This is amazing, explains Tory twattery in such a simple way ;)

[ApocalypseCheeseToastie]

ENJOY !

Once upon a time, Labour actually represented the working class. They were totally wrong on policy then, as of course they are now, but at least they genuinely shared the values of their voters.

You're right, now they're bought off by Big Business and The City, as the Tories have always been. It's the working classes mostly and the middle-classes who are abandoning Labour, because they're not sticking up for them any more.

Wealth inequality, for example, increased a huge amount under Labour - this was a continuation from the previous Thatcher and Tory years, of course.

Now, Labour has been taken over by Islington pseudo-intellectual Marxists, they pander to the Guardian/BBC agenda, sneering on their base as thick xenophobes.

No, not really. They've been taken over by business. New Labour aren't Marxists, and they don't pander to The Guardian. They pander the Murdoch press, which wields a huge influence on British politics.

I understand perfectly why someone might vote Labour - and so, for all their faults, do the Tory leadership. What is fantastic about the current Labour leadership is that they have absolutely no clue about why someone might vote Tory. Blair was the last Labour leader who did.

Like the current Tory leadership, Blair was excellent at PR. Unfortunately, a lot of people have bought in to the idea that the economic crisis was caused by New Labour overspending. While the Tory's created this narrative for their own ends, the Labour party was too busy choosing a new leader. Unfortunately, it has now stuck, and a lot of misinformed people think that, if only New Labour had spent less on hospitals and nurses, 'we wouldn't be in this mess'. Well, we would, as I've shown again and again with various economic statistics. The financial crisis we're experiencing was caused by the meltdown in finance (big banks and speculative trading) and subsequent recession.

It's a handy narrative to point to New Labour, so the Torys can carry on with their anti public services and privitisation agenda.

Message deleted by Mumsnet

Well, it wasn't actually, I just wanted to mark my place so I can read more tomorrow.

'It's trash journalism'

ttosca, until you understand the Daily Mail, you won't understand the public and for someone like you who it seems is active in politics, you need to treat teh public and its views with respect in order to be in touch with them and represent them.

It is the number one online newspaper in the world. Either you are out of touch with the public or the Mail is out of touch.

It's no good being high and mighty, all superior and hoity toity and calling what the public read trash.

If you are in politics, you need to get a copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People". After that, you need to read and understand the Daily Mail or you are sure to fail.

ttosca - you need to provide evidence.

I have done so. Many times. Over and over and over again on here. I have provided statistics and argued endlessly with the likes of 'niceguy' about his delusions of ever accumulating debt (debt has steadily been decreasing since WWII, it has only recently started climbing again at a steep rate since 2008 after the financial crisis hit) and his crazy ideas about New Labour constantly 'overspending', even though (as I have shown over and over again that) every single government in the past 50 years (both Tory scum and Labour) have run deficits for almost all of the years they were in power. Running a deficit is not a New Labour speciality.

Well I don't have much time for the telegraph, but I'd still say its better than the mail! The mail is just awful.

claig

I understand how the media works - apparently better than you.

I acknowledge that the Daily Mail does indeed pander to the worst instincts of the populist reactionaries in England.

You should also acknowledge that probably half of the hits that the Daily Mail website gets is because of boobs, swimsuits, cancer scares, nip-slips, and celebrity gossip.

The daily mail gives you cancer!

'It is a but weird to go on about how good the Mail'

I go on about how good the Mail is because it winds up the progressives and shows them up for what they are -condescending, arrogant people who think they are superior to millions of people.

And the Mail does not only contain celeb gossip, it also has political articles, which is why Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's ex-chief of staff, said on "This Week" something like the paper that the politicians fear isn't any of the Murdoch press, it is the Daily Mail. If it was only gossip, they would ignore it and not bother attacking it, but it is much more than gossip.

Well I don't have much time for the telegraph, but I'd still say its better than the mail! The mail is just awful.

Well indeed. The Spectator, Financial Times, and The Times are conservative (little c) papers. I disagree with most of what is written in them (in the case of the FT, the opinion pieces), but they're at least not trashy and reactionary like the Daily Mail. The columnists also don't appear to be rabid and barking mad, like 'Mad' Melanie Philips.

Then why bother with the gossip?

'Then why bother with the gossip?'

Because people like gossip. I like gossip too. They don't all like 'Das Kapital'.
Life is a rich tapestry and gossip and twaddle is part of it. Someone once said "if you're bored of the Daily Mail, you're bored of life" and "if you read the Guardian, you need to get a life".

If the person really did say 'bored of', then I have little time for his or her conclusions.

Someone once said "if you're bored of the Daily Mail, you're bored of life" and "if you read the Guardian, you need to get a life".

Yes, that someone was probably you.

I did read the mail the other day when I was out having coffee, it I felt a bit dirty afterwards.

I think that person was the great Samuel Johnson, and I always have time for his conclusions.

I think Samuel Johnson said that about the city of London, didn't he? London, daily mail... Same diff, huh?

And he said 'tired of', which is grammatically correct.

His quoted words are
"If you're bored of London, you're bored of life".

But scholars now think his actual words may have been

"If you're bored of the London Daily Mail, you're bored of life".

I see what you are trying to do there.
But he wouldn't have said 'bored of'.

You are right, he didn't say "bored of", although that is how I have often heard it quoted, and I was never one to argue with the illustrious Samuel Johnson or the equally great Boris Johnson.

www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/bored-of-life

Although, it does seem to be common parlance to say "I am bored of listening to New Labour speeches" as opposed to "I am bored with listening to New Labour speeches".

I prefer the modern update

"The man that is tired of London probably lives on the Northern Line"

LOL at the idea that the right has won the battle of ideas through history. Won the battle but maybe not the war. Despite what you may think, LFN, welfare states in various forms cover the globe.

The most comprehensive denunciation of socialism visible these days comes from Ron Paul, Republican candidate for nomination to run against Obama. Unfortunately, his campaign adverts tend to conflate various different issues (immigration and welfare for instance) and even he is unable to state clearly what will happen to the millions of Americans scraping by at the poverty level that welfare provides (yes even in the US, where socialism is a dirty word, there is a modicum of welfare).

Theories of the right when it comes to welfare tend to depend heavily on the assumption that there will be exponential levels of growth for the foreseeable future that will make welfare unnecessary. Since that essential element of the ideas of the right has so far proved to be hypothetical, welfare exists to mock the right as it dances its little victory dance.