Well done Ed Miliband for speaking out about the Daily Mail's article on his father

[claig]

The Daily Mail used a low tactic of accusing Ed miliband's father of hating Britain.

I think it was a nasty thing to do. Just because someone is a Marxist and may criticise some aspects of the country or its instiutions does not mean that they hate Britain.

Oh seriously who cares? Anyone outside the Westminster bubble or a few leftie die hards, that's about it. 50 complaints to the press commission.
In my world, in my circle of friends it couldn't matter less.

Oh well, let's not bother about anything that your friends aren't interested in!

Yes, it is very worrying when people show absolutely no interest in what is going on at the top. Re the Americanisation of politics by the Mail, you may be on to something. Dacre loves how things are done in America - the Mail is very vocal in its criticism of the Democrats especially Obamacare. Dacre would love for TV to be fully commercialised and the health system to be privatised. It is very worrying that people swallow what they are told on there. And it's not calling people stupid to say that, it is calling them trusting, naive or possibly lazy. I know several people, that I consider intelligent, who talk about things they have read in the Fail as fact. And they really do. It's frightening.

It's not new. Look at the way Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were treated.

Labour's obsession with their media image was a direct result. Alistair Campbell set up a team dedicated to finding and rebutting negative stories within the hour.

I'm interested to know what will happen when MPs discuss press regulation next week.

I wonder what Dave will say? If he doesn't speak out, will it look like he's scared of what the Mail will do?

It's not only Lefties that care. One of Margaret Thatcher's closest friends, Lord Moore of Lower Marsh, said:

'The Daily Mail is telling lies about a good man who I knew. The people of this country are good and decent too. They do not want the Daily Mail attacking the dead relatives of politicians to make political points.'

He'd better amend that to 'some people don't want the Daily Mail attacking the dead'.

Oh God they're still banging on about it: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-2442132/Ed-Milibands-Marxist-father-debate-How-hypocritical-Left-upset.html (Mail link)

V true Limited re Kinnock and they were vile about Foot when he died.

Cameron will probably say something along the lines of Gove and use it as a stick to beat regulation with. I think they all disagree with what the Mail did but they won't stand up to them.

Heseltine spoke very well about it yesterday on the BBC2 politics show. It's just the current government who are being evasive.

'the frog in the pot' is a really evocative phrase.
I am not a frog but I am still in the pot (as we all are) and tortured by the idea that I am powerless to do anything about it. We all are. I can see how this has come about, and I knew it was going to come about, but I have no clue what to do to contribute towards stopping it.

I don't really understand all this stuff about privy councils and statutory this and that about press regulation, but it seems that Dacre and the Mail may already have guessed that the politicians (including the Tories) are not going to be in favour of a press royal charter, which is what the press wanted, and by doing their attack it looks even less likely that the politicians will accept a press royal charter.

"An executive at another newspaper group took a different view: "It comes to something when you can unite Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in just a matter of hours. Anybody who has a dog in the fight will now be able to say that the press royal charter must now be rejected. This is an example of how out of control they are.

"Before this we were expecting next week to come and go with nothing happening. Now we don't think that's likely. They may well reject our proposals."

Another editor suggested it could all be a move by Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre to get his attack in before the press proposals are rejected. "He has form. He did this with his attack on David Bell, one of the advisers to the Leveson inquiry, just days before the report came out."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/daily-mail-ed-miliband-row-press-regulation

So the Mail has stated the battle now. It is possible that the Mail will not sign up to the politicians' version of the charter and then in the run up to the election, there could be a battle between some politicians and Middle England's most popular newspaper, beloved by many of the middle classes and squeezed middle voters, over press freedom and independence.

There may be lots of editorials about Marxism, state control and the values of freedom, free speech and press independence. The Daily Mail reader may be drawn away from the sidebar of shame and begin to demand press freedom and an end of attempts to control in any way their beloved newspaper.

It could get nasty. Politicians may be on the backfoot and be constantly asked about freedom of the press by the Middle England Daily Mai reader.
Some politicians may buckle under the Daily Mail barrage.

Does anyone know what UKIP's position is on press freedom and regulation etc?

If he backs the Mail, he could be on to a winner with Middle England.

Farage is against it nigelfaragemep.co.uk/pages/posts/nigel-farage-slams-law-to-end-press-freedom-244.php

Wow, thanks Petite, that means that the Mail will probably give Farage some favourable coverage, especially if Cameron does not approach the Mail's position on it.

And here: www.societyofeditors.co.uk/page-view.php?pagename=PressFreedom&parent_page_id=139&news_id=6037&numbertoprintfrom=11&language=%7Blanguage%7D

I'm against regulation of the press in theory, but the British press has shown itself again and again to be incapable of acting legally and responsibly. They've brought it upon themselves, it is very very sad. I just hope regulation doesn't prevent proper investigations. This article was in the comment section anyway and that wouldn't be covered by regulation other than the libel laws already in place.

They are already giving them favourable coverage. Both Littlejohn and Hitchens have come out in favour of UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised if they switched to ukip before the election. Just for the record I am completely against Ukip, both their founding principles and Farage. I think they are dangerous.

I'm amazed people continue to be surprised about the Daily Mail writing hateful articles about the Left. It's a bit like being astonished that Heat continues to feature celebs in bikinis, or that the Guardian reviews avant-garde plays at the Edinburgh Fringe.

Mail-hate is a kind of comfort for some people - like that "hated by the Daily Mail" link going around at the moment, which may well be true but seems quite smug at the same time: "Phew, let's share with my Facebook friends how tolerant and modern I am! There's no way the Daily Mail could ever like someone like me!" It's the new "some of my best friends are gay".

I remember an event earlier this year which brought home to me that nasty, ad-hominem abuse doesn't always come from the Right...

DadOnIce the difference in this thread is that it's a die-hard Mail supporter who has spoken out. Nobody else is remotely surprised.

Are you sure that Hitchens has come out in favour of UKIP? I must have missed that. Hitchens is usually anti-Tory, even advising readers not to vote for them, but I thought he was also not in favour of UKIP.

I agree DadOnIce it is comforting to hate the Mail, and it is also comforting to know that other people hate it. It doesn't make me smug, it just restores a little faith in humanity that there are others out there. I think also that they like being hated so much by so many, but loved as well by others, so in discussing thel we feed them, to an extent.

However they are also extremely powerful and really do have a massive influence on some of their readers. And that in itself is dangerous, but when they attack a dead academic in this way it is just wrong.

If you're talking about the Thatcher death and people's reaction to it then firstly, There is a difference between a PM and a pretty harmless academic. Ralph Miliband was an academic. Relatively private compared to a PM. And his actions did not create the results that thatcher's actions did. You can't compare the two at all.

Secondly there is a difference between some individuals going on about thatcher, we are all entitled to opinions after all, and a national newspaper writing such a horrible article which will influence thousands of people who know nothing else about the bloke than they have been told by that newspaper.

I wasn.t surprised by the original article. I was surprised, in a good way, that they gave him a right of reply. I was then surprised, in a bad way, that they surrounded the right of reply by further bile and have been so openly vile.

claig It was a few months ago that I think he wrote something along the lives of supporting UKIP. I will have a look on his blog and check and link if I find it. I might be wrong.

Dad, who is claiming to be surprised? No one is remotely surprised that they have written hateful articles about the left. But people are disgusted at the extent of the vileness of these particular articles, and want to talk about it.

For what it's worth, the deliberately crass choice of phrasing, such as the stuff about Deuteronomy when talking about a dead Jewish WWII veteran, seems to bespeak of a set of prejudices that I thought were pretty much in the Mail's past. Apparently not, and that is surprising to me. As was learning that they published a piece supporting Marine Le Pen two years ago.

claig I was wrong, kind of. Have a look at this: hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/06/ukip-is-still-dads-army.html

He seems to tell voters to vote for UKIP as the least worst option. He is definitely to the right, but hates the Tories and thinks ukip can destroy them, but doesn't like them as they are at the moment.

Thanks, Petite. You are right. He has changed his view. He has long been very anti-Tory, but he used to also be anti-UKIP. He has now changed his position. He is still anti-UKIP, but advises voting for them in order to destroy the Tories. I haven't kept up with his views so didn't realise that he had sort of changed his position.

It is difficult to understand exactly what his position is. Some people wonder whether he may be a socialist, such is his venom for the Tories.

I think he is right wing and that the Tories don't go far enough for him. I don't read him every week as he makes me angry with his anti-Europe rants :)

garlicvampire like a technocracy? Not sure if that's what it's called but I could get behind a grown up government.