According to a source knowledgable concerning such matters the next few years shall be especially interesting ones for London media:

It would seem that Boris intends to ban the evening papers due to them generating too much mess and hassle. Exactly how likely this actually is to occur is uncertain owing to us not being certain whether it is actually his idea (seemingly those that aren’t get priority, perhaps that’s for the best) and how likely it is merely another “Release the River Fleet” is unclear.

Assuming, however, that he does do as much this would annoy Murdoch but relieve the Daily Mail group. This is because The London Paper runs at a mild loss while The London Lite runs at a major one. The former exists to establish itself as its own brand, however, while the latter exists only to serve as a challenger to ensure that the Paper can not, as well as a flimsy and rather poor grade advert to the slightly less low quality Evening Standard. To be honest this shows; the Lite is little more than an even more awful of the Standard and accordingly is truly dire.

However, if what has been claimed will come to pass does then it will have served its function. With The London Paper no longer in existence the Lite could be shut down quite happily, and would in fact save the DMG a good deal of cash. In short, mutual destruction suits them just find.

Less pleasing for them is the woe which The Evening Standard has encountered. Admittedely a fair proportion of this must be due to the free dailies but the newspaper being well to the right of the average Londoner {the only socialist writer they have is a neo-conservative chap so loathsome I won’t even honour with a naming} and also of very low content quality and production values.

{You may well note that it tried to suspend reality by claiming to be a “Quality newspaper”. I find this the height of irony as every newspaper possesses “Quality”, be it high/good quality or low/bad quality. It is rather akin to saying that a film “Contains language”, only more inane because they are trying to assert themselves as a valauble product while displaying that the editor is incapable of using the English language properly.}

But regardless of my view of the rag the numbers suggest that it will be gone in five years. I find this news pleasing but I’m not sure if I can wait that long. Of interest is that this will leave the DMG in control of a pair of outfits, one The Daily Fail and the other The Fail on Sunday. This will seemingly seriously curtail their influence, albeit after the 2012 election, where they will receive one last chance to offer hard-line support for the right.

There is a chance, of course, that this Boris ban turns out to be just another lie {see: amnesty for immigrants} and that the sales of the Evening Standard pick up {doubtful} but this certainly creates an interesting vision for the future. Not to mention a pleasing one; few of the downfalls would I regret. It would only be a pity to see the only paper Murdoch has failed in ruining outlawed.

Yesterday, I wrote that Labour would duck the issue of 42 Days, either by not standing in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, or running on a full slate if they did.

Kelvin MacKenzie might stop that. In preparing to stand if Labour don’t, he’s forced a choice on them. They might not stand - in which case he will. That’ll humiliate them by demonstrating their cowardice, and it’ll force an argument on 42 Days anyway. MacKenzie says he’d stand solely on 42 Days and authoritarian platform - so there will be a debate, and Labour won’t be able to stop it.

The alternative is that Labour stand - and get forced into an argument on 42 Days, and get hammered. So, that’s the choice of humiliation or even more humiliation for Labour. Or, as it’s otherwise known: not a real choice at all.

Indeed, so potentially damaging is this to Labour’s preferred strategy of hiding in the Commons toilet and lobbing shit (”irresponsible,” etc) at Davis that it’s hard to see why MacKenzie’s doing this. Murdoch and his minion MacKenzie are well known for their shared penchant for an authoritarian approach to everything. And yet their plan could well lead to humiliation for the government.

Perhaps MacKenzie wants to force Labour to stand a candidate and have an argument he thinks should happen. Perhaps he thinks he can make that argument better than Labour himself, and can win. He’d be wrong if that were the case. All his threat to stand has done is strengthen the opposition. He and Murdoch, like much of the media, are apparently at odds with much of the public over Davis resignation: just read some of the comments even appearing on the Sun’s website.

And MacKenzie’s candidature might forge together a coalition for Davis that Labour wouldn’t. Most lefties and liberals loathe both Davis and MacKenzie in general. But when one agrees with you for once, and the other doesn’t, then the choice is clear - support the candidate running on 42 Days, and make it clear the race is about 42 Days and nothing else. He’s hated more, and has positioned himself on the opposite side of the barricades. So you shout at him, regardless of who else joins you. Observe this, for example:

Yes, yes, Davis is a distinctly unreliable “libertarian” with some nasty socially conservative stances, but who can resist the idea of kicking Rupert Murdoch in the nuts? For myself, I’m glad I don’t live close enough to face this particular dilemma. MacKenzie’s decision is partly conditional on Labour not standing, it seems, but my feeling is that momentum - and strong-arming from his boss - will carry him into standing whether Labour field a candidate or not (and, increasingly as the hours tick by, it looks like not). Here’s his positive manifesto for a bright future:

MacKenzie may just have added a few LibDems, Greens (?), independents and maybe even discontented Labour activists to the campaign buses.

So - the public appear touched by Davis’ apparent statement of princple, and there may even be a unified campaign for him. Regardless of the propaganda Murdoch churns out for MacKenzie, he’ll find it hard to win.

But on the off chance he does, will the last person to leave Haltemprice and Howden please turn out the lights?

Murdoch’s support for Obama has crossed the Atlantic, it seems. From the Sun, of all places, comes this:

I hope he [Obama] wins. I think he will and I also hope he lives long enough to bring in the reforms that could rehabilitate America.

Pretty glowing stuff. We know that Murdoch virtually exercises editorial control over the Sun; if not on an article by article basis, then at least on a “I’ll withdraw any columnist I don’t like and Rebekah Wade can do nothing if she wants to keep her job,” level. And would he really allow an article on a candidate he didn’t like - if, of course, he hadn’t already endorsed one he did?

So, we can guess he’s pretty confident of Obama winning if he’s letting papers over here publish in his favour. What’s almost more interesting is this:

Now she [Clinton] has to take a deep breath and work hand-in-hand with Obama who still has a mountain to climb.

Together she and Obama would make a formidable team — Obama needs her to win over the Hispanic voters and the white working class. But they somehow have to resolve their differences and put aside their egos and work together.

That reads like a veiled call for a Clinton VP. Obama doesn’t need to put aside his ego; he’s won, he’s no need to fight with Clinton unless she starts it. So - ?

This isn’t the “Sun Says” editorial which everyone really thinks is “Murdoch Says.” So it’s very possibly not his opinion. This isn’t one of Murdoch’s American ventures and won’t feasibly affect many (any) American voters in November. So he’s no reason to push for these hints here anyway, as no-one influential is likely to pick them up. And, as far as anyone can tell, he’s never liked the Clinton’s - so he’s really got not reason to push for her for VP.

It’s probably just the columnist expressing an opinion he’s no need to censor. But could he want Clinton for VP?

(For the record: I suspect not. But it’s worth flagging…)

Is anyone actually surprised that Murdoch backed Obama? The man knows to back a likely winner. He did it over here with Major, Blair and Boris. He did it in Australia with Howard, backing him then backing away in 2007. He did it in the USA with Bush. Murdoch is a wily opportunist with a good nose for political developments familiar with his various audiences. It’s how he sells his papers.

So, naturally, Murdoch had the New York Post back Obama. He backs winners, he thinks Obama will win, especially with his backing, and so backs him. Perhaps the most telling part there is that Murdoch (presumably) thinks Obama will win - and how rarely Murdoch miscalls an election.

What’ll be interesting is what Fox does now. Murdoch’s rancid TV-tabloid sits even further to the right than the New York Post. It broadcasts to Republicans, and so it backs them. But, unusually, Murdoch’s preference this year genuinely seems to be for Obama (should this worry us?) - the “Yeah” certainly gave that impression.

But that’s probably because Murdoch thinks Obama will win the presidential election. The actual rhetoric must appall Murdoch, surely - he’s the very establishment Obama rails against. If that’s the case, then Fox News probably won’t change line at all. It’d only lose viewers for “going soft” on a Democrat, and could only keep them by endorsing McCain.

It’s if Obama’s victory looks borderline - or, for some inexplicable reason, Murdoch genuinely supports him (at which juncture, the sky will fall) - that change might come. Not in Fox’s overt line, which will remain the same, but it’s slant. The conservatism will stay, the Republicanism will stay - but will the station’s infamous bias relax for a period? Most of the damage Fox News does isn’t through its deranged rantings, but its twisted presentation of political events. Kerry might have stood up better in 2004 if it weren’t for coverage of the swiftboaters by Fox, for example. If that were to relax, just for a while, if Fox refrained from portraying Obama as a crypto-Marxist-limp-wristed-elitist-liberal-etc, then he’d benefit. At the very least, the shit that the GOP turd-monkeys throw come Summer and Autumn won’t fly as far without the overtly biased coverage of Fox News.

And - if Murdoch wants Obama to win, which presumably he does given how early on he’s had the Post call for him and how little he appreciates looking a fool, and if that looks shaky - that might just happen. Which would be interesting…

NOTE: Particularly avid readers (hah…) may have noted that, earlier, another version of this article appeared. It then disappeared, as it was rubbish. In a moment of madness, I for some reason wrote that Murdoch owned the Washington Post - which, of course, he doesn’t. Very odd of me. And a real shame, as it was nicely written daub too…

Did anyone watch Sky’s Mayoral debate? It was fundamentally pointless. This was one of the last chances for Londoners as a mass audience to see the candidates, and learn more on policy - but not so. Instead, it was a return to the same stilted punch and judy routines: Boris is a racist, Ken hates everyone, yadda yadda.

Boris trotted out tired old lines he’s used in every speech and debate so far, but got uproarious laughter this time. I couldn’t work out why until I noticed on Tory Troll that the debate was in Sloane Square - Boris country. A sneaky little attempt to weigh it in Boris’ favour on Murdoch’s (minon’s) part, perhaps? The audience simply hated Ken.

And this came with the last minute sucking up to Paddick as Ken and BoJo tried desperately to harvest Lib Dem votes. Paddick, meanwhile, was as rude as possible to them, presumably in an attempt to keep hold of his voters, and mark him out as an assertive, strong candidate.

As it is, he just looked like a shrill prat.

I’d go on, but there’s a far more interesting account over at Tory Troll, who was actually there. I quote perhaps the most interesting backstage detail:

The rest of the debate descended into a flattery-fest as both Boris and Ken fought to see who could be nicest to Brian whilst Brian tried to be as nasty as possible in return. But once the cameras turned off, the crowds left and Andrew Gilligan was out of view, Boris and Ken were left on the stage and suddenly they looked and sounded like old friends.

And like Ken’s embrace of Boris as the two walked off the Question Time stage last week, I saw a moment of truth behind the stage-managed indignation of recent weeks. Because behind all of the personal attacks that the candidates, journalists and bloggers have made over this campaign, it is easy to forget that this is a contest between two well-meaning and likeable characters. And although Boris’ has not quite been able to bring himself to look Ken in the eye when they were standing at the podiums, I suspect that they would quite happily share two stools at a bar.

Political polling is notoriously unreliable.  The ever brilliant politicalbetting.com keeps us novice commentators in check, and a healthy degree of scepticism prevents and rash judgements being made - but polls are nonetheless an invaluable tool to judge what the country is thinking.  This evening sees news about two polls for tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph and News of the World, both bringing bad news for Labour.

The News of the World poll is very similar to that conducted just before the Autumn election was cancelled.  It looks at 145 key Tory/Labour marginal seats, calculating how many of them would change hands.  Six months ago, Labour would have come away with a reduced majority.  Today, the Tories would win a majority of 64.  The poll is flawed in several respects - not least its narrow-minded focus on key marginals.  But the fact remains that 131 of the 145 closest seats would be lost to the Conservatives.  Idiot-proof analysis follows on the News of the World website:

In October, Gordon Brown called off an early General Election after a similar News of the World poll revealed he would lose over 49 seats.

In just six months those losses have more than DOUBLED, and David Cameron is now establishing clear blue water between the Tories and the embattled Labour Party.

It is a devastating blow to Gordon Brown just days before the local and London elections, when Labour are expected to suffer heavy losses.

In words particularly humiliating for Brown, it is argued that he is losing the debate to the party that is not debating:

Despite the fact that the Tories have not unveiled detailed policies in most areas, they are crucially winning the debate about who has the best ideas to run the country.

After taking over as Prime Minister Gordon Brown won widespread praise and respect for his handling of attempted car bombs in Glasgow on London.

But David Cameron now has a six point lead over Brown on the War on Terror.

The poll is particularly useful in telling seat-by-seat results, only otherwise possible upon extrapolation through systems like Electoral Calculus:

Today’s poll shows Chancellor Alistair Darling (majority 7,242), Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (2,716), Business Secretary John Hutton (6,037) and Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly (2,064) would all lose their seats.

And Labour now face a desperate battle to hold the formerly safe seat of Crewe and Nantwich in next month’s by-election caused by the death of MP Gwyneth Dunwoody .

Her 7,078 majority would disappear, giving the Tories a huge morale boost.

One final note for those sceptical about the role of next Thursday’s local elections in determining the national party standings:

In the wake of Thursday’s elections Labour Cabinet Ministers will say the local elections do not reflect the national picture.

But today’s poll shows just 19% say they will vote according to local issues.

A similar poll caused Brown to cancel an election.  Now things are so much worse for him, I wonder whether he regrets not going to the people for a mandate.  A 9-point swing to the Tories matches that gained by Labour in 1997: a humiliating end to the New Labour project.  Brown must really be regretting not calling an election in the Autumn.  That fortnight six months ago really changed the course of events for the next few years: the Tory party conference was a spectacular demonstration of how unity can be kept in times of crisis, and Brown’s indecision over the election demonstrated why the least worst option is often the only option.

The second poll out tomorrow is the latest from ICM in the Sunday Telegraph.  The poll shows a 10 point lead for the Tories.  But compared to ICM’s Guardian poll of a few days ago, the gap has widened by 5% because Labour has lost 5%.  In other words, the Tories have not won voters over with the wranglings over the 10p tax rate; Labour have lost them.  The obvious qualification is that the Tory share of the vote is much higher than it was a few months and years ago.

In all of this the LibDems are holding steady on 18% - a result that would more or less halve the number of MPs returned to Westminster.  As I highlighted the other day, it looks as if Clegg might struggle to hold his seat.  The inevitable crisis of leadership in the Labour party may well be matched in the LibDems.

Having explored the irrelevant tangent, one must consider just how permanent these poll leads are.  This has been a very bad few weeks for Labour, but voters have short memories and the polls might yet turn again.  At the very least, the Tories will have to work to convince voters to support them in order to consolidate any lead.  It is clear, however, that too many bad weeks leaves voters simply unprepared to consider giving a party the benefit of the doubt.  We are not there yet, but I think Labour will struggle very hard to stave off what now looks almost inevitable.

The last week has seen three national papers endorsing Boris Johnson for Mayor: the Sun, Telegraph and Times.  The Tories can now count on Murdoch support in 2010 - he doesn’t tend to back losers.  If Johnson wins on Thurday and the Tories sweep the board in the local elections, the press will look to the Tories as the deliverer of good things.  The public eye will be on the only governing Conservative in Boris Johnson - any major mistakes could be lethal, but if he delivers it will be to Tory benefit.  Like the SNP in Scotland, Labour have played the expectations game: if, like the SNP, Johnson performs well, Labour’s ratings will fall through the floor, like in Scotland.

So, the tide is turning, but has not turned just yet.  As I have said, though, the change is almost inevitable.

I’m not surprised.  Tory Troll sums it up well:

Of course The Sun’s endorsement of Boris Johnson should come as little surprise. Boris is in many ways the ideal Sun candidate. Here is a public school toff posing as a friend of the working class. A man who speaks almost entirely in mockney puns without actually saying anything even mildly offensive to Murdoch and his chums.

Quite simply he is a win-win candidate for the paper. If he fails as Mayor then he provides acres of stories and if he succeeds as mayor then nothing is lost. Even if he does fail, a Mayor Boris can blame all of his failures on a hostile Labour government. This in turn would be a plus for Murdoch, as he would have yet another stick with which to whip Brown.

Boris is astonishingly suited to the Sun.  His main policy platform - populism on crime - matches the Sun’s to a tee.  He worships Thatcher - as did they, in the 80s.  They both have similar views on immigration.  Both often verge on jingoism; note how the Sun approvingly borrows Boris’ quips about “Caracas Ken.”  Both hate the EU.  Both have written scurrilously about gays, and supported Section 28.  Both rely on image and bluster (or, in the Sun’s case, twin images emblazoned fully across page 3…) to cover a lack of substance.  Both write bad puns, and think themselves witty for it.  Both…

You get the picture.

And, meanwhile, the Sun has loathed Ken - or, the, “most odious man in Britain,” as they prefer it - since the 80s.  He was never going to win their support, and won’t miss it.

The Sun likes to tout itself as election-winning.  I find the claim questionable at the best of times - but here, it hasn’t made one bit of difference.  Unless it’d done something outlandish, like endorsing Paddick, this was entirely predictable.  The Sun has always hated Ken; meanwhile, it was bound to love Boris.  Its readers presumably agree, or pay so little attention to the Sun’s political coverage that it overly coming out (hah…) for Boris won’t have changed anything much.  So there…