Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

In fairness the Metro is just the Heil for a Sun audience that won't buy newspapers. Having read it consistently for a few years, it's the worst kind of right wing idiot on the street nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There seem to be very few reasonable newspapers these days.

The Mirror is as strident and moronic as The Sun.

The Star is trashier than either The Mirror or The Sun, but not by much.

The Guardian is just as unbearable as The Daily Mail.

The Express seems like a trashier version of The Daily Mail.

The Independent descends into click-bait trashiness but is generally better balanced and less irritating than The Guardian.

The Times is still a quality newspaper but the Murdoch taint can be mildly nauseating.

The Telegraph seems to be the more serious newspaper but its dullness explains why the rest have turned to trash to attract the mobile-device crowd.

The Metro (free), which has become increasingly awful, is probably the best indicator of taste and the state of literacy in the UK.

The accusation that readers take their political opinions straight and unmodified from the newspapers they read, is almost certainly untrue.

When people choose the trashy, the fake, and the meretricious, in the rest of their lives, their choice of newspaper should be no surprise, or their opinion of Corbyn. 

 

  

do people here / in general read newspapers these days ?

I use flipboard for my news source which I'm too lazy too fully customise but means I get a lot of news from the Indie , Metro and Al Jazeera and slightly more space and science news than my small brain can fully process ( but the pictures look nice )

It always makes me smile when various posters chastise Mail readers across the forum and then quote and link to an article that suits their argument ..on the Daily mail website  , think I did the same to a Mirror story the other day  , though tbf I don't chastise people on their choice of paper (other than Blandy of course :) )

 

 

Edit - wish I had read Chindies post before I made mine :blush:

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

His failure to launch a stinging diatribe based upon IDS's accusation that the Tories were gratuitously nasty and divisive, seemed to indicate that he is a slow-witted committee man entangled in convoluted policy considerations, rather than someone who can give an opponent a rhetorical bloody nose when he gets an opportunity.   

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I guess the point is that when you see PMQ's and you see Cameron being made an arse of on a weekly basis, you wonder why suits are the things that are being reported on.

It's on the telly in the canteen at work. I think both the above comments are true, even though they seem at odds.

Corbyn sometimes asks questions to which Cameron has no answer, and then we see Cameron's nasty side come out. he goes a bit red, he makes comments about Corbyn's attire, or talks general bollocks or just doesn't answer the question. Which is kind of what you'd hope an opposition leader would be able to make happen in a way - he can obviously prepare his questions, but Cameron doesn't know what the question will be, so has a lesser chance of having a good answer.

But Corbyn also totally fails, too often, to take advantage of open goals. He is also as MMV says apparently unable to think on his feet. to adapt to the response from Cameron, or to pick apart the untruths Cameron comes out with.

The other thing is that because half the labour MPs want rid of him, it makes it difficult to pick up on IDS slagging off the PM and Osborne - he knows there's an easy reply available to Cameron.

One one side there's arrogant, un-grounded, privileged incompetents with a sense of entitlement and on the other there's a bunch of squabbling, bickering, divots more worried about internal party matters and how to depose their leader, than able to do their job.

Doctors at war with Jeremy Hunt, All kinds of promises on the economy missed, tory MPs rebelling against their leader and their chancellor, fighting about Europe, Boris talking utter bollex, TTIP, Snoopers charter, housing crisis, Google deals, tax cuts for the rich, roads rail and infrastructure falling apart, bankers taking the mick again. Labour should be absolutely hammering the shower of words removed. But they're not. it's pathetic

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There seem to be very few reasonable newspapers these days.

The Mirror is as strident and moronic as The Sun.

The Star is trashier than either The Mirror or The Sun, but not by much.

The Guardian is just as unbearable as The Daily Mail.

The Express seems like a trashier version of The Daily Mail.

The Independent descends into click-bait trashiness but is generally better balanced and less irritating than The Guardian.

The Times is still a quality newspaper but the Murdoch taint can be mildly nauseating.

The Telegraph seems to be the more serious newspaper but its dullness explains why the rest have turned to trash to attract the mobile-device crowd.

The Metro (free), which has become increasingly awful, is probably the best indicator of taste and the state of literacy in the UK.

The accusation that readers take their political opinions straight and unmodified from the newspapers they read, is almost certainly untrue.

When people choose the trashy, the fake, and the meretricious, in the rest of their lives, their choice of newspaper should be no surprise, or their opinion of Corbyn.  

Not a bad summary. But on the bit on bold, that's the website, rather than the actual paper (though it's about to disappear). The actual Independent printed (and daily app) version has none of the clickbait, and is excellent.

The Telegraph seems quite rabidly tory, but doesn't seem to like Osborne/Cameron types much. It's more in the Rees Mogg mould, I think.

Oh and the Guardian is not as bad as the Mail, though it can get a bit too preachy self righteous at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well I think Blandy just summarised, wrapped up and closed the thread quite nicely there.

 

 

 

is that code for he's about to delete the thread by "accident " ?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried to read the Guardian. There's the occasional interesting bit, but it's not for me. The fact that it's free in Waitrose and is the same size as our pet cages base means it is the paper I pick up. But 3 or 4 times out of 5, it doesn't even get opened until Basil's cage is cleaned out.

Basil is my basement gimp, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of the Guardian but online at least I find the Independent to be far more partisan (ironically) and just generally silly than the Guardian. Don't know what's changed but since the election they've become even more left-wing than the Guardian. It's basically a glorified Buzzfeed now.

Sadly, the Telegraph online seems to have gone down the Buzzfeed route of silliness as well.

Edited by Mantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the Guardian (online). It's the only paper I read now as it's the only one I consider to have a reasonable view on all things. The independent doesn't have a lot to grab me. I don't think the Guardian is even that left wing, it just looks it because they challenge the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian isn't left wing, it's left of centre at best. Their antipathy to Corbyn's election win suggested they were more worried about alienating audiences rather than reporting the news - until the election had been generally anti-tory, pushed marginalised interests, and critical of the establishment politics including Blair's years. So when someone came along who seemed to channel all the anger and frustration of those who'd supported guardianish preferences and opposed the austerity dribble that screwed over people for no reason other than a means of redirecting money from the poor to the rich, their caution on Corbyn came as a surprise really and pissed off a few readers. Not entirely sure what they were expecting:

"here's all this shit we're critical off and feel is making lot's of people suffer unnecessarily,  and here's a candidate who's thrived, riding on a wave of anger that this news creates....

 

.. oh hang on all the other papers are ridiculing him ( 95% of which was for irrelevant superficial shit ) , better not rock the boat, let's row back our politics, turns out we just want to be perpetually frustrated instead. They are consistent on the climate change issue, mind - I'll give them that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really does depend on one's viewpoint. Of course if you're on the left then the Guardian isn't going to look that left-wing. Likewise for me personally I don't think the Times and Telegraph are quite as right-wing as some on here make out (although they obviously are right-leaning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

So, this Ken Livingstone character, he's been quiet lately.

His timing couldn't really have been much better could it ...

 

Was a bit pissed at Cameron calling for  Shah to be suspended in a bid to score political points , she made a huge mistake but the hypocrisy from the man that believes in second chances (Coulsen etc)  should have meant a quite dignified silence and let Labour deal with it internally  ....  but that's what Politicians do and had the roles been reversed I'm sure Corbyn and Co would be doing the same thing

Edited by tonyh29
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Just watched the most bizarre Daily Politics ever.

Was it about the Labour Party frothing with more anti-Semitism than a Munich Beer Hall? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Was it about the Labour Party frothing with more anti-Semitism than a Munich Beer Hall? 

if you have lots of time on your hands you can look through the Tory thread and see how many times we've been told this sort of thing is exclusive to the nasty Tory's .. first one to 20 wins the internet ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

if you have lots of time on your hands you can look through the Tory thread and see how many times we've been told this sort of thing is exclusive to the nasty Tory's .. first one to 20 wins the internet ?

Go on then. Go find the 20 (or more) examples of "this sort of thing" in that thread.

I rather suspect you won't be able to. But regardless it's completely beside the point. There are anti-semites, islamophobes, racists, bigots, etc. across all parts of society and so there will be in all parties. Some more than others, true, but I wouldn't put either Labour or Tories at the top of the odious membership tree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â