes that’s because not every party is standing in their constituency – for example, the SNP only stands in Scottish seats, Labour doesn’t stand in Northern Ireland, and the Greens are concentrating on target seats in 2024. More often though, the limitations are indirect – voters appear to have a choice between many parties, but only one or two have a realistic chance of winning.

For too many people in the UK, voting is not a true choice between parties. Thanks to the first-past-the-post voting system, much of the electorate resides and votes in safe seats – constituencies where certain parties have consistently and repeatedly won with quite substantial majorities. Even so-called “marginal constituencies” are often contests between no more than two parties; the one defending it and the one most able to replace the incumbent.

In these circumstances, voters can feel cornered into tactical voting, supporting a viable party in their local constituency to defeat a party that they dislike, rather than casting a vote for the party they genuinely prefer.
2019’s record

In 2019, in what was described as an “earthquake” election which gave the Conservatives the largest parliamentary majority since Tony Blair in 2001, just 81 seats (12.5%) changed hands. Only 37 seats – 5.7% of all those contested – were three-way marginal races in which the vote-share gap between first and third place parties was less than 20 percentage points. Ynys Mon was the closest, where just 7% separated the Conservatives, who won the seat, and Plaid Cymru, who came third behind Labour.
Even the cows have stopped listening. Alamy/PA/Jonathan Brady

Most true electoral battles are concentrated in a few highly competitive areas, leading parties to focus their resources on these seats. In 2019, the overwhelming majority of seats saw just two parties hold a realistic chance of winning – and 100 of them had a two-party vote share of over 90%.

If we exclude the five constituencies where an independent candidate came second (no independent won any seats) and the Speaker’s seat (which is traditionally uncontested by the other main parties), the average vote share of the top two parties in the remaining 644 constituencies amounted to 83.67%. Only 158 had a two-party vote share of less than 80%, meaning that, at best, the third-place candidate in each of these seats, received half the votes of the winner. If that sounds like an unwinnable seat, it’s because it probably is.

The number of very safe seats – seats won by a margin of between 45 and 50% – increased from 29 to 31. Of the 30 safest seats, Labour holds 20 and the Conservatives ten.

None of this means that change cannot happen, and shocks do occur at a local level. But drastic changes are generally limited to a small number of constituencies. Even in Tony Blair’s landslide election victory in 1997, less than a third of seats (181 out of 650) changed hands.

Many voters will feel bypassed in this election, as they often do. This perhaps helps explain why, despite talk of a seismic shock at the national level, there seems to be a very low level of enthusiasm for this election and the people running in it.


Authors
Christopher Kirkland
Senior Lecturer in Politics, York St John University
Thomas Lockwood
PhD Candidate, York St John University


Why legacy media brands still matter in the UK’s ‘social media’ election

Published: June 18, 2024 12.27pm EDT


For decades, the front pages of newspapers have documented iconic campaign moments. Now, many think that the internet (particularly social media platforms) is where an election is won or lost. Some have even dubbed this year’s general election the “TikTok election”.

It is true that the nature of campaigning has changed, and newspaper and broadcaster reach has waned. But legacy media brands still drive much of the political conversation around elections and beyond, though analysing their continuing reach and influence is complicated.

News organisations are facing varying challenges related to their enduring influence, reputation and reach among audiences. Media companies that can draw on deeper pockets and resilient brand loyalties are best positioned to withstand such difficulties.

But media consumption is not a zero-sum game. Suggestions that established news providers are rapidly declining in the face of the digital media ascendancy are unfounded. Around half of UK adults may say they use social media for news, but that does not mean they have no need for traditional media.

Get your news from people who know what they’re talking about.Sign up for newsletter

Digital platforms such as social media apps are not, themselves, publishers (a distinction that has enabled tech companies to avoid statutory regulation). They operate, via the user’s feed, as gatekeepers to information often hosted elsewhere.

The Sun, Daily Mail and other legacy news providers are brands that exist both on and offline (rather than merely as printed or broadcast entities). If we remember this, their enduring value becomes clearer. In April, the Sun and the Daily Mail, along with the Mirror and the Guardian, reached over 20 million people in the UK each. The BBC had an even larger audience of 37.8 million on its apps and websites alone.

Many people using social media for news deliberately access legacy media, by following journalists and news organisations of interest to cultivate their news feed. Other access is incidental, but no less important for its serendipity – three-quarters of online legacy news content is accessed via side-door routes such as social media, search and mobile aggregators.

And to the extent that influencers are the predominant source for news on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, it is fundamentally the work of professional journalism which provides the material upon which their commentary is based.
Direct access

Another assumption in the discussion about the decline of established journalism is that politicians can disregard traditional news providers. Social media, the argument goes, means they can now directly address potential voters.

In practice, however, politicians have not abandoned their interest in attracting mainstream media attention (and ideally approval). Even that most notorious scourge of “fake news”, Donald Trump, clearly designs his social media outputs to engage (and outrage) reporters within the Washington beltway.

A key aspect of communicative and political power is the ability to shape public discourse from behind the scenes, in subtle ways. For politicians, this means cultivating relationships with journalists, away from public view.

Political elites still need their media counterparts, and vice versa. There are mutual benefits that the confidential distribution and co-production of information delivers. The “open door” between media and political executives both symbolises and cements their relationship, and further underlines the enduring relevance of legacy news brands.
Where do you get your news? Yorkshireknight/Shutterstock

Newspapers also influence other forms of media content, including that of broadcasters. Opinion-forming programmes such as Radio 4’s Today, BBC Breakfast and Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg continue to privilege front-page press stories, including in their coverage of this election.

One of the clearest indicators that leading politicians still care about traditional media agenda-setting is the close interest they pay to the editorial preferences of leading news organisations. True, Rishi Sunak took to social media to promote his national service policy. But he is likely to be much more concerned about speculation that Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers may endorse Labour than by whether the Conservatives will have a better TikTok game.

Keir Starmer has placed “change” at the heart of both his mission to re-shape his party and his electoral offer to voters. Whether his invitation to Murdoch’s most recent summer party reflects this shift in the Labour party brand, or simply Murdoch’s propensity to back prospective winners, will ultimately be less important to Starmer than the thaw in relations itself.

Either way, it is a striking contrast to The Sun’s vituperative treatment of Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, in the last election. If The Sun does declare for Labour, don’t expect an equivalent avalanche of anti-Sunak hyperbole during the run-up to polling day. The most Starmer can hope for is a de-alignment, rather than realignment of the paper’s editorial stance.

This reveals something about the enduring power of established news brands. When these kinds of electoral alliances form, it is the politicians, rather than the publishers, who tend to make the greater concessions.

Authors
David Deacon
Professor of Communication and Media Analysis, Loughborough University
David Smith
Lecturer in Media and Communication, University of Leicester
Dominic Wring
Professor of Political Communication, Loughborough University