[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jemal

http://ind.pn/1Ff2yBV

That's interesting as so does the justice minister Gove, once the human rights act is out of the way would anyone be that surprised if it wasn't tabled?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jemal

http://ind.pn/1Ff2yBV

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"Priti Patel says she thinks the practice "


No way she no High Enough to change anything

[Jemal]

Cutting welfare. Privatising NHS. Punishing disabled. Increasing poverty. Ending human rights. it just gets better and better.

[MTVN]

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

Dont underestimate the power of dm online

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

No you can't be suggesting that the media don't influence the electorate can you?.....
Where else do people get the information they base their opinions on?

It's more of a sociological than political issue in my view, we have the rise and rise of the bouquet family who think they're better off because they're in more dept than anyone else on the street
That justifies it in their minds to align themselves with the elite as they look down on anyone who can't afford a 10ft conservatory

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

Not sure.

I was only just born then but my Dad says he recalls absolutely loads of people mentioning the Sun's headline on election day 1992 as to putting the lights out if Kinnock had won.

Now however, I think the papers have less influence.

Also as to the polls,they were not necessarily wrong, all polls have a plus or minus error margin of up to 3% either way.
Most had labour and the Conservatives neck and neck on 34% each, take that 3% add it to the Conservatives you get 37% and then take that 3% from Labour to 31%.
That was actually spot on what the final tally of votes was.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No you can't be suggesting that the media don't influence the electorate can you?.....
Where else do people get the information they base their opinions on?

It's more of a sociological than political issue in my view, we have the rise and rise of the bouquet family who think they're better off because they're in more dept than anyone else on the street
That justifies it in their minds to align themselves with the elite as they look down on anyone who can't afford a 10ft conservatory

Of course they have an influence but the power of the newspaper media has declined a lot in recent decades. People now have basically an infinite choice of places to get their news so that it is no longer the case that a few select titles have a monopoly over information. On top of that politics and politicians are generally more accessible than ever before, they are more accountable to the public and we are all able to witness first hand their claims and promises and see how they stand up on the television, on radio, online etc. I'm tired of hearing that Murdoch is to blame or that voters are so simple to have been duped by what they read in today's rag rather than having the capability to make their own mind up.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Not sure.

I was only just born then but my Dad says he recalls absolutely loads of people mentioning the Sun's headline on election day 1992 as to putting the lights out if Kinnock had won.

Now however, I think the papers have less influence.

Also as to the polls,they were not necessarily wrong, all polls have a plus or minus error margin of up to 3% either way.
Most had labour and the Conservatives neck and neck on 34% each, take that 3% add it to the Conservatives you get 37% and then take that 3% from Labour to 31%.
That was actually spot on what the final tally of votes was.

I'm sure it lives long in the memory because it was a very successful, eye-catching headline. But I believe that the Kinnock campaign had been losing ground for some time before that and that his defeat had no longer looked so unlikely, a lot of people seem to point to the Sheffield rally in particular as doing a lot of damage.

Of course it was before my time and I won't claim to be an expert on that election but I think it is very easy to have hindsight distorted in crediting one headline or the efforts of one paper in deciding an outcome

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Of course they have an influence but the power of the newspaper media has declined a lot in recent decades. People now have basically an infinite choice of places to get their news so that it is no longer the case that a few select titles have a monopoly over information. On top of that politics and politicians are generally more accessible than ever before, they are more accountable to the public and we are all able to witness first hand their claims and promises and see how they stand up on the television, on radio, online etc. I'm tired of hearing that Murdoch is to blame or that voters are so simple to have been duped by what they read in today's rag rather than having the capability to make their own mind up.

Then how do you account for the corroboration in the collective mindsets of the Murdock owned readership coinkydink?...

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Then how do you account for the corroboration in the collective mindsets of the Murdock owned readership coinkydink?...

Who's to say they do think the same? Where the Sun is concerned I doubt there is a significant difference between Labour supporting readers and Tory ones. And anyway it's fairly natural for people to read the paper that is more likely to reflect their stance. Newspapers follow public sentiment more than they dictate it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's strange that in an era where newspapers are in perennial decline they are still credited with dictating the opinion of the country and deciding elections. To say the Conservatives won the election because of the Sun was rubbish in 1992 and it's even more rubbish now.

The printed press is in decline, the media overall still holds as much sway as it ever did. Press and propaganda decides elections. It's not rubbish at all. If it is "rubbish" then someone might want to tell the main parties, because they spend literally millions on advertising and propaganda, and are terrified of losing the investors that allow them to pay for that. Why? Because they know that an effective PR campaign is vital to winning an election.

Ask Livia, IIRC she "used to" spin for the Tories, she might know more about what sort of budget they had. Although, it seems she still does it for free these days .

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The printed press is in decline, the media overall still holds as much sway as it ever did. Press and propaganda decides elections. It's not rubbish at all. If it is "rubbish" then someone might want to tell the main parties, because they spend literally millions on advertising and propaganda, and are terrified of losing the investors that allow them to pay for that. Why? Because they know that an effective PR campaign is vital to winning an election.

Ask Livia, IIRC she "used to" spin for the Tories, she might know more about what sort of budget they had. Although, it seems she still does it for free these days .

They do not decide the outcome though, and the media battle is more open than its ever been before. More than smoke and mirrors and a few pals in the press is needed to win an election.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

They do not decide the outcome though, and the media battle is more open than its ever been before. More than smoke and mirrors and a few pals in the press is needed to win an election.

Seriously MTVN I think you need to call the Conservative and Labour pursestring-holders and let them know that they've been wasting millions in party donations all along. That money could go to good use, and is clearly completely ineffective where it's being spent!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

They do not decide the outcome though, and the media battle is more open than its ever been before. More than smoke and mirrors and a few pals in the press is needed to win an election.

The media is a 3 ring circus of smoke, spin, and slur. I disagree with your statement for me there is less actual political discussion in the media now in the tabloids than ever it's 99% sensationalism.

[arista]

"if Kinnock had won."


Yes left Wing like MiliFail was

[user104658]

OK so the press has no influence on people's opinions, and yet magically, whenever something is in the press, it starts being parroted all over social media, in shops queues, on buses, and everywhere else that sheeple congregate to bleat within a matter of days.

Is it coincidence? Are people really this blind?

The idea that Labour would be "in bed" with the SNP and potentially having Scotland playing puppetmaster had an absolutely MASSIVE impact on the vote. That idea originated in the mainstream press.

The poor public perception of Ed Miliband, that he was not leadership material, that he was a bumbling sandwich-spiller, had an impact on Labour. Where did that one start? Oh yes, it was in the mainstream press.

The vilification of immigrants and "blame game" politics leading to the rise in popularity for UKIP - Mainstream press.

I could go on literally forever. The amount of propaganda that was flying around every single day, and being endlessly repeated by people who will believe anything they read, up here in Scotland during the referrendum campaign was mind-boggling.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

OK so the press has no influence on people's opinions, and yet magically, whenever something is in the press, it starts being parroted all over social media, in shops queues, on buses, and everywhere else that sheeple congregate to bleat within a matter of days.

Is it coincidence? Are people really this blind?

The idea that Labour would be "in bed" with the SNP and potentially having Scotland playing puppetmaster had an absolutely MASSIVE impact on the vote. That idea originated in the mainstream press.

The poor public perception of Ed Miliband, that he was not leadership material, that he was a bumbling sandwich-spiller, had an impact on Labour. Where did that one start? Oh yes, it was in the mainstream press.

The vilification of immigrants and "blame game" politics leading to the rise in popularity for UKIP - Mainstream press.

I could go on literally forever. The amount of propaganda that was flying around every single day, and being endlessly repeated by people who will believe anything they read, up here in Scotland during the referrendum campaign was mind-boggling.

Because people are just mindless drones waiting to have their heads filled with whatever the press decide to publish on this particular day right. The relationship between public opinion and media output is a bit more complicated than that and if anything I'd say the former influences the latter more than the other way around.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Because people are just mindless drones waiting to have their heads filled with whatever the press decide to publish on this particular day right.

A good two thirds of people are, yes.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Because people are just mindless drones waiting to have their heads filled with whatever the press decide to publish on this particular day right. The relationship between public opinion and media output is a bit more complicated than that and if anything I'd say the former influences the latter more than the other way around.

'While the Sun refined some of the tabloid features established by the Daily
Mirror, this paper also has to be understood in terms of its controversy and
explicit political engagement, as it is often attributed to having played a powerful role in cultural and political events. One of these is the general election of 1979, where, despite supporting the Labour party when it was launched, the Sun persuasively urged its readers to vote Tory.

As Chippindale and Horrie point out, the contribution made by newspapers to the outcome in general elections is extremely hard to judge (1999: 74). Yet, it is clear that Margaret Thatcher, elected prime minister, regarded the Sun’s support important as she sent Lamb a personal thank you letter and knighted him in the 1980 New Year’s honours list. Voters from social grade C2, the skilled manual labourers which formed the core of the Sun’s readership, had also made a difference during the election, with a nine per cent swing from Labour to Tory compared with the national average of 5,1 per cent '

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get....pdfmanuscript

[joeysteele]

Those who vote Labour are a bit sick of all being called nothing but left wing militants too.

The point is there is good and bad in all parties.
I cheered at some Conservative wins in the election,Rory Stewart in Penrith,James Wharton amazingly and deservedly holding on in Stockton,to name just 2.

The vast majority of people who vote Conservative are decent ,it is the hardliners who have little grace about them.
In victory,they enjoy rubbing noses in the defeat rather than show a bit of grace.

Most of the people who vote Labour who are currently heavily against the Conservatives, are those who have been affected by or know those affected by the obscene cruel cuts made last time.
They also know from the Conservative party's own mouth, that they will be making even more billions of cuts to the same people again.
They are also no more militant than hardline Conservatives and are equally decent people.

It is the hardline Conservatives who never acknowledge those cuts could even be the wrong thing to do again,they criticise Labour supporters all the time, avoiding even mentioning such cuts.
So all the Labour voters get for standing up against that, is the accusations of being left wing militants and some even saying Labour should never win power again.

Maybe the Conservative hardliners would prefer a one party state in the UK where only the Conservatives have power for good.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Those who vote Labour are a bit sick of all being called nothing but left wing militants too.

The point is there is good and bad in all parties.
I cheered at some Conservative wins in the election,Rory Stewart in Penrith,James Wharton amazingly and deservedly holding on in Stockton,to name just 2.

The vast majority of people who vote Conservative are decent ,it is the hardliners who have little grace about them.
In victory,they enjoy rubbing noses in the defeat rather than show a bit of grace.

Most of the people who vote Labour who are currently heavily against the Conservatives, are those who have been affected by or know those affected by the obscene cruel cuts made last time.
They also know from the Conservative party's own mouth, that they will be making even more billions of cuts to the same people again.
They are also no more militant than hardline Conservatives and are equally decent people.

It is the hardline Conservatives who never acknowledge those cuts could even be the wrong thing to do again,they criticise Labour supporters all the time, avoiding even mentioning such cuts.
So all the Labour voters get for standing up against that, is the accusations of being left wing militants and some even saying Labour should never win power again.

Maybe the Conservative hardliners would prefer a one party state in the UK where only the Conservatives have power for good.

Now you're talking JoeyOnly kidding

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Now you're talking JoeyOnly kidding

I would hope you are.

I am not however,were that to ever be that case I would be off from the UK like a greyhound out of a trap.
Just as I will be too if the UK votes to leave the EU, if this referendum actually takes place and the UK does.

I will head off to support a forward looking EU Nation not stay and support a backwards looking Nation.
My own future in the UK is now on hold until that referendum is either abandoned or takes place.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i dont recall food-banks in the 80s during the miners strikes or in the 70s with the strikes and powercuts?

both those decades food was not only much more expensive but harder to get as there were no big supermarkets like today?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Robin Aitken MBE is a former BBC journalist (and an ex-employee of mine at the Today programme). He is a staunch and fairly right-ish Conservative, if I remember correctly. He said that rather than bringing shame or disgrace upon the country, ‘Food banks are a marvellous example of how the best instincts of society can be harnessed into voluntary, grass-roots action to help people who are most in need. Far from helping, I think state involvement would be toxic.’ That seems to be right, doesn’t it? If there is money to be spent on alleviating poverty, then use it to raise the minimum wage so that fewer people need the food banks. And leave the running of the food banks to people like Robin Aitken.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnist...of-food-banks/