Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Newpaper circulations: The Guardian and Telegraph doing the

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited November 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Newpaper circulations: The Guardian and Telegraph doing the best as all papers take a hit

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @another_richard



    They're not slowing the disease progression because they don't recognise it as a disease.

    House prices are rising.
    Debt is rising
    Retail sales are rising
    The trade deficit is rising

    Worst of all complacency is rising.

    Their approach is killing the patient.

    [snip]

    - The government deficit is coming down, both in absolute terms and as a % of GDP
    - House prices ex-London are still substantially below historical levels both absolutely and as a multiple of income. Yes, I think that there is an issue in P / SP London but I am not sure that, absent capital controls, there is much the government can do about this
    - Debt is rising: on a government level yes, by definition, but cutting a £120bn deficit in 1 year is not realistic. On a personal level, mortgage debt is still being paid down I believe
    - Retail sales are rising: yes. I don't like the consumption driven culture either, but I don't think the government has done much to encourage it in particular
    - Trade deficit is rising: I think you are making an error in just focusing on the trade deficit. The UK has a very strong export led services sector and these are an important part of the economy. That is not to ignore the importance of other sectors, such as oil & gas production and manufacturing. Shale gas exploitation should be accelerated, energy costs reduced (by shifting green taxes to general taxation, and active steps to break up the oligopoly that has developed in energy supply - I'd also look very closely at vertical integration, but it's too long since I studied industrial economics to have a strong view). There should be more investment in company-led training, incentives for employing the young, and more emphasis on key segments in the education system.

    Fundamentally, the last government left things in a terrible terrible state. Not just the obvious economic points, but also in welfare and, critically, education. This is going to take a generation to undo. Going too fast may shock the system into destruction.

    Cameron and Osborne are making a good start, but there is/will be much still to do. If they can fix education, for instance, that will be a huge thing. Welfare implementation is slow but - again - historically an intractable problem (I wish Blair had had the courage to listen to Field). I have a higher regard for Osborne than I do for Cameron, though.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,636
    FPT:

    @MrJones, @DavidL

    I have searched the internet to find some reference to this concept of

    "different goods different velocity of money"
    "velocity of money by type of spending"
    "discretionary spending velocity of money"

    And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes.

    Look, I think everybody here can think of ways in which mass immigration might cause deflationary pressures within an economy. However, the transmission mechanism of those pressures will not come through decreased velocity of money.

    MrJones, if you want to demonstrate that DavidL and I do not know what we're talking about (and I've been wrong many times, so this would hardly be a first), then please post a link to a reputable economist talking about 'velocity of money by category'.

    Thank you.
  • Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering.

    Thank goodness for the new, fresh online media.
  • Regarding FPT (Junior) :

    If two bods are having a head-to: Step aside. Too many people interfere - afternoon Neil - without a sane thought to contribute: Why...?

    :dont-jump-in-if-eejits-are-about:
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Re FT, Telegraph and Times, are there figures for on-line subscriptions or are these included in the posted figures?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,636
    @Fluffy:

    Actually, I started it, but I've been out all day, and DavidL stepped into the breach.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    @MrJones, @DavidL

    I have searched the internet to find some reference to this concept of

    "different goods different velocity of money"
    "velocity of money by type of spending"
    "discretionary spending velocity of money"

    And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes.

    Look, I think everybody here can think of ways in which mass immigration might cause deflationary pressures within an economy. However, the transmission mechanism of those pressures will not come through decreased velocity of money.

    MrJones, if you want to demonstrate that DavidL and I do not know what we're talking about (and I've been wrong many times, so this would hardly be a first), then please post a link to a reputable economist talking about 'velocity of money by category'.

    Thank you.

    "And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes."

    Yeah i know. I looked too.

    "do not know what we're talking about"

    I'm not saying that. The standard idea is as you describe that it's just about spending vs saving. I'm saying on top of that different *categories* of spending will have their own velocities.

    To take a different example. During a credit boom discretionary spending is turned into fixed loan repayments. If the velocity of the loan repayment spending category is lower than the velocity of the discretionary spending category then you have a mechanism for the boom bust cycle.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    Guardian down to rock bottom then - be interesting to know what share of their circulation is to organisations rather than individuals as this will likely be the last to go.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    Also be interesting to see how much these single month comparisons vary - when I google Guardian circulation a link to their own summary comes up, showing they were down 12% YoY in June, and down 10% of a YTD vs PY basis, which is much more relevant than single month comparators.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?

    It was ex-London prices I was referring to, not London prices. I believe London prices (from memory) have now exceeded the previous peak. Certainly they have in P / SP - even the estate agents I talk to say it feels bubbly. (Although I do recall an article saying that P / SP assets tend to trade at a discount to asking, while the suburbs are selling for a premium)

    Will see if I can find a link to the ex-London data.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    maaarsh said:

    Also be interesting to see how much these single month comparisons vary - when I google Guardian circulation a link to their own summary comes up, showing they were down 12% YoY in June, and down 10% of a YTD vs PY basis, which is much more relevant than single month comparators.

    Looking at the Guardian link, these are YTD comparisons so may be worth changing the misleading title.

    Quite a turnaround for the Guardian from -10% at the half year point.
  • A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited November 2013
    Not surprising the Guardian doing relatively well.

    I'm assuming all those Al Qaeda affiliates took out bulk subscriptions when they started publishing the Snowden stuff, which offset their normal churn in readers.

    ::Innocent Face::
  • These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013): The Times and Telegraph doing the best as all papers take a hit:

    The Independent – 16.9 per cent drop = 3,470 to 2,885;

    Scottish Daily Mirror – 11.3 per cent drop = 20,928 to 18,573

    The Financial Times – 10.7 per cent drop = 2,808 to 2,508;

    Daily Star of Scotland – 10.6 per cent drop = 54,320 to 48,572;

    Daily Record – 10 per cent drop = 243,726 to 219,390

    The Scottish Sun – 10 per cent drop = 284,298 to 255,742;

    Scottish Daily Mail – 9 per cent drop = 102,774 to 93,470;

    i – 6.3 per cent drop = 19,836 to 18,589;

    The Guardian – 6 per cent drop = 11,243 to 10,565;

    Scottish Daily Express – 3.6 per cent drop = 56,028 to 54,006;

    Daily Telegraph Scotland – 3.2 per cent drop = 19,265 to 18,650;

    The Times Scotland – 2.9 per cent drop = 18,814 to 18,269.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?

    Found this quickly via google. A little out of date and not ex-London, but shows that (from a multiple perspective) prices well below peak

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/8747370/House-prices-in-graphs-and-tables.html?image=4
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    @MrJones, @DavidL

    I have searched the internet to find some reference to this concept of

    "different goods different velocity of money"
    "velocity of money by type of spending"
    "discretionary spending velocity of money"

    And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes.

    Look, I think everybody here can think of ways in which mass immigration might cause deflationary pressures within an economy. However, the transmission mechanism of those pressures will not come through decreased velocity of money.

    MrJones, if you want to demonstrate that DavidL and I do not know what we're talking about (and I've been wrong many times, so this would hardly be a first), then please post a link to a reputable economist talking about 'velocity of money by category'.

    Thank you.

    This guy called Friedmann said this:

    ""Perhaps the simplest way for me to suggest why this was relevant is to recall that an essential element of the Keynesian doctrine was the passivity of velocity. If money rose, velocity would decline. Empirically, however, it turns out that the movements of velocity tend to reinforce those of money instead of to offset them. When the quantity of money declined by a third from 1929 to 1933 in the United States, velocity declined also. When the quantity of money rises rapidly in almost any country, velocity also rises rapidly. Far from velocity offsetting the movements of the quantity of money, it reinforces them."

    I think that has been vividly proved to be true in the last 8 years. As credit expanded dramatically up to 2008 velocity also increased dramatically in a self fulfilling cycle. The withdrawal of credit after that date has indeed reduced the velocity of money since.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Carlotta

    People do tend to underestimate the regional / local press. But I can see why national TV stations focus on the national press.
  • @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?

    House prices in our part of Leamington are certainly at an all time high.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    So the drop in circulation of the Sun is greater than the entire circulation in The Guardian?

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited November 2013

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Well, indeed.

    Note that the P&J and the Courier outsell the Herald and the Scotsman, which in itself speaks volumes about the utterly appalling quality of the Glasgow and Edinburgh publications.
  • These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013):

    So only the Daily Record, Scottish Sun and Scottish Daily Mail outsell the Aberdeen Press & Journal.

    Is that reflected in Newspaper reviews in Scotland?

    In England we hear far more about the Independent than papers with nearly double its circulation.....

  • Neil said:

    @Carlotta

    People do tend to underestimate the regional / local press. But I can see why national TV stations focus on the national press.

    That...and they're all based in London.....last week the Sunday Papers review on Marr was led by the Independent!

  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Something not mentioned widely is the bumper Saturday sale of the Guardian.

    Take that out and Mon-Fri sales are 166,330 per day.

    Anyone fancy taking out BBC sales to make us all laugh?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?
  • Roger said:

    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?

    Does this mean we'll start having to call you Pagger?

  • These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013):

    So only the Daily Record, Scottish Sun and Scottish Daily Mail outsell the Aberdeen Press & Journal.

    Is that reflected in Newspaper reviews in Scotland?

    In England we hear far more about the Independent than papers with nearly double its circulation.....

    No. Newspaper reviews (read BBC newspaper reviews) focus heavily on the Herald and the Scotsman.

    Mind you, if you have ever actually bought the P&J, the Courier, the Daily Retard, the Scottish Sun or the Adolf Hitler Fanclub Newssheet, you can understand why.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited November 2013

    Neil said:

    @Carlotta

    People do tend to underestimate the regional / local press. But I can see why national TV stations focus on the national press.

    That...and they're all based in London.....last week the Sunday Papers review on Marr was led by the Independent!

    I really think it's a national / regional thing rather than a where they're produced thing. Otherwise the South London Press would be making regular appearances, wouldnt it?

    Did the Independent have the most interesting story?
  • A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Well, indeed.

    Note that the P&J and the Courier outsell the Herald and the Scotsman, which in itself speaks volumes about the utterly appalling quality of the Glasgow and Edinburgh publications.
    Earlier this week the Courier reached its 50,000th edition!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-24803820
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    The Indy is indeed a joke now but the last person out the door should be the person who thought of the "i". If it was not for that innovation it would surely be dead already. I thought it would canabalise the existing readership and no doubt it has to some extent but it has clearly gone well, well beyond that.

    I am sure I am not alone in finding the FT paywall access particularly irritating. Just think how many times the Telegraph get "shared" on here by comparison. They need a rethink.
  • Neil said:

    Neil said:

    @Carlotta

    People do tend to underestimate the regional / local press. But I can see why national TV stations focus on the national press.

    That...and they're all based in London.....last week the Sunday Papers review on Marr was led by the Independent!

    I really think it's a national / regional thing rather than a where they're produced thing. Otherwise the South London Press would be making regular appearances, wouldnt it?

    Did the Independent have the most interesting story?
    It had a planted story by Ed (forgotten his latest wheeze - no doubt a new one tomorrow...)

    But if politicians worry about 'disengagement', why do they spend their time sitting on sofas reviewing papers people don't read.....?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Carlotta

    Clearly paper reviews really, really get to you!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013):

    So only the Daily Record, Scottish Sun and Scottish Daily Mail outsell the Aberdeen Press & Journal.

    Is that reflected in Newspaper reviews in Scotland?

    In England we hear far more about the Independent than papers with nearly double its circulation.....

    No, I have never ever heard a review of APJ, in central belt it is very narrow viewpoint.
  • Neil said:

    @Carlotta

    Clearly paper reviews really, really get to you!

    No, its politicians who 'worry' about disengagement (a real issue) then indulge in behaviour which reinforces it....
  • malcolmg said:

    These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013):

    So only the Daily Record, Scottish Sun and Scottish Daily Mail outsell the Aberdeen Press & Journal.

    Is that reflected in Newspaper reviews in Scotland?

    In England we hear far more about the Independent than papers with nearly double its circulation.....

    No, I have never ever heard a review of APJ, in central belt it is very narrow viewpoint.
    It would add greatly to the gaiety of the nation!
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Charles said:

    @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?

    Found this quickly via google. A little out of date and not ex-London, but shows that (from a multiple perspective) prices well below peak

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/8747370/House-prices-in-graphs-and-tables.html?image=4
    Your chart is UK wide and dates back to 2011. According to the Nationwide house price index property in London is at its highest ever nominal price - I haven't done the calculation but given that real wages have fallen in recent years I' d guess that prices are at their highest ever multiple of earnings as well.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    These are the latest newspaper circulations in Scotland (Oct 2012 to Oct 2013):

    So only the Daily Record, Scottish Sun and Scottish Daily Mail outsell the Aberdeen Press & Journal.

    Is that reflected in Newspaper reviews in Scotland?

    In England we hear far more about the Independent than papers with nearly double its circulation.....

    No, I have never ever heard a review of APJ, in central belt it is very narrow viewpoint.
    It would add greatly to the gaiety of the nation!
    Could not be worse than Scotsman and Daily Rectum. The only one left that even resembles a newspaper is The Herald
  • A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Well, indeed.

    Note that the P&J and the Courier outsell the Herald and the Scotsman, which in itself speaks volumes about the utterly appalling quality of the Glasgow and Edinburgh publications.
    Earlier this week the Courier reached its 50,000th edition!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-24803820
    Thank you. I had not missed that story.

    In fact, the Courier is one of very few dead-tree newspapers which I still purchase. My favourite is the Sunday Herald (largely because of the good old-fashioned investigative journalism of Paul Hutcheon), and I might consider the Herald or the Sunday Post (Broons/Oor Wullie), but otherwise the Scottish media market is flooded by toilet paper. Mind you, if you wipe your erse with the Daily Mail you are likely to apply more shit to your bum.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    @charles

    Could you cite some evidence for your claim that London house prices are not at all-time highs?

    Found this quickly via google. A little out of date and not ex-London, but shows that (from a multiple perspective) prices well below peak

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/8747370/House-prices-in-graphs-and-tables.html?image=4
    Your chart is UK wide and dates back to 2011. According to the Nationwide house price index property in London is at its highest ever nominal price - I haven't done the calculation but given that real wages have fallen in recent years I' d guess that prices are at their highest ever multiple of earnings as well.
    Indeed it is.

    And to repeat my original claim: i was talking about EX-LONDON. i.e. OUTSIDE London. This means NOT INCLUDING London.

    Apologies for shouting, but you don't seem to be getting my point.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    edited November 2013
    Disappointed to see that The Sunil on Sunday is absent from the above bar chart :)
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited November 2013

    Roger said:

    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?

    Does this mean we'll start having to call you Pagger?

    A roger is more pleasant than a pagger.
  • Roger said:

    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?

    Does this mean we'll start having to call you Pagger?

    A Roger is more pleasant than a Pagger.
    Tell me about it.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Roger said:

    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?

    Does this mean we'll start having to call you Pagger?

    A roger is more pleasant than a pagger.
    We wont ask how you know.
  • Neil said:

    Roger said:

    @Stuart

    "Terrific to see the Unionist press taking such a paggering."

    Is Paggering a Scottish Rogering?

    Does this mean we'll start having to call you Pagger?

    A roger is more pleasant than a pagger.
    We wont ask how you know.
    Well, I assume that most adults have had both at some point in their lives, so you will have drawn your own conclusions by now.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    If every paper bought is one less ipad or laptop being read in a cafe on a Saturday afternoon then this is sad news indeed.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    @Carlotta

    People do tend to underestimate the regional / local press. But I can see why national TV stations focus on the national press.

    That...and they're all based in London.....last week the Sunday Papers review on Marr was led by the Independent!

    I really think it's a national / regional thing rather than a where they're produced thing. Otherwise the South London Press would be making regular appearances, wouldnt it?

    Did the Independent have the most interesting story?
    It had a planted story by Ed (forgotten his latest wheeze - no doubt a new one tomorrow...)

    But if politicians worry about 'disengagement', why do they spend their time sitting on sofas reviewing papers people don't read.....?
    Perhaps you should read this old, but still relevant, article.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/11/best-frenemies-politicians-press
  • Ninoinoz said:

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Something not mentioned widely is the bumper Saturday sale of the Guardian.

    Take that out and Mon-Fri sales are 166,330 per day.

    Anyone fancy taking out BBC sales to make us all laugh?
    Indeed. The BBC is the elephant in the room.
  • Grandiose said:

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    So the drop in circulation of the Sun is greater than the entire circulation in The Guardian?

    Well, the Sun can afford the drop in circulation. The Guardian can't.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited November 2013
    Next said:
    See previous thread. Eg.

    Sorry to hear of the death of Helen Eadie MSP (Labour, Cowdenbeath).

    She was a veteran of the reconvened parliament, representing Dunfermline East from 1999-2011 and the new Cowdenbeath constituency from 2011.

    Her father-in-law was former MP (1966-1992) for Midlothian Alex Eadie. She worked for her father-in-law and Harry Ewing (MP for Stirling/Falkirk/Grangemouth 1971-1992) at Westminster, and was on James Callaghan's general election campaign team. Prior to her election to the Scottish Parliament she was a full-time trade union official for the GMB and a councillor on Fife Council.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Eadie
  • Francois Louw has to be the vilest most despicable Rugby player since Cian Healy
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Ninoinoz said:

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Something not mentioned widely is the bumper Saturday sale of the Guardian.

    Take that out and Mon-Fri sales are 166,330 per day.

    Anyone fancy taking out BBC sales to make us all laugh?
    Indeed. The BBC is the elephant in the room.
    Of course, something else occasionally mentioned is the disproportionate job advertising by the BBC sent to the Guardian relative to other newspapers, despite its meagre circulation in comparison.
  • It would be interesting to know how many on-line subscribers the FT has. I suspect they probably do well from corporate subscriptions as well. I work for a fairly large accountancy firm and we have a firm-wide subscription that all employees can register with, and I'm sure all the other big firms do too. Their on-line content is a very good product.
  • Ninoinoz said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Something not mentioned widely is the bumper Saturday sale of the Guardian.

    Take that out and Mon-Fri sales are 166,330 per day.

    Anyone fancy taking out BBC sales to make us all laugh?
    Indeed. The BBC is the elephant in the room.
    Of course, something else occasionally mentioned is the disproportionate job advertising by the BBC sent to the Guardian relative to other newspapers, despite its meagre circulation in comparison.
    Shhhhh! You'll wake Neil up.
  • AndyJS said:

    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.

    Au contraire. One of the worst pieces of excrement in the entire spectrum.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Ninoinoz said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    A little perspective.

    Oct 2013 Circulation:
    Sun: 2,150,649
    Daily Mail: 1,753,489
    Daily Mirror: 1,014,439
    Daily Telegraph: 549,068
    Daily Star: 522,226
    Daily Express: 514,217
    The Times: 389,379
    i: 296,573
    FT: 242,873
    Guardian: 198,803
    Independent: 69,066

    Meanwhile:
    Express & Star: 113,174
    Liverpool Echo: 85,463
    Aberdeen Press & Journal: 71,044
    Dundee Courier & Advertiser: 61,981
    Manchester Evening News: 59,860

    I say drop the Independent from the BBC Papers review & put in the Express & Star, Echo and the (in)famous Aberdeen Press & Journal ("Titanic sinks, Aberdeen man gets hair wet...)

    Something not mentioned widely is the bumper Saturday sale of the Guardian.

    Take that out and Mon-Fri sales are 166,330 per day.

    Anyone fancy taking out BBC sales to make us all laugh?
    Indeed. The BBC is the elephant in the room.
    Of course, something else occasionally mentioned is the disproportionate job advertising by the BBC sent to the Guardian relative to other newspapers, despite its meagre circulation in comparison.
    Shhhhh! You'll wake Neil up.
    It's going to take more than that to get me going on a Saturday evening!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    tim said:

    Charles is determined to exclude London from house price inflation but not GDP growth, makes no sense whatsoever.
    Is the insane Help To Buy to exclude London? No, so why exclude the area from house price indexes?

    The PBTories do not like to distort the market until it is expedient to do so. Raising house prices and making homeowners richer is the last throw of the dice for this unseemly lot. Pathetic !
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Does anyone remember tim being concerned about the Brown balloon of house prices?
  • Cardiff Arm's Park 1968 Wales v France. Crowd boo God Save the Queen, then ..,.

    http://youtu.be/DiF4QI5nIIY

    And if you speak French listen to the commentators!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    tim said:

    Charles is determined to exclude London from house price inflation but not GDP growth, makes no sense whatsoever.
    Is the insane Help To Buy to exclude London? No, so why exclude the area from house price indexes?

    Talking of insane, how about encouraging developers not to build at a time when we needed them to be building?

    After all, that's what happened with Labour's change to the planning laws that stopped planning permission from lapsing. Hopefully the coalition will change that madness.

    There is plenty of valid criticism to be made of the coalition's housing plans. Sadly for you, Labour were much worse.

    Pathfinder, anyone?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2013
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2013

    AndyJS said:

    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.

    Au contraire. One of the worst pieces of excrement in the entire spectrum.

    My comment was a bit silly actually because it was based on what the paper was like about 10 years ago. Unless it was just as bad 10 years ago.
  • And my answer to Charles fpt:

    " To answer just three points as I have to go out.

    1) House prices are not substantially below historical levels they are substantially below PEAK levels but substantially ABOVE AVERAGE levels. This makes Osborne's attempts to boost prices - and lets have nobody deny that's what Osborne is trying to do - all the more reprehensible.

    2) By trade deficit I mean trade in goods AND SERVICES. Despite the surplus we have on services we still have had a trade deficit in goods and services every single month for over 15 years. As an aside we have also had a permanent tourism deficit which has seen yet more wealth steadily flow from this country.

    3) Mortgage debt is not being paid down as I remember from the BoE stats It might be falling in percentage terms but falling from an massively excess amount to a mere heavily excessive amount does not excuse Osborne's mortgage subsidies.

    You're right about the terrible state of the country in 2010 but this isn't going to be undone, either in a generation or not, some of the reforms this government has attempted are good and some aren't, some will succees and some will fail. But the fundamental structure this government inherited will not be changed.

    Now this discussion has been had many times before and we can have it many times in future.

    But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.

    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

  • SeanT said:

    I note that the Telegraph arrested its swift and terminal decline the moment I joined it as a blogger.

    Just sayin'.

    You are a poor columnist, but you are not as poor as the usual rubbish at the Telegraph, therefore you decelerated the decline. A smidgin. Your career has thus not been a total waste of a life.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Evening all :)

    Well, I only read the Racing Post so I don't suppose I'm a typical newspaper reader either.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.

    Au contraire. One of the worst pieces of excrement in the entire spectrum.

    My comment was a bit silly actually because it was based on what the paper was like about 10 years ago. Unless it was just as bad 10 years ago.
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.

    Au contraire. One of the worst pieces of excrement in the entire spectrum.

    My comment was a bit silly actually because it was based on what the paper was like about 10 years ago. Unless it was just as bad 10 years ago.
    Few 'papers are as good as 10 years ago as budgets seem to have been cut everywhere (except perhaps at the Mail?). The FT has its line but it's more than happy to give space to people who disagree. I think it's the best newspaper we have (though it could be improved with a good old SeanT piece now and then to give everyone a heart attack).
  • Cardiff Arm's Park 1968 Wales v France. Crowd boo God Save the Queen, then ...

    watch Wales lose.....
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited November 2013
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Well, I only read the Racing Post so I don't suppose I'm a typical newspaper reader either.

    There is probably less fiction in the Racing Post than in the Guardian, the Telegraph ad infinitum.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I hardly ever buy a newspaper, but occassionally buy the Guardian or FT on the weekend.
    The Saturday edition of each is enough to browse for most of the weekend. both have quite interesting review and magazine sections.

    Who else reads a newspaper nowadays? My mother reads the Times each day and does the crossword. Only the retired have the time, I expect. It is a bit peculiar that elderly people are so obsessed with the news, and with the decline in British culture, when most of the events would not impact at all on an elderly retired lady.
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Pity to see the FT losing so many readers.

    Au contraire. One of the worst pieces of excrement in the entire spectrum.

    My comment was a bit silly actually because it was based on what the paper was like about 10 years ago. Unless it was just as bad 10 years ago.
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    I note that the Telegraph arrested its swift and terminal decline the moment I joined it as a blogger.

    Just sayin'.

    You are a poor columnist, but you are not as poor as the usual rubbish at the Telegraph, therefore you decelerated the decline. A smidgin. Your career has thus not been a total waste of a life.
    lol. *flattered*

    I'm curious to know who, in your eyes, constitutes a "good" columnist. But not so curious as to stop me going out for the evening, so be swift in your reply.
    Go out Sean. You'll have much more fun than in this pathetic blog thread.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989



    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

    There's a strong critique of Osborne/Carney's economic policy from Allister Heath in last Wednesday's City AM which I'm sure was referenced on here at the time.

    It is quite clear the artificial boom, powered by rock bottom interest rates, is designed purely and simply to create a "feel good" sense up to and through 2015. It is transparent political mismanagement of the economy such as we saw from Brown, Lawson and others before them.

    There is for me an overwhelming argument for interest rates to begin to rise and for normal monetary conditions to return - the economy is growing well and we need that to be sustainable and enduring, not a short-lived boom and bust.

    The inevitable post-election sharp rises in rates will do far more damage than a gradual tightening of monetary policy starting now but Osborne needs the mortgage payers and homeowners on side by 2015.

    The problem, as Osborne knows, is that the long years of eroding living standards won't be easily forgotten and nor does it help when the wages for many are still struggling while costs are continuing to rise well above inflation.
  • Cardiff Arm's Park 1968 Wales v France. Crowd boo God Save the Queen, then ...

    watch Wales lose.....

    Did they? Oh well.

    It's such a great clip. The Welsh anthem sung with such a community of feeling, the surprise of the commentators (I have never heard anything like this), the policemen standing ramrod straight, the open terracing and a crowd of what would largely have been miners, steelworkers etc, and the shape of the players - just normal blokes really. It's a lost world. Over in London I was approaching my 4th birthday.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    AndyJS said:
    The word "windfall" hints at it being undeserved in some way - like a lottery win. He set up a business many years ago and is now getting the rewards of that risk and effort. Good for him. If only there were more successful businessmen in politics.

  • AndyJS said:
    Good on him. One day i hope that'll be me; though I won't get near as much.

  • GeoffM said:

    AndyJS said:
    The word "windfall" hints at it being undeserved in some way - like a lottery win. He set up a business many years ago and is now getting the rewards of that risk and effort. Good for him. If only there were more successful businessmen in politics.

    And if only he'd stuck to being a business man

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    edited November 2013
    I think the Guardian have hit rock bottom. To say they are doing well paints a false picture. 199k circulation is anything but good.

    The Times is the paper that is doing well. They have arrested the very, very steep decline in their circulation figures by not giving their paper away for free. I just wish their website was better.

    The Telegraph also seem to benefiting from their paywall despite its ineffectiveness for anyone who decides to Google it for more than a few seconds.

    The Guardian also have a problem in the shape of their cash burn rate being too high. Their benefactor will run out of money before they begin to turn a profit at this rate and more assets will have to be sold off in order to continue functioning. It won't be long until Auto Trader goes the way of their stake in Emap/Top Right.

    The other interesting part is looking at the Indy, with Lebedev almost bankrupt who will take on a loss making company as a vanity project. I don't think there are many out there.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles is determined to exclude London from house price inflation but not GDP growth, makes no sense whatsoever.
    Is the insane Help To Buy to exclude London? No, so why exclude the area from house price indexes?

    No, I'm not.

    I just made a point that was specifically relevant to ex-London house prices (i.e. their value relative to their peak value). London prices have clearly performed much more strongly than the rest of the UK.

    There is a risk that Help To Buy will put increased pressure on London house prices. Against that you have the risk that given that prices are being pushed up by foreign investment (either directly or indirectly) that "normal people" can't afford to buy in our capital city. That is not healthy (e.g. when I lived near the Phillimore Estate* as a child houses were owned by architects and doctors; when I moved back in about 10 years ago it was bankers and lawyers. Now only hedgies andoligarchs can afford to buy there. Personally I don't think that is healthy in terms of a long term community as many of the properties are rarely occupied).

    * Of course I am aware that few people can afford to live on that particular housing estate, but it is the only one that I can provide such detailed long-term perspectives on the residential composition.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AndyJS said:
    Don't think "windfall" is the right term. That implies chance. This is a business he co-founded and still owns 49% of.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.

    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

    I object to the statement that they get a pass because they are 'my sort of people'. That has nothing to do with my assessment of their performance.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    GeoffM said:

    AndyJS said:
    The word "windfall" hints at it being undeserved in some way - like a lottery win. He set up a business many years ago and is now getting the rewards of that risk and effort. Good for him. If only there were more successful businessmen in politics.

    And if only he'd stuck to being a business man

    Leaving the partisan stuff out of it for just a moment if you can manage that, I think that every time someone makes the choice to stay in business it's a bad day for politics and for us all.

    It's healthy that people are still willing to take the pay cut to go into public service and face the brickbats of unthinking tribal opponents when it would be more comfortable and more profitable to steer the corporate route.

    Your snide comment is a good example of that.

  • Charles said:


    But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.

    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

    I object to the statement that they get a pass because they are 'my sort of people'. That has nothing to do with my assessment of their performance.

    Object all you like.

    You'll say that they should be doing X or you think that they handled Y badly.

    But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, or any other metaphor you want, you'll fall into line and back them up.

    You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

    There's no shortage of people who think similarly about their 'side' or their 'sort of people'.

    But I think such a mindset makes it harder for the 'committed' people to understand the 'independent' people.


  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Leyla Hussein's petition has reached 60,000 signatures. She presented the Channel 4 programme on FGM a few days ago:

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52740
  • stodge said:



    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

    There's a strong critique of Osborne/Carney's economic policy from Allister Heath in last Wednesday's City AM which I'm sure was referenced on here at the time.

    It is quite clear the artificial boom, powered by rock bottom interest rates, is designed purely and simply to create a "feel good" sense up to and through 2015. It is transparent political mismanagement of the economy such as we saw from Brown, Lawson and others before them.

    There is for me an overwhelming argument for interest rates to begin to rise and for normal monetary conditions to return - the economy is growing well and we need that to be sustainable and enduring, not a short-lived boom and bust.

    The inevitable post-election sharp rises in rates will do far more damage than a gradual tightening of monetary policy starting now but Osborne needs the mortgage payers and homeowners on side by 2015.

    The problem, as Osborne knows, is that the long years of eroding living standards won't be easily forgotten and nor does it help when the wages for many are still struggling while costs are continuing to rise well above inflation.
    Agreed.

    Does anyone doubt that Osborne would willingly damage the economy long-term to ensure a Conservative victory in 2015 ?

    Of course he and his supporters would justify it "we can't let Labour back in, its all for the best in the long run, blah and blah".

    But that mentality quickly leads to endless short term tactics with escalating long term damage.

  • Agreed.

    Does anyone doubt that Osborne would willingly damage the economy long-term to ensure a Conservative victory in 2015 ?

    Of course he and his supporters would justify it "we can't let Labour back in, its all for the best in the long run, blah and blah".

    But that mentality quickly leads to endless short term tactics with escalating long term damage.

    Can anyone name me a politician who would not be prepared to damage the economy in order to get re-elected? Osborne may be loathsome, but you are criticising the system in which he operates, rather than anything particular to the incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    GeoffM said:



    Leaving the partisan stuff out of it for just a moment if you can manage that, I think that every time someone makes the choice to stay in business it's a bad day for politics and for us all.

    It's healthy that people are still willing to take the pay cut to go into public service and face the brickbats of unthinking tribal opponents when it would be more comfortable and more profitable to steer the corporate route.

    Your snide comment is a good example of that.

    I think one of the problems business people face, and especially those who have run their own businesses, when they go into politics, is that whereas in the commercial world they can command and cajole in the political world they have to argue and persuade.

    People used to having their every word considered as law can struggle when forced to argue a position or seek approval for a policy.

    I've seen the same when business people go into local Government - they don't appreciate that a local authority with elected Councillors isn't the same as a business with shareholders.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Glad to hear it is going up so fast. It really is outrageous that there has not yet been a prosecution.
    AndyJS said:

    Leyla Hussein's petition has reached 60,000 signatures. She presented the Channel 4 programme on FGM a few days ago:

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52740

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited November 2013

    Charles said:


    But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.

    What you should be asking is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne as I voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now but their actions have made them worthless in my eyes. "

    I object to the statement that they get a pass because they are 'my sort of people'. That has nothing to do with my assessment of their performance.

    Object all you like.

    You'll say that they should be doing X or you think that they handled Y badly.

    But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, or any other metaphor you want, you'll fall into line and back them up.

    You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

    There's no shortage of people who think similarly about their 'side' or their 'sort of people'.

    But I think such a mindset makes it harder for the 'committed' people to understand the 'independent' people.


    You are making a lot of sweeping statements.

    I disagree with them on a number of things.

    But when I cast my vote (a) it makes no difference because K&C will elect a Tory and (b) I make my decision based, on balance, who offers the best overall programme.

    However, I think that on balance, even if they are not particularly inspiring, I am likely to support Cameron. I agree with a lot of UKIP's underlying thoughts, but I don't rate Farage and I think that a lot of party is in denial about the reality of the modern world/hankers after something that is gone and not coming back. In the past I have been tempted by the LibDems, but have not been impressed by the performance of their left wing in the Coalition. And I don't trust Labour.

    Where I would probably be happiest would be an FDP-style party. But that doesn't exist so, on balance, I support the conservatives.

    edit: and that has absolutely nothing to do with them being "my sort of people". If anything I more critical of Cameron because of it simply because - with all his advantages and opportunities - he has turned out to be a bit of a doofus
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989



    Can anyone name me a politician who would not be prepared to damage the economy in order to get re-elected? Osborne may be loathsome, but you are criticising the system in which he operates, rather than anything particular to the incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    It's definitely more nuanced than simply asserting any politician would intentionally damage the economy to win an election. They wouldn't see it in those terms - they would start from the conviction that they were carrying out the right policies in the right way at the right time and that view would be backed by experts aplenty.

    That doesn't make it right.

    Any politician seeking re-election has two cards to play - one says "have I done a good job managing the economy ?" and for most people "a good job" means they feel better off, more secure, have more money in their pockets, see their immediate family doing well etc, etc.

    The second card is to say "ok, I might not have done well but would the other guy be any better ?". Here Osborne has the advantage in that few people seem to think Ed Balls would have or would do any better. The most effective critique of the Coalition's economic policy is from those who don't think they've gone too far but not far enough.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Surely the % reduction is somewhat misleading. As the Guardian is only purchased by local authorities and a handful of lefties, a fall of 2% means only a telephone box number of fewer readers. However as the Daily Mail and Sun count their readers in the millions, their fall in readers is still larger than the total number of readers the likes of the Guardian had to start with.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Please no increase in interest rates. Spare a thought for Gen X Londoners with massive mortgages.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Carola said:
    Lammy must be a decent bet, despite it all. He looks different. He is different. And he's real London – brought up by a single mother in N17.
  • Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. Ajob, Lammy was eminently sound regarding the London riots, from memory.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Disappointed to see that The Sunil on Sunday is absent from the above bar chart :)

    Isn't it under special measures from the British Polling Council?
  • The circulation figures published by The Guardian and featured by Mike at the top of this thread appear to relate to the number of hard copies circulated and if so completely disregards the paid-for subscription companies circulated via the internet. If I'm right the figures as shown are disingenuous to say the least since, for example, The Times' subscription service has been growing at a very fast rate, currently totalling 355,711 copies daily which taken alone is almost 180% of The Guardian's headline hard copy circulation figure of 198,803.
  • SeanT said:



    The FT is an exceptionally good newspaper. It has, inter alia, provided the very best analysis of eurogeddon from the start: from both europhile and eurosceptic standpoints (and with pundits like Wolfgang Munchau switching sides, fascinatingly).

    It also has a very healthy internet subscription model, with a paywall. which dwarfs its paper sales (underlining the irrelevance of the stats in the threader).

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ft-group-profit-24-cent-advertising-now-accounts-third-revenue

    Prediction: the FT will be the first major *paper* to become internet only. It doesn't need the cost and hassle of printing on dead trees, and can function very well without: indeed most of its wealthy, worldwide readers would probably grimace at the idea of a real paper with ink that gets on your fingers.

    Not a great fan of the FT for purely personal reasons.

    My father was a distribution rep for the paper. He started at the Sketch in the early 60s and eventually ended up for most of his career at the FT. There were about a dozen distribution reps around the country making sure the papers got to the distributors and then on to the newsagents and although it wasn't a very well paid job it was enough for him to be able to buy a plot of land and build his house whilst we lived in a caravan on site in the winter of 69 -70.

    The year I got married (1993) one of Dad's colleagues had a bright idea. He went to the management and basically said that if they sacked all the other reps, employed 20 year olds on a fraction of the wage the reps were on and gave him a 50% pay rise he would manage the new recruits and make sure the job got done at a big saving to the paper.

    The management accepted the idea and my Dad and his colleagues all got sacked.

    I know it was just business and in a way I don't blame the paper but it did for my Dad as he was 50 years old and really had no chance of ever getting another professional position.

    So, as I say, not a big fan of the FT.
  • Charles said:



    You are making a lot of sweeping statements.

    I disagree with them on a number of things.

    But when I cast my vote (a) it makes no difference because K&C will elect a Tory and (b) I make my decision based, on balance, who offers the best overall programme.

    However, I think that on balance, even if they are not particularly inspiring, I am likely to support Cameron. I agree with a lot of UKIP's underlying thoughts, but I don't rate Farage and I think that a lot of party is in denial about the reality of the modern world/hankers after something that is gone and not coming back. In the past I have been tempted by the LibDems, but have not been impressed by the performance of their left wing in the Coalition. And I don't trust Labour.

    Where I would probably be happiest would be an FDP-style party. But that doesn't exist so, on balance, I support the conservatives.

    edit: and that has absolutely nothing to do with them being "my sort of people". If anything I more critical of Cameron because of it simply because - with all his advantages and opportunities - he has turned out to be a bit of a doofus

    Sweeping statements are effective as long as they hit more than they miss.

    And mine are hitting.

    As the only collateral damage might be to your feelings I'm prepared to live with that ;-)

    But I'm interested in your criticism of Cameron - that's a difference between you and Richard Nabavi.

    What do you think Cameron should have done differently ? And why do you still have a high opinion of Osborne ?
  • NextNext Posts: 826

    The circulation figures published by The Guardian and featured by Mike at the top of this thread appear to relate to the number of hard copies circulated and if so completely disregards the paid-for subscription companies circulated via the internet. If I'm right the figures as shown are disingenuous to say the least since, for example, The Times' subscription service has been growing at a very fast rate, currently totalling 355,711 copies daily which taken alone is almost 180% of The Guardian's headline hard copy circulation figure of 198,803.

    So Mike is manipulating the figures so he can get a headline that says "Guardian winning here".

    I wonder where he got that idea from?
This discussion has been closed.