Next Labour leader

Incredibly the tabloid media seem more bothered about smearing potential labour leaders than scrutinising this government.



Meanwhile Nicky Morgan bypasses democracy by being sworn into the House of Lords.

Almost as if they’re biased.

Well the mail is obviously bias. Just like the mirror and guardian are bias the other way. 

I'd read the later two if you want to see a load of ego stroking for the labour front runners.

The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

The Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star, Sun, Mirror should not be allowed to trade as NEWSpapers at all. They are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and put two fingers up to the findings of the Leveson Enquiry and its recommendations. 

Grossly distorted versions of the news knowingly aim to sway the public for the benefit of their owners' profits, but do nothing for democracy:- the chance for the public to be able to make balanced decisions about who should govern is routinely ignored.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I see Jess Phillips is now trying to run away from her centrist credentials  pretendingshe's a socialist. 

Starmer is pretending he's a centrist.

You couldn't make it up.

What an utterly pathetic line up completely void of talent. Thorberry makes my blood boil.

Munira Mirza, director of the No 10 policy unit, was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a party sympathetic to the IRA. She also wrote for its journal, Living Marxism.
She's never hidden her past. You can't.

okocha wrote:The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

.. and it is the only paper with my daily fix of jigsawdoku and has a decent cryptic crossword.
Plus it has all the news stories summarised in concise paragraphs at the front.

Bargain!

okocha wrote:The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

The Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star, Sun, Mirror should not be allowed to trade as NEWSpapers at all. They are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and put two fingers up to the findings of the Leveson Enquiry and its recommendations. 

Grossly distorted versions of the news knowingly aim to sway the public for the benefit of their owners' profits, but do nothing for democracy:- the chance for the public to be able to make balanced decisions about who should govern is routinely ignored.

No one reads newspapers. Their circulation is tiny. They have zero influence. Left wing politicians just use them as an excuse to cover up their own failings.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

okocha wrote:The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

The Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star, Sun, Mirror should not be allowed to trade as NEWSpapers at all. They are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and put two fingers up to the findings of the Leveson Enquiry and its recommendations. 

Grossly distorted versions of the news knowingly aim to sway the public for the benefit of their owners' profits, but do nothing for democracy:- the chance for the public to be able to make balanced decisions about who should govern is routinely ignored.

No one reads newspapers. Their circulation is tiny. They have zero influence. Left wing politicians just use them as an excuse to cover up their own failings.

Complete bollocks! The Mail and Sun sell well over a million copies every day and each copy is often read by more than one person.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiCgdLJ0oLnAhWHWhUIHe3SA2oQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F529060%2Fuk-newspaper-market-by-circulation%2F&usg=AOvVaw18sXAjLpdJJt7tFxR791qb

I still get a daily newspaper, but it's mainly out of habit. Most of the news has already been covered on the internet by the time they emerge. Always a few good articles though.
The heyday of the press is long gone, but they still have a part to play. Sadly, most of them are only fit for lining a parrot cage.
The 'i' is good value, and I'll often pick one up with my usual rag, but I'm a little worried about their editorial independence, given the new ownership.
New Statesman is good value, if you want to go down the magazine route. Probably wouldn't suite Hipster though.

No sign yet, Bonce, of the "i" changing its values under the new ownership, thank god. 


It's an odd state of affairs when Sky has the best TV news coverage, but the BBC has a number of agenda biases which it tediously flogs to death each day, and ITV has completely lost any credibility, having opted to start the day with Piers Loudmouth shouting down any guest with his one-eyed bigotry and self-aggrandisement. Unwatchably grotesque.

okocha wrote:and ITV has completely lost any credibility, having opted to start the day with Piers Loudmouth shouting down any guest with his one-eyed bigotry and self-aggrandisement. Unwatchably grotesque.

I find that Piers usually gets it spot on.

His rants are fantastic TV.

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

okocha wrote:The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

The Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star, Sun, Mirror should not be allowed to trade as NEWSpapers at all. They are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and put two fingers up to the findings of the Leveson Enquiry and its recommendations. 

Grossly distorted versions of the news knowingly aim to sway the public for the benefit of their owners' profits, but do nothing for democracy:- the chance for the public to be able to make balanced decisions about who should govern is routinely ignored.

No one reads newspapers. Their circulation is tiny. They have zero influence. Left wing politicians just use them as an excuse to cover up their own failings.

Complete bollocks! The Mail and Sun sell well over a million copies every day and each copy is often read by more than one person.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiCgdLJ0oLnAhWHWhUIHe3SA2oQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F529060%2Fuk-newspaper-market-by-circulation%2F&usg=AOvVaw18sXAjLpdJJt7tFxR791qb

Yes, their circulation is tiny. As I just said. Thanks for backing up my point.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

okocha wrote:The only paper worth reading for a largely neutral stance devoid of lies, fabricated bilge, twisted fault-finding and sensationalism is the "i."

The Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star, Sun, Mirror should not be allowed to trade as NEWSpapers at all. They are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and put two fingers up to the findings of the Leveson Enquiry and its recommendations. 

Grossly distorted versions of the news knowingly aim to sway the public for the benefit of their owners' profits, but do nothing for democracy:- the chance for the public to be able to make balanced decisions about who should govern is routinely ignored.

No one reads newspapers. Their circulation is tiny. They have zero influence. Left wing politicians just use them as an excuse to cover up their own failings.

Complete bollocks! The Mail and Sun sell well over a million copies every day and each copy is often read by more than one person.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiCgdLJ0oLnAhWHWhUIHe3SA2oQFjAAegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F529060%2Fuk-newspaper-market-by-circulation%2F&usg=AOvVaw18sXAjLpdJJt7tFxR791qb

Yes, their circulation is tiny. As I just said. Thanks for backing up my point.

Print runs are limited but their online presence is highly visible and they are picked up on by a host of newsfeed networks e.g. Newsnow that pump them into online searches etc.

Yeah but the influence is nil.

Pelf

Of the 5 hoping to become the Party Leader, only one is fresh blood, and hopefully comes with fresh ideas. I'm hoping Lisa Nandy is the dark horse in this race. 
All the others are are badly tarnished by their past performances.

Surely any Labour MP is, to an extent, tarnished in your eyes, aren’t the party’s policies are the opposite of the views you hold?

T.R.O.Y wrote:Surely any Labour MP is, to an extent, tarnished in your eyes, aren’t the party’s policies are the opposite of the views you hold?

Of those seeking election, yes they are tarnished, because of their piss-poor performances. Supporting a leader and his ideas that they very quickly dumped once he had gone. Long Bailey being the only one who continued to support him, which may well be her downfall.
Otherwise, I'm not one of those people who vote for a Party regardless. As I said the other day, in support of one of your posts, some of what they are seeking ring a bell with me too. Nothing is black and white, nor is it red or blue.

Fair enough, I struggle to see how you can look at Boris’s record before this election and not consider him tarnished though. Let’s not go over old ground on that though.

I agree, some of his shenanigans are pretty bad, but with regards Brexit, I think he's starting off on the right foot, and hopefully things will continue to go well.

Stunning poll by survation puts long bailey in the lead.

Good god I'm buzzing.