Who at the newspaper actually decides?

I think the leader writers and columnists sit down together and decide. but I’m guessing this.

That meeting sounds like fun!

“Which leaves the country with no overtly left-wing national newspaper and certainly no one to articulate why Middle England isn’t head-over-heels for Cameron.”

Don’t forget Simon Heffer!

“Which leaves the country with no overtly left-wing national newspaper”

Leaving aside the Morning Star (for all its faults, failing to be overtly left-wing is hardly one of them), I don’t accept that. The Mirror always strikes me as more left-wing than the Guardian, and often more intelligent too.

*Should* a newspaper endorse a party? And I don’t think the Guardian has been leftist for some time, nor the Independant, nor the Mirror really. Wouldn’t Monbiot bitch at them if they endorsed the libdems? Cable’s a hypocrite and whore of the devil (by that I mean Shell, of course), none of them are leftists.

In terms of its readership’s values, the broad thrust of its editorials and columnists, and the current political situation, it makes perfect sense for the Guardian to endorse the Liberal Democrats. However, I suspect they will bottle it, finding some hand-wringing excuse for endorsing Labour yet again.

“Instead its editorial strategy looks like it has fallen for the Cameroons in a way that even The Telegraph won’t.”

Do you have any examples of this? I don’t read much deeper than the front page of The Guardian’s website these days, but that’s not the impression I get at all.

I admit that I don’t really read The Guardian, I just read the website, so I may be getting a biased view of their output. But, despite that, the paper seems to me to have bent over backwards to give Labour an endless supply of ‘last chances’. Polly Toynbee was at it again today/yesterday, her column insisting that Labour/Brown could turn the Royal Mail situation into a ‘triumph’ even as the paper ran the story stating that the government would not consider any alternative to the part-privatisation plan already announced.

I suspect that there are people at the Guardian who are institutionally/culturally/socially Labour, not because they like anything that the government is doing but because they think that supporting the Labour party is an end in itself. They would rather beseech Gordon for a sprinkling of Scandinavian social democracy than consider any alternative.

To the extent that the Guardian ‘supports’ the Tories, I think it does so because they seem to be the inevitable next government and, well, that probably counts as the sort of news that a newspaper has to cover, nothing more than that.

Should they endorse the Lib Dems? I dunno. I’m not sure what value an endorsement would have, or whether anyone would care. But should they openly discuss the choices facing their readership in deciding who to vote for? Absolutely.

P.S. my personal suspicion is that a fair few Guardian columnists will back Labour publicly, and vote Lib Dem in the privacy of the voting booth, albeit with a sense of regret at the state of Labour.

Perhaps neither the Guardian nor the Independent should appear to endorse any party for fear of compromising their editorial impartiality. Obviously the Guardian’s constant gifts to Labour ministers and Tory wannabes in the form of CIF platforms and Toynbeeist op-eds mean this is already impossible, but for once I’d like a national left-leaning newspaper to articulate a left-liberal viewpoint of current affairs without tying itself to either the Lib Dems or Labour, but serving the debate within the wider liberal-left.

And who the hell decided Michael Gove was an “intellectual”? The man’s a Tory stooge, decidedly to the right of Cameron, and a xenophobic idiot. Does being involved with a few dodgy right-wing think tanks count as being “intellectual”? Then again, I suppose, the New Statesman more then happily allowed right-wing hacks like Martin “I hate Muslims” Bright to smear Ken Livingstone out of office: the rag is hardly a banner-carrier for anyone on the left, intellectual or otherwise.

Anyone who lived through eight years of Liberal government in Scotland (in coalition with Labour, admittedly) would regard a change of this sort as no real improvement. Six of one, to be honest. I’d rather they endorsed no-one. and just set out some tough questions for everyone to answer and get views from Labour, Tory, Liberal, Green and the rest. Although if they did urge a Green vote in the areas where we might win, I obviously wouldn’t complain.

Rob Knight hits the nail on the head here:

I suspect that there are people at the Guardian who are institutionally/culturally/socially Labour, not because they like anything that the government is doing but because they think that supporting the Labour party is an end in itself

I have observed this sad phenomenon and hope it is a generational thing. Those who came of age in the Thatcher years and who tied the Labour colours to their political masts might have trouble renouncing their allegiance to this most pathetic of Labour governments, regardless of the endless betrayals. A very good article was written on LabourList making an analogy between support for Labour and support for a football team: tribal, not based on anything the team does or allegedly stands for, but purely an end in itself.

http://www.labourlist.org/labour_united_the_problem_with_the_next_generation

The most worrying trend is that this tribal support seems to have manifested itself in the new generation. As someone too young to really remember what Thatcher was like, I can confidently say that the only people of my generation who support Labour despite Iraq, despite all the betrayals, are scum who think their ascent to power is more important than any principles they have to siphon off to work their way up the ranks of the Labour Party. Some of these people will go on to work for the Guardian, although I doubt it: they’ll stick to the think tanks, being MP’s researchers, working for trade union bureaucrats, and so on.

I did read something very worrying by an otherwise excellent Guardian journalist, Rowenna Davis: she said she wanted to support Labour but couldn’t, because of its dreadful record in government. Why would anyone want to support Labour these days? I suspect it is the institutional/cultural/social Labour-supporting atmosphere at the Guardian and other institutions of the centre-left. Perhaps we wish we had a large, singular centre-left party like the US Democrats within which we could all fit: trust me, Labour is not nor will ever be that party.

The Guardian like all papers are stuck between their political position and the need to sell copy. That’s what is going on…as for who they will endorse at the next election? I still say it’ll be Labour, which an industrial strength Toynbee nose peg…

What complete and utter balderdash! Writing as dedicated anti-Labour supporter and frequent contributor to Comment is Free at the Guardian Online, I have absolutely no perception at all of the editorial policy described above.

To the contrary, the Guardian is wholly partial and deferential towards the Government, avoiding except where unavoidable stories that damage. They employ what must be the most pro-Labour polling methodolgy that money can buy. They provide a virtual open platform for government ministers to chunder out whatever nonsense their slightest whims dictate. And have a pro-Labour commentariat that either vanish into wilderlands of political fantasy on the most tenuous pretences, or equivocate their criticism with mealy mouthed demeanour, never once foregoing an underlying dedication to some kind of pro-Labour sentiment. It was only after considerable agitation that they gave Henry Porter a toe-hold in a corner of a broom cupboard to campaign for civil liberties.

If you expect support for the liberal left any time soon, you’re going to have to find around £83,000 a week to keep the paper afloat. It is a lunatic asylum for the New Labour project, succesful only in disguising it’s commentariat’s frothing at the mouth. I love it.

Or they might abstain from endorsing anyone rather than risk alienating their precious readers?

The Economist usually likes to take sides at the last minute. Unfortunately I think it will go for the Conservatives – they were not at all impressed with the Budget

on topic – given that we’ve got MPs’ expenses to come, I suspect the Guardian might go for ‘vote for the best progressive candidate, in some cases that will be Labour, in others Lib Dem or Green, or even the odd Tory’

As for 12 – “I can confidently say that the only people of my generation who support Labour despite Iraq, despite all the betrayals, are scum who think their ascent to power is more important than any principles they have to siphon off to work their way up the ranks of the Labour Party.”

If you think that, you ought to get out more. If you spent some time involved in any of your choice of campaigns, be it anti-poverty, environment, anti-fascism, rights for asylum seekers, civil liberties or your pick of dozens of other good causes, you’d meet plenty of Labour supporters, of all ages, who aren’t “scum”.

I don’t think The Guardian, even with Polly’s nose-pegs, could possibly back this government.

They did so after the Iraq war. They’ll do so again.

Even back in the 80s and 90s Labour tribalists (myself included) did not much like the Graun’s editorial line ‘ written by Trots, read by liberals’ was the common description. Remember that Toynbee also is not a Labour loyalist – she helped to found the SDP in an attempt to destroy it.

I think that the shift by the Economist is more significant (as would be a shift by the Mirror).

How many organisations employing Labour Party members and supporters place place adverts with the The Guardian and will they be happy for it to promote another party?

Primarily addressing Don at #16 in this paragraph: The Guardian’s sister paper, The Observer, has often recommended a progressive rather than a party vote at elections, IIRC. In 1987, as if it mattered, the Guardian editorials were pretty neutral between Labour and the Liberal/SDP Alliance (a number of Guardian journalists were SDP activists).

But who are the possible contributors to the Guardian’s editorial process today? George Monbiot (green grandee), Seamus Milne (tanky), Polly Toynbee (inconsistent social democrat), Jackie Ashley (inconsistent social democrat), Mark Lawson (stick to the arts reviews). There are a few more liberal sparks in the Guardian box, but they struggle to illuminate.

Charlie @20″ How many organisations employing Labour Party members and supporters place place adverts with the The Guardian…”

By definition, all. Labour supporters are employed all over the place, just as are Greens, LibDems and Conservatives. Scots Nats tend to be concentrated in Scotland.

“…and will they be happy for it to promote another party?”

Conservative and LibDem run local authorities advertise in the Guardian, not just Labour ones. Likewise, many local authorities advertise in Northcliffe Media, owned by the Daily Mail. The Guardian is not the only newspaper to profit from local authority job advertising, you know.

I keep meaning to dig out the terms of the Scott Trust and see what it actually says. The Guardian is supposed, IIRC, to exist in order to promote liberalism and liberal values. They must be using a very strange meaning of the word at the moment. Ah well.

I expect a lot of papers will be calling on constituency by constituency voting this time. Sorry, expect? Hope, to expect the media to understand the system they report on is perhaps a bit much.

I think 14 has about got it right. Even Toynbee and Ashley have turned on Brown – but theirs is despair at Brown not Labour per se. Labour just isn’t what they (we) would like it to be. I hope the Guardian will go back to its Manchester principles – which would mean supporting the Lib Dems until Labour becomes a social democratic party again. It is not at the moment; in fact, it is more government by junta than government either by cabinet or party.

The Chairman of the Guardian Media Group is City Minister and arch-Brownite Lord Myners. Bad wig-wearing Editor Alan Rusbridger is an arch blairite, related to Tess Jowell, who openly described himself as part of the “New Labour project”. Michael White is a Jack Straw acolyte.

All of the above have been engaged in a concerted campaign to sack Trot Seamus Milne. Liberal Associate Editor (and their best journalist) David Leigh was marginalised and sent out on long term sabbatical.

Sorry, but they will support the war criminals again.

Should have mentioned that the truly horrible White is Deputy Editor.

Why SHOULD any national newspaper endorse ANY political party that’s clearly no good though? After all, all newspapers have a readership and if that readership is coming around to seeing the Cameroonians as the likely alternative to the shambles that is New/Old or Any Labour, why should the newspaper not follow the readership? In one sense, that’s their job. This does genuinely seem to be happening now and I do think that this is a prime reason why there’s no coming back now for Gordon – the broadsheets have ALREADY decided. There can be no miracle come-back – they’re setting out their stall and (just like everyone else) they don’t like to be on the wrong side…..

Let’s all recall that this happened with Blair to a large extent in 1997. Most of the braodsheets decided on New Labour well before that election. Do you not recall???

Sunny, I think you’re bending the stick pretty heavily with the anti-Labour stuff. We’re talking about an upcoming election under FPTP. Even if you identify with basic stuff from ten years ago like the min wage and HRA, they’re still both worth defending.

I fear that in all our distaste for New Labour we’re sleepwalking towards something even worse, possibly far worse.

The Graun is the worst offender in this particular orgy of complacency.

The Guardian and Observer, in recent years, have opened the pre-election editorial meeting to all editorial staff. I is the editor and leader writing team who decide the line, but the meeting certainly has an influence. (I was at the Observer and involved in leader writing in 2001). The leader writers are not simply the named columnists: the chief Guardian leader is Julian Glover, though major decisions are certainly collective ones.

Alan Rusbridger describes the 2005 process here
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/election2005/archives/2005/05/03/how_the_guardian_decided_its_leader_line.html

What follows is very much my top of the head opinions, for what its worth, rather than informed by talking to anybody about this, so do take it all with a pinch of salt.

The 2005 editorial is worth reading in full
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/03/election2005.comment

I think that it reflects that the tonality of leading articles of this kind (in the Guardian, Observer and Indy titles particularly, but to some extent also in The Times) is increasingly rather cautious of seeming to issue a ‘how you should vote’ instruction, in terms of respecting individual readers’ feeling that their vote is personal, and the pluralism of views among readers, and increasingly stresses the choice of individual readers and is offering the paper’s broad assessment of the parties by the paper to help inform that. That makes tub-thumping endorsements less likely all around.

My guess is that the tonality of The Guardian’s leader will be similar to 2005, when it comes to the the LibDems in particular. I think they will certainly again endorse all sitting LibDem MPs – as they did in 2005, and be warm about the party more generally. I doubt they wlll suggest a vote for the LibDems everywhere. I expect they will prefer Labour to Conservative candidates in seats primarily fought between those two parties, which will of course do much to decide the outcome (ie, winning party, scale of majority). That in itself makes a blanket LibDem endorsement unlikely where there, when there are 150-200 decisive seats where they are not a major factor, though it is a point usually combined with advocacy of electoral reform and (depending on their campaign) often a nod to the Greens.

The Guardian will naturally be warmer about the Tories this time, though I think in an arms-length ‘much to prove’ scepticism about the nature of a possible government being unclear, while probably wanting to have a voice over time in scrutinising and warning against a Tory swing rightwards. (They will remain sceptical of the Tories on distribution/inequality; and I think perhaps particularly on Europe. Europe in itself I think would rule out the possibility of a Cameron endorsement, even were it possible on other grounds which is doubtful, and is a sensible reason for The Guardian to retain a strong preference for Labour over the Cons, as well as for the LibDems to hold off the Cons in their seats. If it has been understated in the campaign, that might be a reason for the Guardian to emphasise it).

The way the paper approaches this might also partly depend on the state of the polls.
One could imagine – if things tightened up (and remember the Tories need a double digit plurality to be safely into overall majority territory) – that the Guardian, Obs and/or Indy might suggest a hung parliament is more to be welcomed than to be feared, particularly emphasising constitutional and electoral reform, and perhaps civil liberties too.

Alternatively, if the Tories were to maintain or extend a strong lead, I could imagine that there could also be an issue about the fear of a large victory, how voters and opposition parties might best constrain the party’s right and try to encourage its modernising instincts.

correction to Craig Murray@26

I think the Guardian Deputy editors are Ian Katz, Katherine Viner and Paul Johnson.

I believe Michael White is an associate editor, which I think is different. (Similarly, Andrew Rawnsley is an associate editor at the Observer as well as chief political columnist). As Craig says, Seamas Milne is also an associate editor alongside White, as well as a columnist having been comment editor until 2007. (I don’t know but I can imagine that Seamas himself might well choose Socialist as a self-description ahead of [or at least alongside] “Liberal”, which Craig describes him as @25)

Georgina Henry is assistant editor, and in overall charge of comment, while Julian Glover is chief leader writer.

@ Miller

You’re kidding, right? The worse financial calamity in Britain’s eace time history (did I understate this?) – exactly HOW could it possibly be WORSE? In the absence of a full blown war -something which NL has also more or less given us – it’s pretty much impossible for it to be worse. In fact, whichever party wins the next general election of whatever hue, the situation must by definition get better, largely because NONE OF THEM have any choice whatever but to radically improve the public finances.

Want to know what’s going to happen? Take a look at what happened in Ireland yesterday. They CUT CHILD BENEFIT. That’s right. That’s how bad it’s going to get, whoever wins. Why? Because what the LP has visited upon us is as bad as it can get. It can’t get worse. It has to be fixed and the great irony is that if NL were to actually win they would have no choice but to impose financial policy which they would find it gut-wrenchingly difficult to implement and which goes diametrically against the deluge of spin that they have dumped upon us for the past 12 years. Believe me, the very last thing in the world that the Labour party needs is victry at the next general election.

As for defending the minimum wage, I take it that you have no objection to 20% unemployment?

This is just here-say and nonsense, The Guardian has provided no indication whatsoever that they are considering to back the Liberal Democrats, The Guardian are economically to the left, they will not commit to a party which Nick Clegg has carried to the right economically.

The Guardian will still critically support Labour as being the best bulwark against the BNP in places like the North West and West Midlands.

Brett @ 31: Oh yes, it can get a whole lot worse. The huge fiscal deficit – agreed, its Labour’s creation – raises all sorts of tough questions about the future of tax and spend. To get over the deficit we need some balance of spending cuts and tax rises. What will that balance be? To the extent that there are cuts, where will they fall? The Conservatives will naturally place the emphasis as much as possible on spending cuts, and their priorities for cuts are likely to be different to Labour’s (or the Lib Dems’). This is not necessarily an argument for Labour, as opposed to the Lib Dems or Greens, but it is certainly a reason to be more concerned about the prospect of a Conservative government.

I don’t believe that.

We all know, or at least the vast majority of sane and sensible people know, that there are going to have to be cuts.

We all know, ditto, that whether we like it or not, these cuts are going to be savage. Given the sheer scale of the deficits, the borrowing and the negative balance on trade/current account, it seems pretty damn obvious that (whatever all of the politicialns will undoubtedly say) these cuts are going to affect just about every area of Government expenditure. (note: when they say that health and education are protected, don’t believe any of them – not for an instant. These areas are huge and will undoubtedly be affected. There is unlikely to be a choice).

Most of the voting population are pretty much aware of this to one extent or another, whether intellectually or instinctively. They know it’s going to have to be done and they know it’s going to hurt.

We can debate all sorts of things on discussion boards but I submit that most people are unlikely to now dispute the above. Whatever politicians of any political leaning say, it really is pretty bleedin’ obvious.

Now, you will say, what about tax rises? There will be some. But, look, the British State now collects a tax take which (as a historic percentage) is not far off the maximum that can be realistically achieved. There’s a little more that can be achieved, but by no means enough – not by a very, very long chalk.

All this being the case, here’s what I think that the voting public will conclude……

“For God’s sake, get on with it. Don’t fudge the issue. If it’s got to be done, do it and try and get it over with quickly and decisively. Get us out of this mire as quickly and certainly as you can and don’t backtrack. Tell us the truth about it and be clear and objective.”

So, given that we know that none of the political parties can afford to be too open about just how horrible this is going to be, who do you think that it is likely that the public will choose to fulfil the above?? Who do you think that it is likely that they will ASSUME that can do this, whatever is said?

Again, really, it’s pretty bleedin’ obvious, isn’t it? Don’t you think that intelligent papers like the Guardian are coming to the same sort of conclusions???

I don’t think it’s surprising that people on the left feel a certain residual loyalty to Labour – for a long time the party has, by and large, stood for the kind of things we believe in and we have seen a Labour government as the best way of achieving the kind of society we want to see, even if it has disappointed when in power. It is also true that as long as we have FPTP Labour still represents our best hope of getting the kind of decent centre-left government we can support, however unlikely that may seem now. That’s why people such as Rowenna Davis and myself still want to support Labour even if we find it hard to at the moment.
And there are, as Don Paskini points out, still some decent, progressive people in the party. There are also, especially among the “young turks”, some whom I would be less inclined to associate with and who do display the kind of extreme partisan attitudes that you would associate with some football fans (disclaimer, I am an ardent West Ham supporter myself).
I buy the Guardian on Saturdays and browse the website most days and get the impression that it is critical of a lot of what Labour does but does still want a Labour government, albeit a better one than we have at the moment. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they pushed an “anti-Tory” vote rather than a Labour one at the next election. Clearly individual columnists will agree or disagree with that line, and some of them do have long-standing loyalties to Labour for the reasons I mentioned above so I’m not surprised that they are still sympathetic to the party.
I think it’s more important though that a newspaper puts its own principles (journalistic and otherwise) before support for a particular party and it’s right that the Guardian shouldn’t flinch from scrutinising the government’s actions. And Labour are bound to come under more scrutiny than the Tories – they are the ones actually in power and their actions and policies matter much more. When the election campaign actually starts then there will doubtless be more focus on the Tories.
The same goes for this site – the idea is to promote a liberal/left agenda and it’s right that Labour are criticised where they fall short of that and that promoting that agenda should come before loyalty to any particular party. We expect the Tories to be right wing and illiberal so why expend energy bashing them for it. We expect Labour (and Lib Dems for that matter) to be better. I have no beef with sites whose purpose is to support the Labour Party but that isn’t IMHO what LibCon should be about.

May be a punctuation problem. I certainly didn’t call Seanus a Liberal, I called him a Trot!

Luke, Clegg has certainly not moved the LDs to the right economically. Just look at the current list of proposals to raise the personal allowance to £10k, create a local income tax to replace council tax and to institute green taxes on carbon-heavy goods and services. How is any of that a move to the right?

Footnote to Charlieman’s summary of the various Guardian columnists: he left out Martin Kettle (Blairite-in-chief, rather than Labour), who’s latest bright idea is that Hazel Blears could be Labour’s Margaret Thatcher.

No, your computer isn’t on the blink…

The Guardian can’t endorse the LibDems for government (think David Steel), and any attempt at nosepegs will be laughed to scorn this time round. They’ll probably fudge it via an tactical anti-Tory vote while secretly crossing their fingers for a hung parliament.

craig,

sorry, my mistake. I misread that comment re Seamas Milne. Thought liberal referred to him, not Leigh.

Thanks for clearing that up Sunder.

tim f – you’re right, I forgot The Mirror. I can’t take the Morning Star seriously as a national paper to be honest. Does it actually have any impact?

I was being slightly facetious when I mentioned the Morning Star – clearly its distribution is not up there with the others. You’d have to be fairly ultra-left to qualify its overtly left-wing credentials though, and it’s sold all over the country, so I’d say it qualifies as “national”. In terms of its impact, I’d say it definitely has an impact on its core readership. It also makes more of an effort these days to branch out beyond tankies, although you won’t find it criticising trade union leaderships, so some of that perspective remains.

I hope The Observer returns to it’s roots and coolly endorses the LibDems as the party which most closely shares it’s core values – I also think this would help distinguish it from being just ‘The Guardian on Sunday’.

I stopped buying the Observer because of the changes which occurred when it was taken over – I don’t want guilt and anguish over my breakfast, I want the sober truth; I don’t want flash for today, I want solid repute and a steadfast steely reliability which reaches back to the beginning.