The Times refused to back the Tories at the Conservative Party Conference last autumn. You can see Times Editor James Harding state on this video that none of the major parties had so far earned their influential endorsement. He said: “We will make a decision on endorsing a party when it is clear they have earned it.”
Today that endorsement has been made. Thank you James Harding!!!
Today’s Times’ leader states:
The economy is broken and so is politics. It is time for a change, in both the philosophy and the style of government. It is time for us to believe in the power of the individual, the strength of society and the unique promise of this country. Labour is tired, defensive and ruinously reliant on higher government spending. David Cameron has shown the fortitude, judgment and character to lead this country back to a healthier, stronger future. It is time, once again, to vote Conservative.
Regarding the soaring popularity of Liberal Democrats, The Times states:
This campaign has been electrified by the rise of Nick Clegg. He seized the first television debate and became the overnight sensation of British politics. It was always likely that the electorate’s anger over greedy MPs and their sense of expenses entitlement would affect this election. But what a gloriously British revolution it turned out to be. Anger and dismay go on the march, and the Liberal Democrats do a bit better.
But the Liberal Democrat prospectus for power still reads like that of a party that has no expectation of victory. There is still something soft-headed about its pitch. Mr Clegg’s approach to the euro has in the past been misguided, but these days it is just muddled: he was for entering; now he is against entry; and he wants to leave open the possibility of entry in the future. He is prone to bouts of rank anti-business populism. Was it really necessary to weigh into the Kraft-Cadbury bid — to play the Whole Nut card — in the TV debate on the economy? Surely he cannot think all bankers are greedy? Worse, Mr Clegg’s approach to the biggest economic problem of the day, the deficit, is to duck it: he wants to hold a meeting. Abandoning the Trident nuclear missile system would be a mistake, parading fanciful figures for the cost savings is an error. Breaking up the banks would be counter-productive: the investment banks would become far more dangerous. If Mr Clegg understands this he is not admitting it. Mr Clegg has built a platform that might allow him to go back to his constituency and prepare to be the Opposition. He has yet, however, to build a serious platform to prepare for government.
That is something that David Cameron has been able to do. Today’s Conservative Party is a very different party to that which went to the country in 2005. Mr Cameron has led that change. It is now clear that the modern Conservative Party believes in the importance of reducing the burden on enterprise and entrepreneurship. Its priorities on education, social policy and the environment are those of a modern, innovative force in politics. Its young leadership has the energy, intelligence and integrity to govern.
A Murdoch paper backing the Tories ? Like wow, that’s just so unexpected.
Oh, and in other news, I hear the Pope is a catholic !
Nich, it was certainly not taken for granted, especially as The Times backed Labour in 2001 and 2005; it’s far from being a Tory supporting, as galling as their comments about Nick Clegg and Lib Dems must be for you.
The Times last supported Liberals back in February 1974 when it had 23 MPs, and 31 years later that number increased to 30 Lib Dems.
And the times have it completely right about Cleggy.
Complete lightweight and didnt it show on the last debate.
As ever the LDs say one thing one minute another thing the next .
disaffected, thank you!! I agree.
I am going to a hustings in Cambridge this evening, so do look out for my report tomorrow.
Ellee, your lack of knowledge of the fact reduces the validity of your arguments.
You claim that The Times supported the Liberals in 1974 as the counter argument to what I said.
FACT – The Times was NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch in 1974. So you are wrong in the first instance.
You cliamed that in 1974 the Liberal had 23 MPs and that 31 years that increased to 30 MPs.
FACT – In 2006 the Lib Dems had 63 MPs, not 30 MPs. You are WRONG again.
Come on Ellee, stop throwing around random facts that are wrong, irrelevent and easily checked by looking on Google.
Nich, you are in a huff 😉
I disagree with you about the influence of Murdoch. I believe the Editor of the Times makes his decisions on which paper to back, not Murdoch. You’ve been watching too many movies!
And I see the FT’s supporting them today
And I see the FT’s supporting them today