Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Do the left hate the right more than the right hate the left?

159 replies

Eve · 11/05/2010 20:52

Comment I came across..on twitter I think somewhere.

I thought there was a large element of truth in it?

Views?

OP posts:
skihorse · 12/05/2010 01:11

Eve - I read just the other day that the "problem" lies in Tories just being too damned polite to run around ranting the entire time - unlike the great unwashed.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 23:26

And let's not forget that actually, no-one got G-B syndrome in the end; the small matter of the truth, but quite important.

TheStraitsofWTF · 11/05/2010 23:23

The mail does not help people who aren't scientists, heathen. It's a cessspool of bad science, bad stats, scaremongering crap. If it gets a science story right it's the exception, rather than the rule, and helps exacerbate the public misunderstanding of science.

claig · 11/05/2010 23:05

Hetahen , most ordinary people wouldn't have known that. They are not scientists like you. That's why the Mail did them a service. The thread took an aside when Humphrey said that the Mail was crap

Ninjacat · 11/05/2010 23:01

Winky lets not forget the 40% who didn't vote at all.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 22:58

It was only a huge story if you don't already know vaccines can cause G-B syndrome. Which is not a secret, it's online and in the medical textbooks etc.

Anyhow, this ain't strictly relevant to the thread...

claig · 11/05/2010 22:50

Heathen, not the leaked memo, the New Scientist didn't have that. Of course they exonerated the Climategate guy, they are hardly likely to tell you that he was telling lies otherwise it would undermine the whole thing.

claig · 11/05/2010 22:48

no belle I'm talking about the leaked memo that warned about Guillem-Barre syndrome etc. It was a huge story and they broke it. They are often sceptical, but they also follow the line that the others do.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 22:47

claig, we had this conversation before, and we discovered that New Scientist had run the Mail's "swine flu scoop" two weeks before and in a less scaremongering way, didn't we?

And when we had that conversation, the Climategate guys had not been exonerated as they have now - but I suspect it would take a good deal more than that to derail your conspiracy theory train, wouldn't it.

HumphreyCobbler · 11/05/2010 22:44

No.

belledechocolatefluffybunny · 11/05/2010 22:43

Oh, I've seen the swine flu stories. Affected alot of people in the UK did it? Nope.

WinkyWinkola · 11/05/2010 22:42

But they still didn't win.

HumphreyCobbler · 11/05/2010 22:42

That is politics for you though WinkyWinkola.

They got a bigger share of the vote than Blair did in 2005.

TheStraitsofWTF · 11/05/2010 22:42

claig - read it on health, and you'll see most almighty guff spouted. I wouldn't trust anything they have to say on anything remotely scientific.

WinkyWinkola · 11/05/2010 22:40

"2 million more people want them in than Labour, end of."

I think this election has shown that there is more to British politics than just Labour vs Conservative.

You've just totally dismissed the considerable number of people who voted for other parties which means that more people in the British electorate didn't want the Tories in than did.

Smashing.

HumphreyCobbler · 11/05/2010 22:40

Just to clarify, I don't read the Mail.

I honestly think it is pernicious.

TheStraitsofWTF · 11/05/2010 22:40

claig, I think other papers have higher standards of proof than the dm, that's why they don't touch half their stories.

claig · 11/05/2010 22:38

belle read it on swine flu, read it on Climategate, read it on certain political stories and you will see how good it is and how no other paper will tell you those stories. Ignore the obvious scaremongering stories.

HumphreyCobbler · 11/05/2010 22:37

After reading it I lost any faith in any media!

For a while. I am hooked again now.

I don't know how I manage to think it is all rubbish and be so keen to read it, all at the same time.

belledechocolatefluffybunny · 11/05/2010 22:34

The Mail criticises anything and everything. All I read inside it is scaremongering.

claig · 11/05/2010 22:32

PfftThePinkoLeftyDragon, yes you are probably right. But I think Cameron is genuine and meant it. He knows that Brown did his best to represent the country. He doesn't agree with all of Brown's policies but he knows that Brown believed that he was acting in the interests of the country.

HumphreyCobbler, I'm sure the Mail is no angel and has an agenda. I disbelieve a lot of what they say, but I read other papers as well and over the years I have noticed that the Mail lets the public know some very important things that the so-called high-brow papers don't discuss. I will look at the book, as I now have 2 recommendations.

sausagelover · 11/05/2010 22:26

I'm not massively informed about any of this, but the way I see it, left wing is more caring, right wing is more 'each to their own, everyone look after themselves'. So morally, I do think the left is superior.

HumphreyCobbler · 11/05/2010 22:25

Lots of grim stuff.

There are chapters about all the papers, including the Guardian and The Times.

But the Daily Mail really stands out, both by imposing a nasty agenda on its news and by the appalling way in which it treats those who it writes wildly inaccurate and nasty stuff about.

PfftThePinkoLeftyDragon · 11/05/2010 22:25

claig - that is a formality, he has to

claig · 11/05/2010 22:22

HumphreyCobbler, TheHeathenofSuburbia recommended it to me. I saw it in Smiths the other day but didn't buy it, haven't got time to read it. But you do know that it is written by Nick Davies, a Guardian journalist? What does he say about the Mail?

Swipe left for the next trending thread