I have noted a story in the FT this morning that says:
The Scottish Conservative party has ditched half its election candidates in an attempt to make itself Scotland's second-biggest party in parliamentary elections in May.
The makeover sees a new breed of younger, moderate Tories replace many of the party's longstanding candidates, as it seeks to appeal to voters from the centre ground.
I wonder what the media coverage would have been if Labour had ditched half its candidates for an election?
My concern is not with what the parties do: as I am not a member of any party that is not my business. But how the media reports certain issues is my business: I get my news from that media. Only the FT seems to have covered this story so far that I can see, and I have to wonder why (and I accept, it may be because it is wrong, but the FT does not usually make such errors). Or is it, more likely, that the media lack the objectivity that we need on such issues?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If Momentum have their way, Labour will be ditching half its current MP’s at the next election.
So?
It is a Party with members who can make choices
Do you have problems with that idea?
I’ve heard it’s called democracy
As I recall, the Tories ditched the majority of their parliamentary candidates for the 2010 UK election, in the wake of the expenses corruption. That’s how the current stellar New-Randists came to predominate – and how the secret state became so much more transparently secret.
Well, at the very least 67 of them.
Ah well, Richard, bang go our chances of being Tory MP’s for some nice peaceful Home Counties town.
I have to admit that was never in the career plan…
Are the FT doing this to under a belief that their support for Tories can “keep the union together”?
Even if the FT manages to campaign successfully against Labour here and the Tories somehow manage to become the opposition in Scotland, the Union would be finished. Perhaps the Scottish Tories and the likes of Adam Tomkins (a kind of lightweight Nigel Farage) are so unimportant to UK politics no-one will notice the fact the FT backed the lunatic fringe of the Scottish Unionism.