Why I hate the Daily Mail, as distilled into one edition

Where did I say anything about "sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it"? What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down. They are only printing what their readers want to read. If nobody wanted to read the paper it would shut down.

One thing's for sure; the Philpots will be the next election's Willie Horton.

It'll be forgotten by then

Plenty time for more juicy murders/ misc. outrages for us all to get our teeth into

I managed to miss that because I woke up 10 minutes after it was on, but I do wonder why AN Wilson is entitled to an opinion/platform on anything to do with poor people. The kind of asshole who pays his cleaner in cash and then sounds off about people on the fiddle.

What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down.

I don't think many of the people who would've seen the image would've gone on to buy it, you're ascribing causalities to this action that just aren't there.

They might focus on immigration at the next election but they'll drag this out again if they can: "Vote Labour and you are paying for more VILE BENEFIT SCUM PERVERT MURDERERS!"

Wilson was just typically vile, Suzy, and the labour pol fielded to rebut was infuriatingly ineffectual.

Seems to me the more outrage, disgust, contempt etc is built up online around the lies and pov pushed by the tories and the DM the more chance there is of a non-tory gov in 2015. That simple really. A non-tory electoral result can't be taken for granted. The net is now the public forum for millions, it's where they read the views of others, consider and form their own. It's where campaigns are started, organised and grown.
If you consider that insignifigant it's clearly for ideological reasons.

What I've noticed over most of the BBC lately is that speakers with a conservative/authoritarian viewpoint are speaking without being interrupted, but contributors from the left get spoken over by both their opposite in debate *and* the presenter. Never allowed to finish a sentence, that kind of thing.

There will probably be a Tory majority in 2015. Most people, including many who are on the net, think benefits need cutting; poll figures bear that out. In the absence of a convincing argument as to why benefits don't need cutting, they will vote accordingly, perhaps because they don't trust Labour to do anything different.

Most people, huh

Wishful thinking? Projection?

Also, why would these people vote Labour if they supported tory policy on benefits. Bizarre arument you're making

Sadly, yes, most people - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/we-have-to-talk-why-some-want-benefit-cuts

There's reams of evidence.

We're two years from an election. The higher the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote, the worse it will be for the Tories, who are definitely earning their Nasty Party stripes while rinsing the public sector for their private gain later. That also means Labour needs to offer something beyond another iteration of neoliberalism. I'm not holding my breath, but we were castigating the Tories for offering nothing upfront before 36 per cent of 65 per cent of the nation's eligible voters gave them the nod, and we're castigating Labour for not offering an alternative right now.

That also means Labour needs to offer something beyond another iteration of neoliberalism. I'm not holding my breath, but we were castigating the Tories for offering nothing upfront before 36 per cent of 65 per cent of the nation's eligible voters gave them the nod, and we're castigating Labour for not offering an alternative right now.

^^^this

They probably won't vote, I would guess because they are so disillusioned with the choice of voting for Asda or Tesco at the next election.

The main political parties don't give a toss about any of these people; their campaigning and policies are aimed exclusively at the marginal 10% of undecided/floating voters, on the assumption that their heartland voters will probably stay with them.

Did you guys see that Edwina Currie demanded £500 contributor's fee to debate whether IDS could survive on £53/week? That was priceless.

Also, muckraking journalists would do well to start digging around Lynton Crosby and all the messaging originating from his office. Do you really think short, punchy labels like 'job snob' are original bons mots from the mind of Iain Duncan Smith and the like? Take him down, and most of the divisive, shitty rhetoric becomes about 50 per cent less difficult to debunk.

Labour did OK when they had their own Lynton Crosby, i.e. Alastair Campbell.

Lynton Crosby has dined out for a long time on that 1996 Australian election. He aint all that. In fact, the tories generally have not been all that good at converting widespread hostility to welfare into support for their party.

Why are they in power then?

Crosby came in after Coulson got booted. Considering all the attention paid to Coulson and Campbell before him, it seems a bit *tumbleweeds* not to pay attention to messaging and the methodology thereof as it pertains to the current spin doctor.

Who is a key adviser to a democratically elected politician. If people don't like that, vote the politician out.

Why are they in power then?

Yes, my theory falls down when it comes to the landslide majority the Conservatives currently enjoy in parliament.

As someone who works in a student's union shop that stopped selling the Sun/Star etc years ago, should we stop selling the Mail? Serious question.

Labour's utter failure to have any spinny response to Tory benefits policies would be baffling if I thought they had any interest in putting up any serious opposition. How hard can it be to come up with some neat phrase that summarises e.g. the fact that 60% of children living in relative poverty have at least one working parent?

God yes, student shops shouldn't sell the Mail.

They should sell proper toilet paper instead.

xps, addressing working poverty and the ways in which the government subsidises business that aren't paying a living wage requires more spine than they currently seem capable of, unfortunately.

They should only sell the propaganda of that section of society that graduates ought aspire to, rah rah

wow that's almost as insightful and accurate as when you said people here were only dismayed by the Philpott story because he wasn't a Tory, good work!!

Sharivari, merdey otm re lack of opposition application, but it's prob highly attributable to the ease and directness-of-hit comeback "hey, this is your mess we're cleaning up"

Thanks stevie! I like to think i live up to all y'alls example in making important differences

xp "You're spending a fuck of a long time about it." / "Why are you giving tax cuts to all your rich mates then?"

Eh snoball you forgot to ad-hom the dissenter and you've clearly attempted to address the point, wtf? Itt you are either a good lefty (by default nu lab obv) or the earl of limerick iirc, and the rules of engagement apply

you've clearly attempted to address the point, wtf?

Sorry, I'm a bit out of touch with modern political debate techniques.

You qualify for opposition bench id say

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

Chancellor George Osborne has questioned whether the state should be paying for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott.

Philpott has been jailed for life after being found guilty of killing six of his children in a house fire.

He has been branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by some newspapers.

Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".

xp "You're spending a fuck of a long time about it." / "Why are you giving tax cuts to all your rich mates then?"

Don't know what the first quote means, second one, because they're rich and it's like that, and that's the way it is.

There will probably be a Tory majority in 2015.

If I was a betting man... the only way the Tories will win the election is if the economy perks up, all this shite about benefits and immigration and other dailymailisms isn't going to win them the election

That's what a lot of people thought in 1983.

What after the Falklands War you mean?

Yes, optimism was high then for a Labour victory, Michael Foot was virtually a shoo-in for Prime Minister

And in 1987.

And in 1997. The tories aren't omnipotent, it isn't complacency to recognise that they have serious problems themselves. Start from where you are, not where you'd like to be. And not from where your enemy would like to be either.

er, Grasshopper

No, in 1997 they wasted too much time wooing the floating voters and lazily assumed their heartland would still be there. They weren't.

In 1997 they did not have a GOOD STORY.

Labour had a better one. The "time for a change" meme which is too early to work again in 2015.

good story bro