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

Jack accuse him of not getting his facts right, but has she researched Littlejohn's view of the welfare system and a safety net before writing

"The difference between us is that I am glad I live in a country that seeks to look after its citizens with a safety net, imperfect as it is, it's surely better than no support at all."

She is painting broad brush strokes there in my opinion and hasn't interviewed Littlejohn to find out if he is against "a safety net"

You can know everything you need to about Littlejohn from the fact that he lives in Florida. Yes, he loves Britain so much he emigrated to a state where it's legal to shoot black people.

Jack says

"It took 18 months for me to find that job, and hundreds of applications, but I did it. And that's what sticks in your craw, isn't it? Because in order to satisfy the stereotype that you peddle day in day out in the rag currently lining my ferret cage, I should have stayed feckless and unemployed, and not tried to feed myself and my son decent nutritious meals, nor had the audacity to write about it."

But this is wrong as Littlejohn would not want her or her son not to eat nutritious meals and what he is writing about is wanting people to find and be in work rather than to be claiming benefits if possible.

Littlejohn has got some of the facts wrong and has made assumptions about why she left her job. Maybe teh time pressures of getting his article out so soon after the Daily Mail did its article on the "phoney ordinary folk" used in the Labour broadcast meant that he could not find out the exact details. I'm not sure how he would find them out, I guess he woud have to interview her.

Littlejohn is really writing this piece about Labour and their campaign against poverty and thaat is why he is mentioning Jack and Cait. So he is using broad brush strokes rather than going into detail in order to make his point about Labour.

Headline of the article in the Guardian is

"Dear Richard Littlejohn – here are all the things you got wrong about me
I'm not single and I didn't quit my job for a life on benefits, but why let facts get in the way of your Daily Mail column?"

Then Jack says

"Firstly, I have to commend you for managing to get so many facts completely wrong in a comparatively short article. But that's your style isn't it? Never let the truth get in the way of a good smear campaign, or something like that.

So just in case you wanted to attempt to polish that turd of an article with something that resembles the truth, here's some of them addressed:

1. I'm not single – I'm getting married in the spring."

But she is not married, so she is single and Littlejohn is right.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Just for clarity

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.

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

"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.

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.

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?

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

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.

cross posts with thecat

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.