Re: So this article is basically saying the traditional print media in this country is crap?
As long as it's run by Slimeball Murdoch's
Propaganda Indoctrination Corp News Corp, that will always be the case.
Given that the election results are nearly all in it's going to be some few femtoseconds before Guardian writer Polly Toynbee starts claiming that it's the right wing media that woefully misinformed the British public and that's why the forces of all that's good and proper didn't win. Given that that's not actually how the …
That doesn't really explain the graun though. Or the independent. Or the... well you get the idea. Most media in this country isn't run by Murdoch and still somehow manages to be a complete shower.
...or the parties themselves are crap.
One side likes to spend too much and doesn't know when to stop (but tries to pretend it does whilst ignoring the bills pouring through the letterbox) whilst the other prefers to hack away at the public finances with all the appearance of glee and a maniacal laugh (until voters realise what a mistake they made and that side have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the bloody corpse of what used to be the public sector).
Oh, and of course there's a 3rd side too, but they don't really count as they'll just end up supporting one of the two others.
And they all want to sacrifice our freedoms (even the lib dems - just look at how they voted on DRIPA).
They're all as bad as each other - just in different ways.
"That doesn't explain..."
That's because they all have audiences to pander to, audiences of people seeking to have their views and beliefs validated.
You're not going to get decent reporting when publication of choice gets most of its income from outrage porn, poorly researched articles that confirm the biases of its readership, and frequently slings mud at the other team. Even less so when the people in the publication's employ also try to use their position as a platform for their ideologies and step away from writing in the public interest.
"Spend too much" - no they didn't. That's part of the problem. The Tories created a narrative that blames Labour for the crisis and paints them as the saviours of the economy - when it was an international phenomenon and their stupid austerity policies killed the recovery. When they took over things weren't that bad - then we had dingbat austerity killing the recovery based on the now disproved theories of one (yeah, one) academic who cooked his figures.
Labour thought we were all too thick to understand the counter argument so didn't even try. Her majesty's opposition sat there like the bunch of steaming puddings they are. All because they thought we couldn't grasp the very simple argument that a country's finances aren't managed the same way you would manage a household budget.
By the way - I hate Labour and am not defending them from partisanship, just from the facts.
>What in buggery do we do with a country that naturally produces Daily Mail readers? Nuke it from orbit?
Well, if you are going to take that option, then you have nothing to lose by trying some slightly less drastic ideas first. Um.... widespread dispersion of LSD and MDMA? If this experiemht fails, then drop the bomb and sterilise the Petri dish.
But serioulsy, compare the attitude of the Red Tops in the 1980s to today.... they no longer pick on homosexuals, trade unionists, commies, blacks or whoever in the way they did then. Its true that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise - in pubs, just as it is mirrored in the papers - but that appears linked to people not feeling well off.
Basically, if people feel happy and hopeful they are nicer to each other. If people feel naffed off and oppressed, they want someone to blame.
"The will either cause cancer or cure it depending on the random Daily Mail headline generator."
I thought it was the Daily Mail headlines that did that themselves?
Oh, this is an article about cause and effect, isn't it ....
Shame Al Murray didn't win the seat though, he could've had fun with newspaper headlines :)
Tell that to the Telegraph. They were sending out emails beforehand to subscribers begging them to vote conservative. And as for the Murdoch owned papers... nothing needs to be said really.
The email in question:
Subject: The Daily Telegraph urges its readers to vote Conservative
From the Editor of The Daily Telegraph
111 Buckingham Palace Road,
London SW1W 0DT
Thursday, May 7, 2015
As the country goes to the polls, I am taking the unprecedented step of sending you The Telegraph's leading article.
That's because we view this general election as the most important since 1979.
It marks a watershed moment: do we continue under the Conservatives with the open, enterprise-led economic approach that has underpinned our prosperity for nearly 40 years?
Or do we revert to an old-style, “government-knows-best” culture championed by the most Left-wing Labour leader for a generation?
All the frenzied talk about a hung parliament and the surge of the SNP is a distraction because in the end, the choice is straightforward: do we want Mr Cameron to continue in Number 10 or to see Ed Miliband installed as prime minister?
The Daily Telegraph urges its readers to vote Conservative.
My favourite Guardian bit is from here:
Their description of Cameron embracing his wife is:
"Looking genuinely relieved and ecstatic, David Cameron squashes his face against Sam Cam’s cheek, as she grins at the prospect of five years of proper, evil Tory power. "
Don't get me wrong, I *like* having newspapers that have an open agenda rather than pretending to be neutral. I just wish they'd stop hypocritically having a go at other outlets that do the same
The traditional view was that people got their information from TV/radio and their opinions from newspapers. Opinion pieces and editorials are an essential part of a free press.
Now I suppose its information from Google and opinion from Facebook (other services are available). Where did it all go so wrong?
Dear Ac (you are a wuss for hiding your handle btw),
Speak for yourself - re how thick you are...
"Pockets picked by the rich", which planet are you on buddy? HMG has been spending on the UK credit card for ages....
At some point, IT HAS TO BE PAID BACK, it really is that simple, would you have preferred (in an alternate universe) for the deputy PM (Nicola Sturgeon) to rack up MORE DEBTS for your kids/grand kids to payoff?
Democracy is great eh? And I did not vote for Cameron, even though I think he is a very good Prime Minister.
You might want to check on the lies you've been told by the CON man.
Ahh, of course you won't and don't fucking care as your all right Jack.
Check the promises the CON man gave in 2010 (difficult to find as they tried to vanish them off the CON site).
Check how many times the CON men have been told by Civil servants to stop fucking lying!.
I am quite capable of reading (and researching) thank you very much, I used to do that for a living, and I am VERY GOOD AT IT.
As to your ill-informed statement that 'I am alright Jack', err no I ain't mate - feel free to read up my previous posts if you would like to profer a non-prejudiced opinion.
Headlines thereof are: -98% of family nett worth due to illness over five years, sold house (at worst time possible) = still owe the bank £27k, but shit happens and worse things happen to better people...
As to this 'CON men' malarkey, it is a smidgeon childish dontcha think??
And it is you're not your, FTFY.
Chin up matey, the world will continue turning!!
BTW why are you still posting as AC, just wondered...?
Anyone voting Labour is an idiot wanting everything handed to them on a plate...
I don't earn over £100k a year, but I also don't rely on government hand outs, I save as much as I can for when I need the money..
I know some people need help because they can't look after themselves, but the majority on benefits can work, they can do things themselves, and handing money out without asking for anything in return is wrong and just encourages 'lost generations'.
I would suggest to start that any person claiming Job Seekers Allowance must work between 1+ days a week in some form on government service, be it sweeping streets, picking litter, painting, weeding, cutting grass, data entry etc.... get businesses involved to provide places for these part time workers, and you will help them into work faster...
At some point, IT HAS TO BE PAID BACK
I'm surprised no mention of Labour's bright idea of using PFI hasn't been made yet. We'll be paying off the millions of debt created by that for generations to come, even within the NHS (I wonder how many are now experiencing issues because of it?)
"I'm surprised no mention of Labour's bright idea of using PFI hasn't been made yet. We'll be paying off the millions of debt created by that for generations to come, even within the NHS (I wonder how many are now experiencing issues because of it?)"
Well, the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign has been doing a very good job of pretending that hospital closures (down to failed PFI under last Labour government) are the fault of the evil Tories, and at times claiming to be politically neutral whilst wearing Socialist Worker badges ..
I'm surprised no mention of Labour's bright idea of using PFI hasn't been made yet.
Probably because it was a Tory 'bright idea', which the despicable New Labour ran with because they didn't have the balls to put up taxes to pay for essentials like hospital and school buildings which didn't leak after a decade of being run down by the despicable Tories.
PFI was thought up and brought in by the previous government under John Major. The one which left us with a 30 % budget deficit which was reduced to 15 % in two years under Labour. The massive debt we owe is almost directly as a result of bailing out the banks due to an under-regulated banking system that was shifting very complex debt products around the world.
I would suggest to start that any person claiming Job Seekers Allowance must work between 1+ days a week in some form on government service, be it sweeping streets, picking litter, painting, weeding, cutting grass, data entry etc....
You mean paying people less for jobs which, if they need doing, should actually be created and funded properly? Yeah, that's a well thought out way of getting people back into work...
No, for JSA these are Job Seekers, they should be looking for work, so this would be providing a days work rather than money to do nothing, and some on the job training in the process, giving them skills and making them more likely to find a full time job..
1 day a week, say 7 hours work, JSA is £73.10, so a bit more than £10 an hour, not an unreasonable wage.
The idea is to use existing resources rather than having to find other funds...
>>I would suggest to start that any person claiming Job Seekers Allowance must work between 1+ days a week in some form on government service, be it sweeping streets, picking litter, painting, weeding, cutting grass, data entry etc.... <<
Thereby taking paid work from the hands of those already doing it, providing slave labour for employers unwilling to pay the going rate for the job.
>>get businesses involved to provide places for these part time workers, and you will help them into work faster...<<
What prevents businesses from offering paid employment to people who are by definition looking for it (ie getting 'Job Seekers Allowance')? Wouldn't being able to get the job done more or less free by conscripts forced to do it under threat of starvation be a pretty strong incentive to continue not employing those workers fairly?
Problem is the British public and their general lack of numeracy.
For all the extra jobs supposedly created GDP stayed the same that people don't see that as a problem immediately is just .......
(Along with the national debt in absolute terms increasing by about 50%).
Such a bright idea. So that will be all the people currently sweeping streets, picking litter, painting, weeding, cutting grass, data entry etc... now to be sacked and to go on benefits - but now back as 1 day per week workers.
Of course, that also means we will have 5 times as many people doing the job of one, so we'll need managers and supervisors, plus people to manage the backoffice processes of these people who will of course have not only 5x the staff turnover, but far higher because those people will (hopefully) be getting back to full time work as soon as possible.
Come to think of it, how can we expect someone with no experience to be as productive as someone who knows the job and has been doing it for the last 20 years. So forget that 5x, it's probably 7x or 10x.
Of course those people will also need clothing, not just 7x the amount, but replaced at every staff turnover ....
Ooops, such a simple idea is a bit more complex in practice.
Unless of course you're suggesting that these workers are ADDITIONAL to the current people. In that case, all the above all still applies, but with no reduction in existing council costs.
So I guess you must also be in favour of increased taxes to fund your bright ideas ?
When I left school, I would have been a conservative, it was that sort of school.
When I left college, I was probably still a conservative. Bearded shouty people don't work on me.
A few decades later, I am very much NOT a conservative.
The change has been living in the "real" world. I have worked in private small scale industry uop to large scale public. The last thing anyof them need is what we are now getting - another 5 more years of taking from where it is needed to give the undeserving and unproductive more money to not spend in the economy.
Give someone on £10k a raise and it will all be spent.
Give someone on £30k a raise and they might save a few quid more but they will spend most of it.
Give someone on £1M a raise and they will invest it.
Tax raises to the rich are poor economics.
They are all most conservatives are interested in
To be fair, the Tories complained about it - made some vague statement about stopping PFI - and then continued on doing it. Sometimes it does feel like an outgoing government deliberately leaves a mess for the next lot.
One lot wanted us to pay for the privilege of having ID cards, the other lot wants to push through laws to make what the security services currently do legal. (Even though it's questionable whether they are or not, privacy wise. This is not the first time a UK government has put through an illegal law, though - and probably won't be the last)
Also, the thoughts of leaving the EU and getting rid of human rights (Most of them appear to be postfixed with "national security trumps this", the last I saw) is more than a little worrying. (The first of these is mainly, it has to be said, because of the second one and troublesome things like the data protection act)
Many Labour spokespeople are (unconsciously?) echoing the words of Bertolt Brecht's The Solution:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018