Is the UK press really anti-regulation?
Welcome to edition one of Unchecked’s new media monitor - where we look quarterly at how the press covers regulation
Two days after John Major won the general election for the Conservatives in 1992, The Sun newspaper famously declared that in actual fact, ‘It was The Sun Wot Won It’. The headline referred to the sustained efforts by the Murdoch-owned newspaper to drive voters away from Labour - and has since become a historic symbol of the power and influence of the press in Britain.
Although the media landscape has changed since 1992, the mainstream, right-wing press continues to ‘set the weather’ in Britain. Recent analysis found that the circulation of right-wing daily publications outnumbers left-wing by a factor of seven (2.2m to 300k copies). For Britain’s political class, having the press ‘on side’ can hence mean the difference between winning or losing an election.
Since Labour took office on July 4th, we’ve been analysing the editorials of leading UK newspapers. We want to explore how the national press discusses regulation, whether they are ‘on side’, or whether, as might be expected, they are hostile to calls for stronger regulatory intervention. Alongside this, we’re keen to understand what the dominant narratives are that drive calls for greater protection, or conversely, trigger demands for deregulation.
The reasons for doing this are twofold. First and foremost, the influence newspapers carry over our political discourse shapes how protections are framed. It defines whether they are seen as pillars of a modern, fair society, or whether they are portrayed as constraints on individuals, burdens on business and barriers to growth.
Secondly, the press can impact the direction of travel for government. According to Steve Richard, ex Political Editor of the New Statesman, the fear of The Daily Mail’s wrath, or the urgent need to keep The Sun on side has frequently forced politicians in the past to shelve their principles when implementing policy. Riling up the press barons and inviting a deluge of bad PR to a minister’s door can seemingly prove a risk not worth taking.
To explore this question, we’ve analysed the editorials of eight national newspapers, from July 4th to October 4th. The newspapers we analysed are representative of the political leanings of the national press. The four newspapers from the right-leaning press are The Times, The Telegraph, The Mail and The Sun. From the centre ground, The Independent and The Financial Times - and from the progressive side of the press we chose The Guardian and The Mirror.
Editorials represent the ‘formal voice’ of the newspaper and therefore provide a good vantage point for understanding how the press frames different issues. What’s more, the editorial, or the ‘leading article’ of the newspaper, can be a major driver of public opinion and therefore offers a solid way to explore how newspapers affect public attitudes and UK political discourse more broadly. For more details on how we conducted our analysis, check out our methodology here.
Since Labour took office, the UK press has regularly called for stronger protections
Figure 1. Volume of editorials framing regulation as protections Vs as burdens
Since July 4th, there have been regular calls for stronger protections and better enforcement. Overall, the number of pro-protections editorials was only 10% lower than the editorials calling for more deregulation. The stories behind this coverage have varied - from calls for better regulation of the gambling industry, to the positive reception within The Guardian and The Mirror of Labour’s ‘New Deal for Workers’ - but a few stories in particular have driven the bulk of the pro-protections coverage.
Firstly, the crisis of sewage pollution across the UK has continued to scandalise. 15% of all pro-protections editorials since July 4th have called for better regulation of the water industry, demanding decisive action from Labour to correct this legacy of the Conservative era. And this coverage has been common across all sides of the press. The Mail, for example, praised the government's agenda saying “companies must expect the closest scrutiny if they unwisely decide to pay tens of millions in dividends and bonuses while polluting Britain's waterways.”
The most sustained calls for stronger regulation came in August during the far right rioting that swept across parts of Britain. Just over a quarter (27%) of all pro-protections editorials were published in reaction to the violence, as the role social media played in enabling the riots and emboldening the far right became increasingly clear. Calls for stricter controls on big tech companies and updates to the Online Safety Act were heard from all sides of the press during August.
By far the largest spike in pro-protections coverage came, however, at the beginning of September when the final report on the Grenfell Inquiry was published. Once again the Conservatives found their record in government in the firing line as the dangers of successive deregulatory drives became front page news - and again, the press was united in their condemnation of this.
The sense that a lack of regulation has encouraged profiteering and in some instances has jeopardised public safety has regularly united the press in calling for decisive regulatory intervention. In fact, The Sun newspaper has been responsible for nearly one fifth (19%) of all pro protection editorials. The Times has not been far behind, producing 14% of pro-protections editorials.
Preventing profiteering and fixing ‘Broken Britain’ are the narratives driving this coverage
Figure 2. Dominant narratives driving pro-protections coverage
The idea that deregulation, or a lack of existing regulation, has lowered standards and stripped away accountability is a regular theme in the press. A Guardian editorial published just after the Grenfell report, summed it up well - “a dogma of deregulation and austerity has damaged Britain. By attacking ‘red tape’ at the same time as cutting public investment, the Conservatives degraded services and enabled profiteers.”
Half of all pro-protections editorials published since July 4th have employed a similar narrative - that weak rules have driven exploitative practices and enabled profiteering. This narrative plays out in stories around sewage companies rewarding shareholders or tech giants needing stronger oversight. But it also has also been employed in reference to a range of other issues, whether that’s preventing pet owners being exploited by the small number of organisations that now dominate the sector, drivers getting a fair deal at the petrol pumps, or workers being protected against exploitative work practices.
Regulation has often been framed in the press as an antidote to this, bringing greater accountability to powerful actors and stronger protection for the public. A fifth of all editorials specifically framed regulations as important social or environmental protections - although often this was employed in tandem with the sense that poor enforcement of the rules was driving harm. Taken together, nearly three quarters of all editorials framed regulatory interventions as important levers which the state can levy to protect the public interest and ensure they are not secondary to profit.
Another narrative which cropped up frequently is the idea that regulatory interventions ‘fix things’. This framing peaked specifically in relation to the King’s Speech which gained favourable coverage within the left-leaning press for Labour’s detailed plans to fix ‘Broken Britain’. The framing has also been used in reference to the government’s ability to encourage the take up of more environmentally conscious diets, as well as the ability of regulation to solve problems within housing markets.
The mainstream, right-wing press remains very hostile to regulation of the economy
Figure 3. Dominant narratives driving calls for deregulation
Labour’s ability to grow the economy has become a temperature check for their success in government. Securing the highest sustained growth in the G7 is the first of their five missions, and following years of anaemic growth and soaring public debt, it has become a dominant part of the conversation about how to renew Britain's fortunes.
Since Labour took office, the mainstream press has been loud and clear about how Labour can achieve this - deregulation. Just under three quarters of all editorials that have supported deregulation have done so on the basis that regulations are unnecessary ‘red tape’ for businesses and that they are barriers to growth.
Labour has faced particular backlash over their pledge to upgrade worker protections which has regularly been criticised for making it “harder [for businesses] to make a profit and help grow the economy.” Alongside this, right-leaning newspapers have regularly questioned whether “onerous regulatory burdens” are deterring investors and have called for further “streamlining of regulation” across the UK to encourage business investment.
Meanwhile, Starmer’s plans to ‘bulldoze through planning laws’ has received a warm reception, with The Times calling it a ‘Home Run’ and The Sun welcoming the reform of a system which has been a ‘brake on growth’. Labour has made planning reform a central plank of their offer to ‘get Britain building’, and this muscular deregulatory language has landed well with the mainstream press.
A further fifth of editorials opposing regulation have centred on what they see as ‘nanny state’ interventions. The libertarian tendencies of The Mail and The Sun have triggered repetitive attacks on Labour over their proposed ban on junk food advertising and the potential ban on smoking in pub gardens. The Sun alone has dedicated 8 editorials to opposing the smoking ban since the potential policy was reported on the 28th of August. Both interventions have repeatedly drawn the ire of editors, who see them as further “proof of socialism’s desire to micromanage the lives of everyone in Britain”.
A cakeist press?
The demands from the right-wing, mainstream press for the deregulation of the economy are clearly having an impact. Earlier this week at Labour’s International Investment Summit, Keir Starmer worked hard to woo foreign capital with promises to ‘slash red tape’ and ‘rip out bureaucracy’. There were even jokes on stage from ex-Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, of the need for an ‘anti-regulation minister’.
Starmer’s strategy mimics the way in which the press approaches the issue of regulation. One week editors will lament the lack of protections which allows big tech giants to profit by promoting dangerous far-right social media accounts, and the next week they will happily applaud the thought of Keir Starmer relaxing regulations for big tech firms. In the mind of the mainstream press, the debate around growth seems entirely divorced from the debate around protections.
For the Protections Movement this means two things. Firstly, the Government’s narrative on regulators standing in the way of growth sets a clear direction of travel - one in which social and environmental protections are likely to be framed as secondary concerns behind their imperative to drive investment and growth. Reframing economic development as more than a shallow discussion about growth will therefore be a major priority over the course of the coming Parliament.
And secondly, within this context we need to make an explicit case that protections do not stand in opposition to Labour’s economic strategy. Whether it’s productivity gains leveraged through stronger worker protections or money saved ensuring sewage companies invest in infrastructure, regulations must be framed as investments, not costs.
Communicating this clearly is the strongest insurance the Protections Movement has against the siren song of deregulation. As Starmer’s team searches for solutions to Britain’s problems, we need to ensure they are not seduced by the language of ‘quick fixes’ and deregulation - and that instead they offer a proper vision for Britain where strong social and environmental protections are prioritised alongside economic growth.