Coffee House

Guardian CEO: my newspaper can’t survive in the UK

30 September 2013

The chief executive of The Guardian has delivered a rather grim verdict about the newspaper’s future (or lack thereof). ‘At the moment, I believe we could not survive in the U.K,’ says Andrew Miller, blaming the ‘oversupply’ of newspapers and the omnipresence of the BBC. He has been speaking to the New Yorker magazine which has run one of its brilliant investigations (read it all here) and his verdict is reinforced by the editor, Alan Rusbridger, who (the piece says) ‘can envisage a paperless Guardian in five to ten years’. Rusbridger can also ‘imagine…printing on only certain days’. So the newspaper that came out with the slogan ‘we own the weekend‘ may soon have to add an appendage: ‘Mondays to Fridays… Not so much.’

You don’t have to look hard to see what sparks Rusbridger’s imagination. The Guardian does brilliantly online, with 84 million unique users each month. But print sales have halved over the last ten years and on current trends the paper will lose its last reader by the end of this decade. The Guardian, by some measures, has never been more successful: it is the no3 most-read newspaper in the world amongst people who don’t pay. But it is haemorrhaging sales amongst those who do.

Claim your gift

So what’s next? Here’s what the New Yorker says:

‘In fiscal 2012, Rusbridger volunteered to take a pay cut—his second—reducing his salary from £438,000 to £395,000… Miller also voluntarily cut his pay…. To run its print and online operations, the Guardian employs 1,600 people worldwide, including 583 five journalists and a 150 digital developers, designers, and engineers. “The toughest critique of Alan is that he has not faced up to the Guardian’s costs,” a longtime executive at the paper said. The newsroom “is too big for a digital newspaper.”

Miller admits that he does not foresee the newspaper earning a profit anytime soon. Rusbridger said, “The aim is to have sustainable losses.” Miller defines that as getting “our losses down to the low teens in three to five years.” But at some point, if the Guardian does not begin to make money, the trust’s liquid assets, currently £254 million, would be depleted.’

The end of the piece helps explain why Ian Katz, Rusbridger’s former deputy, has jumped off to Newsnight. He’s quoted saying that Rusbridger ‘delegates operationally to his journalists more than any editor I’ve seen’  maintaining tight control only of the ‘big decisions’:

‘Rusbridger doesn’t know what he’ll do when he leaves the Guardian. “We’ve been talking about that,” Lindsay Mackie says. “It might be something to do with music and young people. Access to music, I think.” But for now retirement isn’t up for discussion. “I have an agreement with Alan that we will give each other a year’s notice,” Forgan said. “He has not done that.” Rusbridger says, “Each six months, it becomes a radically different job.” He adds that he could see staying for a while—“whatever ‘a while’ is. I’m enjoying it. The paper is on fire.”’

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • rideforever

    The Guardian is awful. I suppose it tries to appear “intellectual” by having extremely long “stories”, but in the end they never say anything. It’s a great game. You talk and talk and talk, and at the end nothing. Philosophers have been doing it for centuries.
    People on the Guardian dating website are just the same.

  • 82ATW

    The Guardian out of business? Is the world supply of twits dwindling?

  • barry waterfield

    The Guardian might do slightly better if it didn’t print such utter left wing idealistic ill-informed rubbish.Only the other week I flagged up an article on Gollywogs. Full of bile and inaccuracies, this rant stopped short of capital punishment for those who owned a golly, even coloured people were writing in saying that the article was an insult to their intelligence. A selection (four) of comments intended to encourage debate was published, each one more or less agreeing with the article but offering a slightly different perspective, however comments were closed. I was forcibly reminded of the Church during the middle ages, where stupid clergy insisted people throw black cats off steeples because they were the familiars of the devil.

    The pity is, that there is a need for sensible opposition to the venereal Rupert Murdock and his offal rags, but with obsessions like these the Guardian only proves that it isn’t the ship for the job. I have even cancelled my online membership. Three cheers for Golly.

  • Walther11

    Poor excuse of a new outlet. Their moderating would make the Nazis blush. I read it from time to time for comedic relief and to find out what the propaganda of the day is.

  • Oliver Wood

    The collective genius of the right-wring press has been to promote the idea of victimhood (victims of the EU, the taxman, politicians, the council, etc) amongst its readership. It’s a fact of a human psychology that people will feel sympathy for themselves before anyone else, and it follows that any newsgroup who seeks to encourage social-regard over personal-regard will find far less supporters.

    “Reality is right-wing” is just equivalent to saying “people find it easier to pity themselves”. Well yes. And we all know what happened to that reasonable supernatural gentleman from the middle east who said people should exercise sympathy for the poor too – obviously, an early victory of freemarket choice in action.

  • ecnu

    I would happily pay a subscription for the Guardian if it means the paper survives. I read it every day. Make it cheap enough to have it on all my devices every day.

  • RonaldoFearsEboue .

    Oh no! What will we do without the daily articles by radical Feminists about how hard it is to be a white middle class woman in the most gynocentric nation in the world?

  • The_greyhound

    Alan Rusbridger, who (the piece says) ‘can envisage a paperless Guardian in five to ten years’.

    And on what will we wipe our arses then?

  • EwanUzarmi

    Where does its money come from?

  • MProblem

    Whenever a Marxist “editor” or “reporter” loses his job, an angel gets his wings! I’m looking forward to seeing lots of angels get their wings in the next year or so!

  • Graeme S

    I cannot wait to see Polly Toynbee thrown out of a Job

  • Andy

    I hope the fascist rag goes bankrupt. It is already morally, so it might as well be fiscally too.

  • CharlietheChump

    Free is always jolly popular, let’s see what happens if they try to charge for that crap online.

  • Smithersjones2013

    The Guardian does brilliantly online, with 84 million unique users each month

    The thing is that all the spin about Internet usage is disignenuous. Thats not 84,000,000 people thats 84 million IP addresses. Now imagine that many people use perhaps three or more different devices a day all with their own IP address (their work computer, their palm top and their home computer) its quite reasonable that the same person could access the Guardian website from three different devices. Now consider the nuances of IP addressing from ISP’s. IP addresses are allocated randomly from a set list everytime a device is switched on having been switched off for a period of hours. So if you switch off your devices daily then over a month you could well use 30 unique IP addresses per device. So in one month it is possible for one user using three devices to access the Guardian website using 90 unique devices, Now if they switch off devices between uses within the day (I do – energy conscious you see) its possible they could use even more. Now if you divide 84,000,000 by 90 (3×30) you get below 1,000,000 million users. Of course it won’t be as low as that and there will be more than one million individual accessing the site but you can be pretty sure it is nowhere near 84,000,000 (I’d be surprised if it exceeds 10 million users.

    Now the other thing to consider is that those buying the paper version of the Guardian will tend to read many articles in each paper and read them everyday. However it may well be that many of those who access the online Guardian are taken there by one specific link and read one specific article so whilst the Guardian has more people reading parts of it online there is no guarantee that the actual volume of their material read online is anymore than what is read in the 200,000 or so copies a month that are bought.

    Internet usage figures are not all they are cracked up to be and the Guardian’s online prowess is not what its cracked up to be.

  • allymax bruce

    “The Guardian, by some measures, has never been more successful: it is the no3 most-read newspaper in the world amongst people who don’t pay.”
    I’ve been saying this for ages; internet newspapers are not for profit, now, they’re electronic brainwashing propaganda tools; the ‘profits’ are philanthropic investitues from the stinking rich Proprietors of Thought. Much like the venal Victorian donated parks, libraries, town halls by the stinking-rich Timochs; with one proviso- make sure you push the Zionist line, or you’re out! Quite frankly, the unintelligeble journo harkenings, are becoming tireless, and unconscionable. Again, much like our ignorant useless, greedy, spineless politicians, that actually hate us, the people, the New Labour breed of journos are, yes, you guessed it, ignorant useless, greedy, spineless politician-‘tools’. In-deed, ‘journo-ism’ is becoming the retrospect of Journalisms duty; the whole news industry has been lowered to accommodate propaganda ‘editor’-ship! Meaningless gossip for the braindead, desensitising the soul, using ‘dark noise’, is all it is now. Just exactly how, does meaningless meandering-gossip become ‘journalsim’? Just look at the tv show Question Time; Dumbelby nefariously negotiating his prodigal patronage of political interests; where that ovrsize bespeckled midget, (no, not Alexander, the other one!), Gove, imposes our thoughts, values, and decisions for us, by telling Will Self, to shut up, because ‘we have heard enough’ of Will’s incisive investigative remarks! I don’t know why Will goes on that show; it’s really only for overt megalomaniacs likmidget politicians, and lib-dems. Again, Marr’s ugly & horrendous excuse of journalistic tv every Sunday morning, followed by that dreadful Sunday Morning Live (SML), is representive of how pathetic & meaningless tv political coverage/discussion has become; both tv politics & newspaper politics is now nothing more than a Zionist self-interested, running ticker of personal-agenda issue journo propaganda. The fact that UK political MSM ‘coverage’ has been reduced to a ridiculous description, for what the AP call a ‘running ticker’, is contemptuous, towards us, the people, the viewer/reader.

  • Robert Mitchum

    Oh Fraser, I could (almost) kiss you. This is the most joyous news – the foreseeable end to that Siamese twin of the BBC; the training ground of most of their journalists; their in-house newspaper; the supplier of most of their news stories; and the purveyor of that abomination “Comment Is Free”.

    Think of that Lib/Left Notting Hill/Islington clique crying into their muesli each morning because their comic for grown-ups is now defunct. Think of Polly Toynbee without her mouthpiece. Surely it’s too much to hope for. I’m just going to pinch myself to make sure I’m not dreaming.

  • Rossspeak

    You are all being too unkind – I know many well meaning and inherently decent and intelligent people who read the Grauniad – its closure will leave them bereft.

    Unfortunately – like so many in the “well meaning left leaning Intelligensia” – reality and their views have always been strangers.

    Even its fiercest critics have to admit that many of the Grauniad’s articles, if poorly sub-edited, are beautifully written.

    It is a regretttable shame that their arguments and conclusions almost inevitably prove to be naive rubbish.

  • Tom Tom

    The future of newspapers is digital like Drudge or Huffington Post combined with an Online TV channel. The subscription model should be block sales of 3-month Credits rather than monthly charges. The fact that too much news comes via Twitter is a reason not to pay – so it would be better to fuse Guardian into a digital version of its newspaper alliance with the NYT and Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

    It can use multiple Websites off the same host

  • aanpakkuh

    In 2015 the Guardian will get another lease of life, while it currently is on life support, all thanks to Labour.
    Guardian made millions on advertising public sector job ads while Labour was in government. As part of a clever PR strategy (hats off for Campbell), Labour channeled all these ads to the paper in return for favourable coverage and negative coverage of Conservatives (always branded Tories in comment section, as it now always wites “bedroom tax” which is not a tax). Also, have you ever ead anything about cost to tax payer of final salary pension schemes in public sector or at BBC? No, and not surprising now Guardian editors seem to shift regularly to the beeb.
    Labour is set to win in 2015 because of a confluence of factors floating their boat:
    -Still 5.5 million people in the public sector;
    -Miilions on means-tested benefits (thanks to Brown’s electoral strategy to lock in votes via the purse using someone else’s money, i.e. tax);
    -constituency boundaries helping Labour to gain more seat with fewer votes per seat than conservatives (yes, blocking boundary reform is Clegg’s big present to Labour but conservatives whould have been more pragmatice about the Lords reform);
    -UKIP on the rise;
    -Postal voting.
    Not all of the people mentioned above will vote Labour but do keep in mind that they have dependents or housemates or family too, while last time Blair won elections for Labour Labour polled about 9.5 million.
    So in 2015 there will be a surge in public sector job ads in Guardian’s paper and on its website. Meanwhile, NHS bodies, schools and labour-dominated councils will help Guardian by sending it their job ads. Every little helps!

  • scintillaluz

    From an outsider point of view the Guardian is outstanding. I’m not from UK and I don’t live there, but I read the Guardian everyday. I find it absolutely amazing and obviously the quarrels about what is endorsing in terms of UK politics doesn’t really touch me. So, even if I’m not involved with UK politics I benefit a lot from the Guardian, because I truly think it’s extraordinary quality and they cover so many topics of great interest no matter where you live or you come from.

    I’ve thought about getting a subscription several times, to support it!, but the options are not so good, and not customizable at all. And in the digital world custom options are important. I don’t know if a viable better business plan for selling digital to other countries will do good, but why excluding it?

    Also, please consider that not everything that makes money is good and what doesn’t make money is bad. Maybe the Guardian is not doing enough money but is providing the world with great pieces of journalism, and please rememeber that this year it was the Guardian helping uncover the NSA thing.

    If it’s a business plan problem, I believe it can be fixed.

    • Tony_E

      You’re not from the UK. And I think that might be a fact that leaves you more sympathetic to the obvious quality of the writing and production- partly because you are at a physical distance from the quality of the journalism.

      One of the biggest arguments taken against the Guardian in recent years is that it has tried to make the news agenda much more than it has tried to report news. In this way, for someone in your position of distance, I fear you may get a false impression of what life in the UK is like, and of the issues that British people face in their daily life and business.

      Unfortunately – reading the rest of the British press would be little more informative.

      (That’s not to say it doesn’t ever break important news – but that its core content tends to be a bit unrecognisable to the average man in the street)

      • scintillaluz

        the fact is… I don’t read the Guardian to get news about England! I read the Guardian for opinions and for getting information about some topics I would never get information from other sources. And in those cases I feel I can perfectly evaluate the quality of the journalism. I don’t read as much the New York Times, and I just occasionally read the New Yorker.

        I keep reading, not daily, news from my country, Italy, and I can tell you that to find a decent piece it takes quite some time. Some topics (television, cinema, environment, feminism–with a more international approach– and technology and books!!! They have the best books section ever) are not even considered interesting in the first place, so they just don’t cover them. And I can tell you: I would love to have an italian newspaper to put as much effort as the Guardian is doing in talking about writers and books, because I surely read more new italian authors if I just find an influential voice I would like to listen to.

        I know that is maybe disappointing that an english newspaper doesn’t hold any interest for me in describing the english life, but that’s the truth. But, again, maybe this is one way to go: if there’s people in the world reading the Guardian for several reasons that are not tied up to UK politics and life, they should just tap into that.

        Again, I’m not so clever and experienced to have a solution, but maybe they should divide their targets better and offer them different things, since it seems to me that UK target wants something different from the international target. And maybe at that point they could offer something that the UK target wants more.

    • Smithersjones2013

      If you actually lived in the UK you would realise how much dishonest partisan propaganda is produced by the Guardian. Granted its no worse than most other UK newspapers but the quality of journalism is just a low as the rest of the media underclass in this country. It certainly does not deserve any plaudits.

      • scintillaluz

        I lived in the UK for just a year. And I followed this thread were I see several complaints about the low quality of the Guardian articles. But I don’t see any suggestion to read anything else, which is something I would like to hear.

        My opinion was simple: if the UK target obviously doesn’t like the Guardian, but – looking at the numbers – a lot of the online audience is outside of Great Britain, why the Guardian doesn’t shift to the international audience, giving new structure to the content and a different paywall (a paywall that can actually meet the international audience needs)?

        Concerning the propaganda: do you read US newspapers and online magazines? Have you noticed the overall trend in the tech news lately? Have you counted the number of articles about the “hackers that are threatening security in our lives and our companies”? So now tell me what “propaganda” is. Have you read the final part of the New Yorker piece about the Guardian? There’s a clear accusation to what they did with the Wikileaks files, can you honestly say that that is not US propaganda?

    • Englander10

      I’ve always wondered why resident EU citizens have always tended to vote Left in local and eu elections. My area of town if full of european citizens and they seem to like voting Lib/Lab rather than Tory. They must therefore be influenced the Guardian.

  • Tony_E

    I wonder if the Guardian’s best bet would be to disappear behind the paywall. If as is suggested here, the technologically literate tend to be their audience, then they should attempt to monetise their core readership and content.

    Why should news be free? It’s a commodity like any other. So if they think they have a product with value, their first option should be to charge for it in all its formats.

  • Bonkim

    Most don’t get the time to read printed newspapers, apart from the cost and time involved in getting them.

  • Toby Esterházy

    The Guardian definitely needs to tone down its loony left-wing nonsense. I must confess, however, that even left-wing rubbish like the Guardian is more fun to read than the “working-class Tory” (left-wingers who refuse to admit that they are left-wingers, and their wives) Daily Mail.

  • Daniel Maris

    Another key point about the Guardian is that the people most likely to read it are very unlikely to read newspapers (as real bits of paper). They are mostly at the advance wave of technology.

    The idea here that people have that it doesn’t represent opinion in the UK seems fanciful to me. It is far more representative of the reality of the UK than the Times or Telegraph or Financial Times (the Independent is not really very distinguishable from the Guardian except perhaps on economic realism). Most educated people in the UK favour Guardian style policies: multiculturalism, pro EU, pro immigration, pro globalism, pro green and pro public sector. That’s the reality.

    • HookesLaw

      Most people intelligent or not do not favour multiculturalism, which I take to mean different cultures staying inside their own cliques or lifestyles or ghettos – as opposed to assimilating.
      Your other conclusions are equally dubious and after flirting with the notion of an ever growing public sector the public themselves have realised they cannot afford it.

    • Wessex Man

      I believe in angels in everything they say.

    • Oliver Wood

      Indeed. The Times and Telegraph are aimed at a very small percentage of
      people in the UK who can afford private education for their children and frequent holidays abroad. They cater for an ever-shrinking demographic.

      Not sure about The Guardian being more representative of public opinion than say, the Daily Mail – I suppose we’ll find out in the next general election when we see how many people vote UKIP.

  • RedMiner

    It’s end can’t come soon enough. The Guardian’s half-baked liberals and their tedious middle class obsessions has done the left more harm than anything else.

    • HookesLaw

      I can sympathise with you.
      I always feel annoyed when I see someone who clearly looks intelligent and well off with a copy of the guardian tucked under his arm. I do tend to feel it is like someone posing with his bleeding heart on his sleeve.
      I do not say that this is rational.
      But then again you have to ask why anyone buys the Telegraph these days.

      • Fergus Pickering

        To read a paper. Which one wuld you suggest?

        • Wessex Man

          Why he would probably suggest The Times, it looks most impressive tucked under the flappy pinstriped arm rushing for a Bus!

          • Fergus Pickering

            I have tried The Tims but found it a bit limp-wristed. Besides, it’s too small and fat-looking.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    “The aim is to have sustainable losses.”

    Thanks the LibLabConsensus laundering money through job adverts

  • chudsmania

    ‘Grim verdict’ ? Who reads it apart from the BBC , teachers and trade union activists ? No loss at all .

    • FrenchNewsonlin

      “No loss at all”. Well no actually. Plurality of the press is important in democracy and the loss of any newspaper is damaging to free speech.

      • Murdo MacLeod

        They didn’t seem to care so much when the News of the World went down. At least the NotW got the stories right.

      • Tom M

        I agree but can’t wait for the day when Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot are out of a job.

        • ROBERT BROWN

          They do not really have a job anyway, they just write any old crap and submit it, then float around the dinner party circuit and TV/radio studios on a ‘fragrant’ cloud of self-righteousness and pomp. All is well in LaLa land.

  • Daniel Maris

    The Guardian, though I find a lot of its content unbearable, is undoubtedly the best designed of quality newspapers. It attracts lots of creative people.

    I think really it could be run as a readers’ co-operative with a lot of readers supplying content free (and so driving down costs). The London Metro does something similar with a lot of its content.

    Whingeing about the BBC website is silly. The Mail Online has 50 million readers worldwide. I don’t know much about its business model, but given the number of times I have ended up watching ads on it (despite being ad-averse) I suspect they are making a good profit from it.

    • Tony_E

      The complaint is obvious – it’s the ‘overlap’. The BBC and Guardian are interchangeable.

      That’s why the Mail is ok, the BBC doesn’t step on its toes. Also, the Mail has looked outside to the USA to raise readership. In the USA, the Guardian would have no possible readership outside a few universities.

  • outsideratdisqus

    I love Rusbridger’s idea of moving towards “sustainable losses”. A great business strategy. By the way Fraser, does the Spectator make a profit these days?

    • Tom Tom

      It is the one Osborne is propounding

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    It`s not that Britain needs fewer national newspaper, but rather better national newspapers. So when the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian… go belly-up, I won`t be shedding any tears.
    The fact that I`ve been banned from these esteaming publications that wouldn`t recognize talent if it came up and head-butted them is completely irrelevant.
    Jack, Central Japan Alps

  • D Whiggery

    If only we could say the same of the Labour party.

    “Omnispresence of the BBC”

    Cheeky git, BBC staff are the only ones who still by the Guardian.

  • paulus

    You should never dance on the grave of your enemy.. never ever be certain you are right. It is a great newspaper and it has done great things..lest never forget

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      “You should never dance on the grave of your enemy.”
      How do you feel about @issing?

  • Hello

    What kind of business aims to have “sustainable losses”? If the Guardian goes bust it will be because of its management that couldn’t bear to let any part of it go even to salvage the business. It’s content is rubbish, even adjusting for a left-wing perspective. It’s just sensationalism written from a position of higher supposed morality without a sense of humour. They’ve destroyed their brand and they fully deserve to go bust if they’re not prepared to adapt. Any suggestion otherwise is just nostalgia. And the complacency of the editor’s and CEO’s quotes above is sickening.

    • Hexhamgeezer

      “sustainable losses”?

      Exactly. Whatever it is it isn’t a business – more like an old style Izvestia set up.

    • rtj1211

      THe Times and Sunday Times have ‘sustainable losses’ subsidised by the profits of the Sun. If you’re telling us that Rupert Murdoch is socialist, that’d be a first……

      • Hello

        I didn’t say anything about socialism. Murdoch is not aiming to have “sustainable losses”, and I very much doubt that he would allow the Times to jeopardise News Corp.

    • AllGoodPopester

      the guardian media group bought about 20 publishing and event media businesses with APAX, the PE group. they make the money and the guardian loses money whilst peddling its propaganda. it is what it is. any collectivist group essentially becomes a left wing political institution…or so it seems….

  • Redrose82

    “The paper is on fire” – best thing for it say I.

  • cheekyboy5000

    Guardian’s also of the most widely read English language news sites in the world. Their expansions into the US and Australia are beginning to pay off.

    • Michele Keighley

      Not in Australia it isn’t. They backed the wrong horse in the last election and ignored the population’s demand for change. It’s left wing, the Aussies have gone right wing.

  • toco10

    I always knew there was a God in Heaven.

    • dmitri the impostor

      The Guardian is (a) ferociously anti-religious and (b) wrong about everything (c) all the time.

      Proves it for me. Eat your heart out, St Anselm.

    • Robert Mitchum

      Praise the Lord, indeed!

  • Hugh

    “But print sales have halved over the last ten years and on current
    trends the paper will lose its last reader by the end of this decade.”

    There’s got to be some game to be had identifying him or her: a bit like Where’s Wally, but more fun.

    • HookesLaw

      It will probably be a Channel 4 producer.

  • Russell

    I think that hopefully shortly when the Guardian shuts down and disappears to its parent company tax haven, all supporters of Mrs Thatcher should hold street parties celebrating its death.

    • David Lindsay

      Why are you attacking your own side? What has done for it (just read the comments on Comment is Free) has been endorsing the only party that went into the last General Election promising to privatise the Royal Mail but not to ringfence the NHS, a party which is now in government and without which the Tories never will be again. Supporting that party at three successive General Elections and counting is what has done for The Guardian.

      • Hugh

        The Guardian endorsed Labour in 2005 and 2001.

        • David Lindsay

          It did not. Ask anyone who was in the Labour Party in those years. And then came 2010. With 2015 to follow. None of this either has been or will be forgotten. The Tories are the least of its worries.

      • Kevin T

        The circulation has been declining for years. What has done for it is too many of the people who read the Guardian are either the sort who want to read on their iPads or the sort who get it for free in the university library or public sector / media workplace.

        • Hello

          They chose their market.

          • HookesLaw

            The Guardian used to be a half decent newspaper with a noble tradition even if you were more to the right and did not agree with its conclusions.
            Then it moved from Manchester.

            The Guardian’s history was not ‘socialist’ it was founded by a cotton merchant and other businessmen who had a non conformist ‘liberal’ outlook. It could almost be said to represent Victorian Values.

            Its love affair with left of the left socialism is relatively recent. Arguably its circulation shows this.

            • Hello

              I know. This is what I mean by “destroying their brand” in my comment further down.

        • Flaming_Fairy

          We can ALL get it for free on the internet.

      • Russell

        My party (the one that I am a paid up member of), UKIP, did not promise to privatise the Royal Mail or not to ringfence the NHS and unfortunately is not in government. i detest everything about the Guardian along with the Labour party and the BBC, and the sooner all three are gone the better.

        • Tom Tom

          The BBC was nationalised by the Conservatives under Baldwin so Churchill could get a platform to promote himself in 1926

          • Russell

            And your point being…..?

            • barry waterfield

              obviously that the Conservatives have only themselves to blame. Do please try to keep up.

          • barry waterfield

            I didn’t know that.

        • Flintshire Ian

          Your best chance of achieving those aims is to vote Conservative. A vote for UKIP is a vote to deliver a Labour government.

          • Russell

            ‘Gay’ marriage!

            Marriage is an act that can only be between a man and a woman

            I see nothing gay in two men who engage in sexual activity being lawfully married, in the same way as a man and an animal cannot .
            Yet Cameron and his cabinet of very queer ministers made it law!
            Where is the ‘bonfire of Quangos’?
            Why is the BBC still praised whilst being a Labour propaganda broadcaster funded by taxpayers and licence fee payers by law? The BBC should be sold and then the obscene financial deals its managers get would have to be justified through subscription fees and real popularity.
            I voted Conservative all my life and will never vote for them again. I will vote UKIP and I don’t care if the idiot Miliband and his nutcase socialists win in 2015. They will continue wrecking the country, but hopefully millions of brainwashed labour voters will finally see the stupidity of voting Labour and switch to UKIP along with millions of Tory voters.

            • Flintshire Ian

              As a Conservative, I agree with you that Cameron and his chums have been a big disappointment. UKIP will not win any parliamentary seats and letting Labour in to government, either alone or with the undemocratic illiberals just isn’t worth it.

              • barry waterfield

                At the time of going to press UKIP has indeed won it’s first parliamentary seat.

            • Flaming_Fairy

              Christ – you are a terrible advertisement for UKIP with that silly old duffer argument about marriage equality. Wake up and smell the Werthers Original grandad

              • True Freethinker

                The gay marriage brigade are the ‘grandads’. The Ancient Greek Pagans were as gay as you can get!

                I have no problem with gays but gay marriage is an unnecessary joke. Truth doesn’t change with time. Jump out of a plane without a parachute and you’ll still go splat on the ground. You can’t tell gravity to ‘change with the times’.

                • Flaming_Fairy

                  Oh dear – how very very silly to compare concepts of marriage with gravity.

                  The anti-equality people always beclown themselves, of course, because their argument is beyond stupid from the outset.

                • barry waterfield

                  apparently less than 25% of gay men value the opportunity to marry.

            • barry waterfield

              UKIP may be right wing but it supports the ordinary working people, are you sure that’s what you intend. I’m happy with it but I’m not certain about you.

          • barry waterfield

            but the Conservatives are no more capable, I think a shake up all round is called for.

        • barry waterfield

          I’m not with you there, some good points are still evident but there is too big an extreme left wing contingent.

      • barry waterfield

        that and some pretty stupid idealism.

    • fathomwest

      But where will the left publish their job vacancies? Perhaps they will incorporate them in Autotrader?

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        Aren’t those the jobs vacancies the current coalition planned to abolish, mainly gobbledegook non-jobs in the public service? Besides Pickles or someone on his paygrade promised to end the civil service announcements in the Guardian by putting them all online free. Did that fall by the wayside?

      • dalai guevara

        freecycle. money is not an issue.

    • Fergus Pickering

      And dance upon its grave

      • Russell

        I think urinate might be more appropriate.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          or eurinate

        • Fergus Pickering

          Dance AND urinate.

          • Flaming_Fairy

            Not at the same time – that could get messy.

  • David Lindsay

    I have never understood why Tory Councils advertised in it. They don’t have to. If the Telegraph or the Mail cannot make them a better offer, then it is hoist on its own ideological petard.

    Nor do I understand why Labour Councils have advertised in it since it first endorsed the Lib Dems in 2001, and especially since its third such endorsement in succession was followed (who knows how far these things result from each other?) by Lib Dem Cabinet Ministers in 2010.

    • e2toe4

      There’s a whole range of aspects to the problems for the Guardian,and all newspapers and even traditional Tv broadcasters and radio.

      The Guardian used to support massive editorial supplements on the back of education advertising and local government advertising, which then delivered the largest audience for the ads… they and other newspapers, in possession of the legacy pot of gold, have stuck with it for far too long. Although one can also see how difficult trying to time the move ‘away’ from that to the brave new world can be.

      So (mainly US) start ups have been eating their lunch.

      On top of which the way in which young people consume news has changed and in that sense facebook or twitter are the most successful news sites in the world and while Ebay (and others) have been the classified ads walking out of the door, Google are the display ads following suit.

      They should always have been called ‘adpapers’ really and it’s the changes in advertising, along with disintermediation process going on in news, that are two of the biggest factors combining to create the most far reaching changes in the way it all works, since Guthenberg

    • aanpakkuh

      Guardian merely endorsed LibDems in 2010 because its editors sensed that Labour could not win an outright majority. At the same time Labour as well as Guardian were arguing in favour of some type of electoral reform to get the LibDems on baord of a coalition with Labour. Needless to say the alternative vote would have been a system particularly favourable to Labour with its huge campaigning machine.

  • e2toe4

    Over the next few years the Guardian won’t be the only one proving the accuracy of “The best way to get a great little digital site? Start with a great big newspaper and work from there.”

    What’s happening is a process that’s been all but inevitable for almost a decade.

    There no law of quantum commerce that says all brands existing when digitalisation begins will automatically transfer from the real world news stand to the virtual reality one either.

    Or even that there will be any recognisable VR news stand.

    The changes under way for newspapers may well continue in an even more radical fashion at an accelerating velocity—and the successful content brands may not resemble the ‘newspaper on a screen’ websites that they still do at present.

    Many papers (and print magazines, and broadcasters) have perhaps over-relied on some imagined power in the brand, and have paid too much attention to their legacy business models for far too long and as a result for some it may be too late.

    They needed to swing from the old branch to the new but fearful of letting go many have ended up hanging with a hand on each branch but no momentum, and the forest fire is really moving quickly now.

  • FellowHQ

    So the Guardian lost £31m in the last year. The Mail makes a profit – online alone turns over £45m or so. A perfect example of how socialists are truly profligate with money, usually other people’s. Reality is right wing.

    • cheekyboy5000

      The Mail meanwhile, steals and rewrites stories from all over the web. Evidence of how right wingers love to profit from the hard work of others.

      • FellowHQ

        That’s quite funny cheekyboy. When the Guardian uses unpaid interns and spent ages trying to get the public to write in with stories and pics – not exactly journalism at all. And they never bother even basic fact checking, as they keep getting caught for. And their Editor, overseeing a £31m loss, earns about 3 times what the Prime Minister of this country earns.

        You’re just sore that so many people buy The Mail, and so few buy The Guardian – see, the market works.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        The Mail is something of a maverick, and often first with the news.

        • Toby Esterházy

          And you are yourself of course also a bit of an illiterate! Like publisher, like reader!

          • Fergus Pickering

            How illiterate?

        • rtj1211

          They are often first with lies too, especially during football transfer season!

      • HookesLaw

        The mail online caters for people who obsess about cellulite and celebrities.

        • Fergus Pickering

          What’s cellulite? Is it like asbestos?

        • Dogsnob

          I’m into celebrities with cellulite.
          Are they big? I like em big.

      • Toby Esterházy

        The Daily Mail is about as right-wing as the National Socialists. It is a strange mixture of left-wing (65%) rubbish and right-wing (35%) stuff—and I am being charitable—much like the Nazis themselves.

        • Ben Kelly

          Silly boy.

          • Toby Esterházy

            I know you a (fellow) Northerner, but you should still read a better rag! The Mail is for the Wives!

            • Kennybhoy


              • Toby Esterházy

                She belongs to Israel and Jerusalem Post! No War for Highgate and Golders Green!

            • Ben Kelly

              Let off some steam by all means. I don’t have any loyalty to any newspaper, only buying one if it has an article i’m particularly interested in. Ridiculous the way you talk about Melanie Philips when you consider just how hysterically anti-semetic you are, you’re just at the other extreme. I would support Israel over Iran or any other Islamic nation every single day of the week; and I support their nation in their ancient ancestral homeland. So you’ll just have to chew on that i’m afraid.

              • Toby Esterházy

                Just remember (I shall keep it concise to a fellow Northerner), that to support Israel means you have to also support his nominal allies, being Turkey, Egypt and the Jordan, and that means letting in all the Turks and Kurds and even Egyptians slowly taking over England and Northern Europe (all can be found in a little town just under your old one), as if the lot from Mirpur and Karachi from Pakistan, the Gujaratis from Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zanzibar, the Algerians, the Moroccans and the Tunisians are not enough! Which Countries do you think are pushing for the Turkish membership in the European Union? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ISRAEL! You will regret your misguided support for Israel when your daughter is one day married, happily or otherwise, to a Turk or a Kurd, wears a hijab and have your grandchildren, boys and daughters, circumcised!

                • Ben Kelly

                  Well, I advocate withdrawal from the European Union entirely, so let us both hope for this eventuality!

                • Toby Esterházy

                  Unfortunately, Nigel would probably need a coalition; and in a coalition, there are horse-trading and manifestos get torn up. Northern townies vote Labour, and Northern rural vote Tory (and only Southerners in the North voted for the Lib Dems); and Grosvenor Square would try his damndest to force this Country to sign a treaty of association that would guarantee the free movement of the citizens of the European Union (and Norwegians, Icelanders, Swiss subjects and Lichtensteinians) into the United Kingdom and other British territories currently also within (Gibraltar) or under some limited jurisdiction (Man, Channel Islands) of the European Union

                  What is the point of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty and Alliance (NATO)? The only remaining modern function seems to be for the defence of Turkey and Israel, with all sort of mad Eastern expansion schemes to get the Ukraine and Georgia in the Club, all the way to Turkmenistan and Tajikistan for the benefit of the “secularist”, “Pan-Turkish” wing of Turkey. I am not a supporter of his group of thugs, but even Nick Griffin advocates British withdrawal.

                • Ben Kelly

                  NATO is an organisation built and designed for the Cold War, so yes, have to agree really. It could at least be trimmed back. We disagree on Israel rather starkly, but not Turkey.

        • Kennybhoy

          You may be an antisemitic conspiracist loon…but this is actually an insightful analysis of The Daily Mail. One thing. You missed out the Dan Brownish seasoning.


          • Toby Esterházy

            The sons of Israel want England as their second homeland for a Jewish State as part of their exit strategy when (not if) Israel is no longer defensible by simple superior technological might in military terms. Not if I can do anything to stop it!

            • Kennybhoy


              • Toby Esterházy

                Short of setting up new cults within Orthodox Judaism, there are no more unintegrated and unassimilated Orthodox and Ultraorthodox Jews coming from Russia, the Ukraine, the Belarus and Kazakhstan to off-set the high reproductivity of the Arabs—especially the Mohammedans—within Israel.

                Your name is an Irish one. Why betray the Irish tradition by madly following the unwashed and barbaric Middle-Eastern lot? Like the Moslems of the Levant, Persia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, the N.W. Frontier, Upper Outer Kashmir, Anatolia, the Crimea, the Balkans, the Ural Mountains, West Kazakhstan and the Two Caucasuses, Jews are merely Moslems with white skin and more civilised (Europeanised) ways, means, manners and customs.

              • Toby Esterházy

                The Israelites are no less of a threat to Western, Christian civilisation than the followers of Mahomet’s religion.

                • Kennybhoy

                  Do you hear voices?

                • Toby Esterházy

                  Why do the Israelites practise most of the customs of the Mohammedans, yet think that they are somehow more acceptable than the Mohammedans? How is Kosher any less barbaric than Halal? Why do the Israelites from Ethiopia and Eritrea also practise female circumcision?

                • Freud Ran

                  Err, let me guess your childhood’s favourite books included Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I find it amusing when loons like you, sir, are still intelligent enough to choose a fake name. I commend your ability to use Google and Wikipedia, as I do not assume you have ever stepped foot in Israel, or Palestine, or the Middle East.

                  Having said that, it’s quite a compliment to the 260,000 Jews living in Britain that you consider them to be controlling the lives of 63,000,000 Brits. Such an achievement surely deserves a recognition.

                  I do hope that now that The Silk Road is shut you are able to get your hallucinatory drugs elsewhere. Similarly, I hope the MI5 and the NSA don’t stop tracking the filth that comes out of your keyboard, either.

                • Freud

                  Hmm, let me guess your childhood’s favourite books included Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I find it amusing when loons like you, sir, are still intelligent enough to choose a fake name. I commend your ability to use Google and Wikipedia, as I do not assume you have ever stepped foot in Israel, or Palestine, or the Middle East.

                  Having said that, it’s quite a compliment to the 260,000 Jews living in Britain that you consider them to be controlling the lives of 63,000,000 Brits. Such an achievement surely deserves a recognition.

                  I do hope that now that The Silk Road is shut you are able to get your hallucinatory drugs elsewhere. Similarly, I hope the MI5 and the NSA don’t stop tracking the filth that comes out of your keyboard, either.

                • Toby Esterházy

                  No, it is no a conspiracy theory, but a minority openly dominating, exploiting and oppressing the majority, like the Chinese in Malaya, Java and South Vietnam, the Malays in Papua, the Sikhs in the Undivided Punjab before the Partition, the Hindus in Kashmir or the Shia Muslims in the Hyderabad Princely State before Independence, the Indian Hindus in Mauritius, Fiji, Guyana, the Suriname and French Guyana. Multiculturalism is ultimately proposed by the Jews, so as the first to benefit for not having to abandon their religion, abandon Kosher and any other trappings of their separate and separatists lives, ways and means without being considered (as they really are) foreigners to England.

      • Fergus Pickering

        All newspapers do this, cheeky. Except the ones who just make it up. Among which The Grauniad stands high.

    • Dave Kaiser

      Sadly, you are right.

      The “reality” is that if they want to generate revenue in the print business, newspapers will have to follow the right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail & The S*n who ignore actual news & politics (unless it’s to do with foreigners “draining the country”), and instead post stories about X-Factor, Miranda Kerr/Scarlett Johansson/Any one of the Kardashian’s breasts, or an exposé on which TOWIE/Geordie Shore cast member is taking drugs.

      • FellowHQ

        We come to the same point. About 2.3m people pay to read The Mail, less than 200,000 pay for The Grauniad. And eventually your argument has to accept that people choose to buy one over the other. And that’s when you reach for the book of excuses, blaming Murdoch or whoever for giving them what they want. Or else you have to say the people are either stupid or are sheeple or are easily fooled. None of these versions reflect well on you. Or do you have another one?

        • Colonel Mustard

          And how many of that 200,000 buy it for access to the monopoly of socialist civil service posts?

          • Hexhamgeezer

            An outright unvoted for subsidy backed by daveednick

          • HookesLaw

            Since its circulation is only 187,000 then, not many.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Do you people really think Daily Mail readers are nazi-sympathisers, or is that just something you lefties say?

        • McRobbie

          No, I don’t think he is meaning the DM readers are national socialists ! He’s being uneconomical with the truth as lefties always are.

      • Smithersjones2013

        The “reality” is that if they want to generate revenue in the print
        business, newspapers will have to follow the right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail & The S*n who ignore actual news & politics
        (unless it’s to do with foreigners “draining the country”), and instead
        post stories about X-Factor, Miranda Kerr/Scarlett Johansson/Any one of the Kardashian’s breasts, or an exposé on which TOWIE/Geordie Shore cast member is taking drugs.

        So what does the Daily Mirror put on its front pages then? Nothing like the blindness of those wearing red-tinted blinkers.

        • JohnnyDuke

          So … arguably those are the most important matters, to the most people … this being a democracy where the majority rule therefore means they are also ‘right’, and it is you who are out of step. …. and for what it is worth, it seems, so am I. 😉

      • Dogsnob

        “Kardashians'”, Peasant.

        • crosscop

          Where is Kardashia? Was it part of the old Soviet Union?

          • Leoš Tomíček

            There is no such place as Kardashia…

    • Fred Scuttle

      Mediocrity sells.

    • rss1234

      I’ve never met an intelligent right winger. Thanks for not breaking the streak.

    • Mark Williams

      Even the unashamedly right wing will probably disagree with you there. The DM makes money not of superior reasoning (lol) but rather that people love celebrity crap and sensationalist stories. Of course it also helps that their online publications are popular in America with a large percentage of that demographic not understanding how to install adblock.

      • FellowHQ

        Mark Williams – and there we come to it. Subtext of your note: people are shallow and stupid. At least you didn’t call them ‘sheeple’. And next you’ll wax lyrical about the working man and how you support him. How do you square such hypocrisy?

        • Mark Williams

          Well, people are shallow, stupid, and easily mislead – sorry about that.

          Of course I conveniently elevate myself about all that, but you know just because I am narcissistic doesn’t mean it ain’t true.

          • FellowHQ

            Well that’s okay then, I admire your honesty.

          • Pixelspin

            Same-same case. You present an impression where like them, you also cracked too many mirrors and inspired athleticism in even ordinary people with your appearance and directly caused your kindergarten teachers to off themselves with your appalling deficiency of brain cells so the self-claimed narcissism is actually just a far-fetched ambition.

            Regardless, you should learn to disassociate yourself with irrelevant, impotent and dying papers on life support like The Guardian despite the similarities and if you need help well, there’s always 911. An easy job to dial just three numbers on that electronic device given to you called a cell phone we hope?

  • HookesLaw

    The Guardian panders to even more nutjobs than this site. hardly a ringing endorsement.
    Simply visiting a website does not mean you read much of whats there, certainly not any of the adverts. Is this any help to the Guardian?

    Having people visit your website for a quick browse or look at the football results is not the same as having a relationship with your readers. Its not the same as having any influence.

    • Oliver Wood

      Yes – PayPerClick advertising can’t check whether articles have been fully read and comprehended. They still make a profit.

  • kyalami

    How sad.

  • brossen99
Can't find your Web ID? Click here