I feel sad about Angela Rayner

[Neededa]

OK, I am left leaning so maybe I am already biased, BUT, I do feel sad that a woman who overcame early issues, who was “proper” working class, who didn’t speak the kings English, but rather with a proper local dialect, and achieved a high office without a single spoon in her working class mouth, has gone.

i do understand that many people will agree with what has happened. I would have been fuming if the story played out the way it had as a different party, and I understand that Angela had to go, BUT as a woman who believes in holding up other women, particularly those who aren’t born to certain families, or have expectations placed on them from word go, I do feel a bit sad this morning.

There was a working class woman in the House of Commons. A working class woman was the deputy prime minister of this country. It is not even 100 years since working class women could vote. I feel sad.

It wouldn’t. Most people consume their news online so the number of print copies sold is increasingly irrelevant.

It wouldn’t. Most people consume their news online so the number of print copies sold is increasingly irrelevant.

Yes, that’s true but I still don’t understand why the wealth of the owners affects how many people read the newspaper either in print or online.

It doesn’t. It does affect the political stance the publication takes.

It doesn’t. It does affect the political stance the publication takes.

Yes but why do the right wing papers have a bigger readership? At least, presumably they do or they wouldn’t be regarded as a threat.
The Daily Mail has a total monthly digital and print audience of 33.7 million in the UK. I tried to look up Guardian readership numbers but they’ve stopped making them available

About 20 million of the monthly hits on Mailonline are from MN leftists who see the links on here and then click on them to be ‘outraged’, ‘fuming’ and ‘devastated’.

There isn’t enough money to make me expose myself to that. I don’t have the stomach for it.

Extraordinary how offended some posters are by the Daily Mail when they claim never to have looked at it…

Ha yep.

nah just more stupid right wing thick people wasting their money on silly papers,

proof? until recently, the no1 right wing selling paper had 16/17year olds showing their tits.

My dad used to read it. I remember buying it for him and handing it to him with tongs. I know perfectly well how nasty it is because I had it regurgitated to me.

I don’t read papers but do listen to the Radio and some TV. Angela Rayner was quite vocal in calling people Tory scum but frankly I think what she did is awful.

The Sun used to have more Labour voting readers than Tory. Probably still does.

But knock yourself out with the insults. 👍

Always the way. Good point re the Sun. They backed Labour at last GE. Although like many probably not anymore.

So buying a paper to look at pics of naked teenagers is all ok in your book?

Go ask Labour supporting Liverpool if they read the Sun?

Who have i insulted?

No. I’m very glad it’s gone. Although of course the Mirror, People and Star (all traditionally Labour) all did the same.

You insulted Sun readers as stupid and thick. Which, given the majority were, and probably still are, Labour voters, seems unwise coming from a Labour supporter.

My media lecturer once said "you probably all think I'm an old wing chain smoker and you are all cool and think various things should be banned. However one day you might need the Daily Mail"

His point that in giving too much power to censors you allow them to have free reign to make huge decisions and to kill off important democratic debate. You are just making a layer of uncountability.

I actually don't think he was particularly right wing. I KNOW he was liberal though and could see the dangers in authoritarianism.

Right now the political debate in the UK isn't so much about right and left at all; it's more about liberalism v authoritarianism.

And I can't understand why arguments about have published page three in the past is relevant today. The newspaper has made a decision that it was outdated and no longer really reflected what it's readers wanted. That's fair enough in its own right.

Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments about how pure everything in terms of history whilst deliberately missing the issues and problems of the present. It's a stupid little deflection tactic for cheap lazy point scoring.

We are better off for having BOTH left wing and right wing newspapers to hold each other to account. Balance in the system is the best counter weight to abuses of all kids of power.

But no one wants to have an in-depth conversation about that because it's all about being right and being wrong. Except life isn't like that and sometimes the left is correct and sometimes the right is correct. Debate and difference of opinion is healthy and much better than universal 'agreement' (there is no such thing )

Aside from 2 GE's the Sun has consistently supported the Cons..... & still does, i doubt many Lab voters buy it

No those papers did not, not naked pics.

Glad you think i can influence Sun readers lol!

Well you’re wrong on all counts bar two.

The Sun has supported the Tories more consistently than Labour. Though that’s clearly irrelevant, since you’re attacking its readers, who mostly voted Labour.

And I agree you can’t influence Sun readers, or anyone else. Lol. 🙄

Uh? You re no exactly doing a great job on that front, just the usual right wing froth and faux outrage.

The Sun has supported Labour twice in my 40 years of voting... why not engage in the facts?

Yes anyone buying a paper for pics of naked young girls is thick & lacking morals

‘Usual right wing froth and outrage’

This is typical posting isn’t it.

Yes anyone buying a paper for pics of naked young girls is thick & lacking morals.

Yes, I dare say they are, but the original point iirc was that the right wing press has too much power.
If that’s the case then maybe the left wing press should make their newspapers (including online, obvs) and magazine more appealing so that they increase their readership.
Also the right wing press hasn’t stopped people from voting Labour.

Ok I'll try this slowly. Dodging tax either purposefully or through being thick is bad.

No excuses for anyone in a senior position not to seek expert advice.

She wasn't 'naive' she was grossly useless. What else didn't she seek advice on?!

Papers reflect the public or they don't flog enough. (This is the context of discontinuing page 3 - they wouldn't have if it wasn't financially to the paper's advantage in terms of how many readers it attracted).

In a democracy everyone has a right to a vote and a right to an opinion, even 'the thick ones lacking in morals', even if we disagree with it.

Suggesting otherwise is anti-democratic.

The right wing press helped Labour get into power, via partygate and then going for Sunak and generally profiting from the mood at the time.

Now Labour are fucking it up and the media are profiting from that, same old, expect Labour supporters will use it as an excuse.

Exactly. Smokescreen and excuses. BJ was the subject of a long piece on Today this morning about dodgy business deals, but no, the media are just after Labour.