Inclined to agree whole heartedly with Richard Littlejohn about the Labour poster girls

[moondog]

Spot on

[Vakant]

What a load of bollocks.

[edam]

Mean-spirited nonsense. Cait Reilly was already volunteering in a museum - she wasn't arguing against working, she was arguing against Poundland ripping off the taxpayer.

You do realise that the more firms get free work, the fewer paid workers they need?

[claig]

I tend to agree with Littlejohn too.

I'm just amazed at Labour who are almost handing open goals to the Daily Mail. Are the only ordinary people they know Guardian contributors and progressive millionaires?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480664/The-phoney-ordinary-folk-Labours-TV-broadcast-Millionaire-restaurateur-Guardian-journalist-interviewees-saying-afford-fuel-bills.html

But they have handed similar open goals to the Mail before too


"At just 16, Rory Weal was being feted yesterday as the ‘hero’ of the Labour conference for an impassioned speech telling how the welfare state saved his family from ruin.

The schoolboy tugged at delegates’ heartstrings with a tale of his home being repossessed and the family having ‘nothing, no money, no savings’, and only the benefits system to fall back on.

But Labour leader Ed Miliband may be surprised to know he was not so hard-up after all.

For it turns out he is the privileged son of a millionaire property developer who sent Rory to a private school until his business went bust.

Even now he goes to a selective grammar school, which Labour policy opposes."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042623/Rory-Weal-Child-star-Labour-conference-truth-life-poverty.html

[thecatfromjapan]

It's nonsense, moondog.

There was a thread about this the other day on mn. Not nearly as nasty as that Littlepenis piece. Anyway, it transpired that Jack (whose surname I've forgotten) "gave up" her job because it entailed shift work, some of which was at night, and it made childcare impossible. I have to say, you'd be looking at a full-time nanny for that, and I think that might be in the region of £30,000. (Though, perhaps not, if you managed to get someone with a slightly vulnerable immigration status, and kept their passport.)

I think that article is playing so fast and loose with the truth it is pretty hateful, actually.

[Stravy]

I would be interested to know how much childcare would cost for a LP firefighter. I did pmsl slightly at 'a man' can live on that wage with 'a wife and child' with no acknowledgement at all the the 'wife' would be looking after the child while the man was out all night fighting fires.

[chibi]

really? he is such a hateful person, i would be disinclined to agree with him that water is wet.

so much of what he says is disingenuous, and readily refuted. he misrepresents things to make his point- i am thinking particularly of his reference to Jack's tattoos, which would have been acquired in happier, more financially solvent times.

[Stravy]

cross posts with thecat

[bsc]

Anyone valueing anything Littlejohn says is beneath contempt.
I refuse to read it, I do not want to sully myself with the opinions of that oxygen thief.

Moony, you disappoint me.

[BIWI]

Do you actually know anything about the cases he's writing about moondog? Fucking ignorant and crass journalism, and also your OP.

[thecatfromjapan]

Oh, and yy to what edam posted. I am rather a big fan of Cait Reilly, actually. I think she would be a great choice of poster girl.

You see, I think that a lot of would-be-Conservative-voters are also parents of university-educated, job-hunting children. And I think they have a lot of sympathy for Cait. So I think that might be quite a nice piece of footwork for Labour there.

In fact, I'll bet one or two Mail readers are a bit annoyed about their children, already working for free (and probably still living at home) being told they should go and stack shelves, for benefits. So Mr L. may have misjudged a bit with that one. There again, a lot of DM readers are possibly very LMC, and quite jealous about MC children who can work for free. Hmmm. Interesting. Wonder how that one does play out with the DM readership?

[claig]

I don't understand the Tories at all. I know there are a lot of toffs at the top. But if they really want to win a landslide election, why don't they hire Littlejohn as campaign director?

The left loathe Littlejohn, but most Mail readers and most ordinary Tories think he is in touch with the people. He has the common touch, a sense of humour and the ability to expose Labour's hypocrisy.

[claig]

"There again, a lot of DM readers are possibly very LMC, and quite jealous about MC children who can work for free."

I think that would be the majority. The Mail readers are the "squeezed middle" and are struggling as it is, so even though they are probably not keen on workfare, the feeling is not strong enough to sway them against a low taxation party.

[timidviper]

I am no great fan of either of the young women featured but I am even less of a fan of Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Fail. Hateful, mean-spirited and most likely twisted to the point of being innaccurate

[Meglet]

Littlejohn is just a male Katie Hopkins. They're paid well and sent out to troll and provoke for web clicks.

I feel dirty just typing their names.

[rednellie]

Just for clarity

[claig]

No, Katie Hopkins is a toff as far as I can tell, but I may be wrong about that, and is not in touch with the public.

But Littlejohn is in touch and comes from an ordinary background and is political and can run rings around New Labour with his shoelaces tied together. Littlejohn is a natural and that is why he is so hated by lots of the Left.

[claig]

And of course Littlejohn is not a toff and a Bullingdon Club member so New Labour can't dismiss him with their usual tactics.

[Faithless12]

While I don't agree with Littlejohn, Jack Monroe's 'story' doesn't add up. I wasn't impressed with her blog or her shopping for a tenner and then saying it would last a week but not posting the actual break down of what she'd do with the ingredients.

[claig]

I agree with Faithless12. I'm not sure it adds up either.


This is what Littlejohn said in his article

"Jack has come to our attention only because she was chosen by the Labour Party to represent ‘ordinary people’ in a party political broadcast about high energy bills.

Mind you, one of the other ‘ordinary people’ in the broadcast was former advertising executive Beresford Casey, who lives in a £1.5 million house near Ed Miliband in Primrose Hill, and runs a chain of upmarket burger bars called Haché, a posh French name for mince."

The election is fast approaching and Labour can't afford to hand the Mail any open goals.

[DownWithThisSortOfThing]

Here's the reply Jack Monroe wrote to Richard Littlejohn's article
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail

[claig]

Sorry, I left out Littlejohn's punchline which will go down well with the "squeezed middle" Mail readers. That is why Littlejohn is paid so much because he has his finger on the pulse and all the eduction at Eton can't buy what he learnt on the streets.

"Only the trendy metropolitan Lefties who comprise the modern Labour Party could come up with an ‘ordinary person’ called ‘Beresford’. Wasn’t he one of the Wombles?"

[claig]

In fact, I don't know why the Tories are making a big deal of Boris. Why don't they just make Littlejohn an MP and then PM?

PMQ would be a hoot and Littlejohn could crack his own gags and wouldn't need speeches written for him which are far worse than he could write himself.

[claig]

Littlejohn would tear up all the speeches written for him by the Oxbridge PPPEs and the SPADs and all the rest, and communicate more effectively directly with the people in his own words.

[edam]

I do like Jack's reply.

Claig, why don't you read it, and tell us what you think about Littlejohn then? Lazy fecker doesn't actually bother to any research. Facts would get in the way of his rants.

[claig]

OK, I will read it now. Will get a coffee first.