[Closed] Getting older and peed off with politics

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules. The English translation has several variations, including "Every country has the government it deserves" and "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."

In many ways it's very true, in most political systems there are a bunch of people that would vote for a penguin if it had the right colour next to it's name those views are therefor not as important. The views and opinions you need are in the middle and hence most of politics is heading to the centre. Couple that with the sort termism that the population demands and a decent long term outlook on life is hard to find.

The entire process of being elected means you either need to be able to finance it yourself or sign up to one of the clubs to get them to fund you. To get in with them you need to convince them you are well suited to their views (regardless of your own) and then convince the actual population (well the centre) that you represent them. Doesn't sound the best way of doing things.

Throw in the blanket media coverage, were things better previously or was there just a lot less scrutiny and air time to fill, was it easier to bury the bad news when people didn't monitor and re read everything?

Then you get the blamer's, FPTP is a terrible system if the system were different we's have a better government. Probably you wouldn't as people would change how they play the system.

My vote doesn't matter as x always wins here - in the UKGE there were seats won with under 50% turnout so the can't be bothereds could actually have delivered a candidate with a true majority.

Finally the arrival of social media means it's really easy to get involved in politics. Unfortunately spouting off on facebook and hitting like to something does nothing practical to change things .

The US election seems to have been plumbing new depths for a while now, but this last week or so its started getting really ugly. I know it's just the primaries - but the number of people willing to vote for TOTAL LOONIES is disturbing.

I'm a firm believer of de Maistre's view - and also this from Douglas Adams:

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

I know it's just the primaries - but the number of people willing to vote for TOTAL LOONIES is disturbing.

my concern is mostly centered around those times when politicians talk about something that I have in depth knowledge of, what they say is complete bollocks. does this then extrapolate out to everything they say?

You'd think they'd be trying to work for the good of the country. All the plans seem to revolve around making plans that will be expensive or difficult for the next government while giving themselves enough wiggle room to get out of it if by some freakish stroke of bad luck they get voted in again. Hence all the u-turns early in the first year.

I'd have more respect if they worked together, disagree by all means, but look to the future. Unfortunately greed would soon kick in because, let's face it, they're not exactly philanthropic in their outlook.

The person / party with the *strongest* marketing campaign appears to gain the advantage.

my concern is mostly centered around those times when politicians talk about something that I have in depth knowledge of, what they say is complete bollocks. does this then extrapolate out to everything they say?

and the total inability to answer questions with out meandering off into some pre learnt script where all they do is slag off the other side.

angered on a daily basis by how ineptly and self-servingly this country is run

+1

It's worse when you are one the civil servants having to implement a new policy that your department explained would not work at the consultation stage. We told you so, dickheads!

The nation needs a consistent, cross party plan to correct underlying structural failings in our economic and social policy. It will take 20 years/at least a generation to get it back on track. A lot of it will be painful for all members and "levels" of society.

Will never be put right when it is being run by short term politicians with one eye on their 4-5 year gravy train election cycle.

I propose a "reasonably benign" dictatorship to sort it out. Just need to get the army on my side.....

I'm not a revolutionary, I believe there has to be a ruling political class, I just think I should be in it.
Plus 1 for a benevolent dictator. Big fan of Tito.

Perhaps if we want to change politics for the better we need to take a long hard look at ourselves. Then act on what you see.

Voter antipathy has been increasing over the last 20 years, especially amongst the young, which means that they get effectively written off by politicians. We need more political engagement, not less.

Anyone who campaigns for public office becomes disqualified for holding any office at all.

Thomas More didn't have it far wrong

We have a responsibility for the politicians we get but its not fair to lay the problem entirely back at the electorate.

It needs a wholesale simplification to bring it up to date, I would suggest:

Parish elections yearly who elect one candidate to sit on a unitary council.
Unitary councils send one premier representative to sit on a national council.
National councillors are responsible back to down the line that elected them for the desicions they make.

Get rid of the multiplayers of councils and mp's and what ave you.

This will be better but won't overcome the unfortunate truth that by nature humans are often not very nice.

(I agree with the point you wouldn't want anyone in power who wants to be in power, didn't Iceland try a system giving everyone a go by rotation? )

[i] Is it standard for people to be progressively more peeved with politicos or are we living in an era where our governance is of a particularly shite quality? [/i]

Not much different to when I use to discuss/argue politics with my Grandad nearly 40 years ago. He DID say that at some point I'd understand, and now in my 50's I can see he was right.

[i]my concern is mostly centered around those times when politicians talk about something that I have in depth knowledge of, what they say is complete bollocks. does this then extrapolate out to everything they say? [/i]

Absolutely agree. And the use of the word 'Investment' (starting with Brown and continuing on with this lot) boils my pi55, when they aren't INVESTING, they're SPENDING.

At the last General Election my Misses asked me what was wrong with the Coalition (it'd just been commented on TV), many things I replied but one distinct advantage was that it reduced the amount of legislation they could agree to.

At least with a PR system a coallition would need to work together.

Voter antipathy has been increasing over the last 20 years, especially amongst the young, which means that they get effectively written off by politicians

At least with a PR system a coallition would need to work together.

"Anyone who campaigns for public office becomes disqualified for holding any office at all.

Thomas More didn't have it far wrong"
I respectfully suggest that on this occasion Thomas More was talking out his arse.
The list of people who have benefitted their communities and the wider world through public office which they campaigned for is long.

Belgium seemed to do just fine for nearly a year without a goverment
We should give this a go. Such austerity. Wow democracy.

Then the Houses of Parliment could be turned into a day center for useless old gasbags, ...wait.

[img] [/img]

And the use of the word 'Investment' (starting with Brown and continuing on with this lot) boils my pi55, when they aren't INVESTING, they're SPENDING.

Something that creates more value for society in the long-run _is_ investment.

Perhaps if we want to change politics for the better we need to take a long hard look at ourselves. Then act on what you see.

The list of people who have benefitted their communities and the wider world through public office which they campaigned for is long.

pondo - Member
we living in an era where our governance is of a particularly shite quality?

It's better than it used to be say 100 years ago, but it's essentially the same thing, the owners extract surplus profit from the majority.

The "democracy" that we live under is just a veil over that fact.

It seems to me that the main parties are aiming for the middle ground more. Plus we've seen the rise of the career politician. I know it's always happened (Pitt the Younger, Churchill) but not to the exclusion of almost all others. They've become a separate class, or two, of their own.

Yes Pondo the current mob are doing very well for themselves. There's a danger in thinking that all politicians are the same they're not. The risk is that believing they're all the same let's voter apathy in and our politicians get comfortable and become an "elite" detached from the rest of society. So by all means get involved in politics the activists on all sides tend to be somewhat more radical than the mps etc. Better idea still would be to look into participatory democracy.

Surely the present EU referendum is the living embodiment of how self-serving, and totally removed from reality our political class are? The future of the entire countries economy, with absolutely enormous implications for all its citizens, has effectively become a bun fight between a load of posh former school chums about who gets to play at being big chief big bollocks next!

And if you're angry now, then whatever you do don't read this.....

[img] [/img]

You may well combust! I very nearly did!

lunge - Member

We need to get over this, there was a vote, it was lost, you have to move on and work with the system we have.

can someone tell that to Nicola Sturgeon?

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy ]participatory democracy [/url]

What we really need right now is a nice big horrible devastating ....War !

I like Owen Jones, read Chavs got the establishment on the bookshelf ready to start soon, last I heard hes gone all anti EU.

What is a shame is lots of people complain about politics etc but do nothing apart from vote....we as a society have enormous power in collective action (if we wished to use it - and I'm not just talking about strikes) but as a society we seem to just accept our lot (and then moan)...we could change the status quo if we really wanted to...

Example of acceptance... Food banks....why are we putting food into them instead of saying 'hang on a minute we shouldn't have to be'...the UK has enough wealth to not have to have food banks...it's appalling.....

can someone tell that to Nicola Sturgeon?

shhh don't diss the Glorious Leader online, you'll get called a traitor.

I've always had a healthy disdain for our elected leaders since I was old enough to express an opinion, but since 2010 I find myself increasingly alarmed by what I read in the papers and I hear from politicians.

The state of politics today isn't just due to politicians believing they can get away with it, an awful lot is down to the media.

Britain is dominated by right wing media - News International, the Telegraph, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. A surprising amount of people only read one newspaper, or don't question the politics of their preferred newspaper.

Murdoch himself has boasted that he's won every election since 1979...

We need to get over this, there was a vote, it was lost, you have to move on and work with the system we have.

We did not have a vote on a proper PR system. We were allowed a vote on a hodge podge system that was garenteed to loose. Hence why we where given the. Vote! The liberals fell for it unfortunately, so the chance of anothervote is zero.

dantsw13 - Member
At least with a PR system a coallition would need to work together.

Aye I can imagine The tories, UKIP, and the DUP all working together. What a fine society they would produce! 😆

Britain is dominated by right wing media

It's a successful product, if there was a market for more left wing papers someone would produce one.

But its the Banks that are in charge whatever political party gets voted in. Its high time they pulled their own weight, everyone should cash in their chips and leave them to fend for themselves and gamble with their own hard earned.

vote with your wallet for a cash based creditless society.

dragon - Member
Britain is dominated by right wing media
It's a successful product, if there was a market for more left wing papers someone would produce one.

The right wing media panders to the basest instincts of human nature - which they reinforce and normalise.

Would they have the same appeal if they at least attempted quality informative and intelligent journalism instead of constantly promoting small minded ignorance?

I used to be a long time Telegraph reader, (know your enemy 🙂 ) but even that now panders to sensationalism.
The Times isn't fit to carry the name.

If you start with the assumption that the House of Commons is full of idiots who don't know anything about the most important thing in the world (which just happens to be what you do for a living), and who are all corrupt*, you will be starting off with a false premise.

Politics is all about herding cats, and there is more to it than deciding where you want the cats and declaring "let it happen". Hence the apparent lack of simple straight talking.

* this IS true, however, of local government.

if you look for bad news you will find it. If you look for positive news you will find that to.

It is all because of the right wing media. If only we had proportional representation. If only the electorate weren't so easily hoodwinked.

Always good to hear all the golden oldies.

It's a successful product, if there was a market for more left wing papers someone would produce one.

That's a very simplistic argument.

The Daily Heil is hugely successful, mainly because the sidebar of shame and celeb gossip is the hookline.

News International has a huge portfolio, from Sky News, The Times, The Scum etc all bases are covered, enough so that one media tycoon and his cronies can lean on the government.

The last left-wing media mogul I can recall went for a swim from the Lady Ghislaine just before a pension fund audit...

The Daily Heil is hugely successful, mainly because the sidebar of shame and celeb gossip is the hookline.

It has a highly visited website because of its different editorial for the website (sidebar of shame), albeit it is still not making money online.

The physical paper has been highly successful and profitable for years and years, long before the internet came around.

Maybe then, there are more closet Nazis in our midst than we realise?

I know quite a few Daily Heil readers, sadly. Some of them seem to be permanently in fear of something, judging by my social media feed - there are those terrified of muslins (sic)/illegal immigrants/Jeremy Corbyn/whatever natural disaster that the Daily Heil refuses to acknowledge is probably caused by anthropomorphic climate change.

Some are the permanently outraged, ex-forces types who've only had a Secondary School education. Others seem to be the older generation who live in leafy green parts of England and are disdainful of anything that happened after 1955 and most certainly don't want to live next door to a brown person.

In each and every case, they're either incapable or unwilling to check the facts elsewhere or are poorly educated and see the Daily Mail as some kind of aspirational pseudo-intellectual badge of honour because they can't possibly be seen to read The Sun.

Most people I know who read the Mail read it because it mixes news with some celebrity and fashion escapism and decent tele and puzzle pages.

In each and every case, they're either incapable or unwilling to check the facts elsewhere or are poorly educated and see the Daily Mail as some kind of aspirational pseudo-intellectual badge of honour because they can't possibly be seen to read The Sun.

Just because you are a frightful snob, don't tar everyone else with the same brush.

Just because you are a frightful snob...

Guilty as charged m'lud.

Don't tar everyone else with the same brush

Can't help it if everyone I know who admits to reading this piss-poor excuse for a newspaper fits one of the aforementioned profiles.

The primary issue with UK politics is the simple unacceptability of any form of left wing politics, it simply does not fit with the publics aspirations. Thatchers great legacy was not destroying the Miners but changing "we to me" and Blair then made it socially acceptable for everyone to be greedy and self serving. The Trade Unions recognised this at the time of the miners strike and kept there heads down. We had a cultural revolution and embraced it.... tough s**t folks be careful what you wish for

The Mail is the only UK daily newspaper with more female readers than male, I assume they read it mostly for the reasons mefty notes and also the cute animal pictures. I doubt they are all UKIP nutters.

On that point in 2004 the Mail readership breakdown by political party was 53% for the Conservative Party, with 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats. I guess the lib Dems will have dropped since then probably moving mostly but not exclusively to the Conservatives.

In each and every case, they're either incapable or unwilling to check the facts elsewhere or are poorly educated and see the Daily Mail as some kind of aspirational pseudo-intellectual badge of honour because they can't possibly be seen to read The Sun.

Its unbelievable isn't it? That people manage to read Peter Hitchins and his ilk without immediately concluding that they're all completely deranged, and should be locked up for their own protection.

You look at the yawning chasm between the country as described by the Mail (overrun and swamped with muslamic fanatics blowing up on every street corner, welfare scrounging eastern European single mothers, feral yoof's kicking old folk to death, EU Commissioners making sure all bananas are straight, drug taking gayers raping kids) and actual reality, and you wonder whether these people ever leave the house, or if they do, ever actually absorb any information with their own eyes?

Most people I know who read the Mail read it because it mixes news

Depends what you call news. I wouldn't really describe vile hate-mongering and nonsense stories about things that will cure/cause cancer news - but each to their own I suppose.

It's really quite laughable for people to suggest there isn't a general right-wing bias in the UK media though.

dragon - Member
...I guess the lib Dems will have dropped since then probably moving mostly but not exclusively to the Conservatives.

most ex lib-dem voters i know are now green party members...

most ex lib-dem voters i know are now green party members...

Look at the election results, most lib dems went to UKIP. the tory vote rose 0.6% and the labour vote rose 1.5%. UKIP rose 9.5%. and the lib dems bombed 15%.

i think it's pretty clear given the differences between UKIP and the lib dems that the vote they have commanded between at the last 2 elections is basically just a floating protest vote.

Seems to me that around 10% of the electorate is basically anyone but labour or the tories.

It's really quite laughable for people to suggest there isn't a general right-wing bias in the UK media though.

I am not sure anyone has (talking about the print media), however most people get their news from broadcast media which is required to be balanced. But the simple truth is that Labour didn't lose because of the RW press, they lost because they weren't trusted with the economy and the other party had the more highly regarded leader. This is the same reason that the Tories lost to Blair.

I am not sure anyone has

You were certainly implying it.

they lost because they weren't trusted with the economy

And the (mostly right-wing) national press had absolutely nothing to do with that?

most people get their news from broadcast media which is required to be balanced

😆

Have you never seen Laura Kuenssberg or Adam Boulton on the TV?

You were certainly implying it.

Not at all, along with the other golden oldies, they are excuses, not reasons.

And the (mostly right-wing) national press had absolutely nothing to do with that?

Far less than the absence of a political strategy with a consistent economic programme.

Have you never seen Laura Kuenssberg or Adam Boulton on the TV?

Kuenssberg is Scottish and I am told there are no Scottish Tories and Boulton is married to Blair's former political assistant.

...made it socially acceptable for everyone to be greedy and self serving...

IMO this is currently a huge problem. People don't think so much about communities, rather about about themselves. You could blame this on many things - the rise and ease of personal transport, commuting further for work, not shopping locally, social media - but I do genuinely believe that this has had quite a major impact on how we, as a nation, view what we consider 'important', and consequently the politics that appeal.

Far less than the absence of a political strategy with a consistent economic programme.

This could be applied to all parties. Certainly to me none of them appeared particularly coherent. I'd argue the fearmongering of the larger, billionaire-owned right-leaning print press played a bigger part.

People don't think so much about communities, rather [s]about about themselves.[/s] why the council / government hasn't stepped in and done it. But equally changes in people moving to cities from rural communities and also the decline in the church's role in local life have all had an impact.

Still I don't think it is quite as bad as people make out, I know plenty of people trying to support local shops, and helping out at charities or sports clubs etc.

Kuenssberg is Scottish and I am told there are no Scottish Tories

This is both a strawman and a jambafact.

It was supposed to be a jocular comment.

Some of Mefty's assertions about the Daily Mail didn't quite ring true for me, so I have a bit of a look behind the scenes.

It has a highly visited website because of its different editorial for the website (sidebar of shame), albeit it is still not making money online.

Turns out, the Daily Mail does make quite a lot of money from its online content.

[url= http://arifdurrani.mediaweek.co.uk/2012/07/25/how-did-the-mail-online-become-a-profitable-newspaper-site/ ]Here.[/url]

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9708000/9708023.stm ]And here.[/url]

Printed media is in a state of decline, all papers are feeling the effects of profitability - the Independent is now online only. The printed Mail has had falling revenues, offset by its online edition. The website guarantees advertising space, it's the same model as the type traditionally employed by ITV and other commercial TV stations.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/mail-online-revenues-grow ]Here.[/url]

I can't speak for the demographics of 2004, but in 2016 a staggering 95% of UK adults access their news and magazines online.

[url= http://www.nrs.co.uk/ ]Here.[/url]

Broadcast media doesn't work when you're commuting, browsing in a lunch break or sat on the bog with a mobile phone.

I'm not sure where the stuff about the political affiliations of Daily Mail readers came from, but I suspect the same 2004 source is irrelevant today.

Ipsos Mori did some research into this:

[url= https://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/240_sri_you_are_what_you_read_042005.pdf ]Here.[/url]

The consensus amongst academics is that most people chose a newsbrand that already fits with their worldview - i.e. if you're prone to titillation about impending immigrant doom, then you've already chosen your newspaper before you walk into the newsagent - it's called 'Confirmation Bias' I believe. We're all guilty of this to some degree.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ]Here.[/url]

Which why I'm going to share a final link [url= http://www.****/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html ]here.[/url]

People don't think so much about communities, rather about about themselves. why the council / government hasn't stepped in and done it. But equally changes in people moving to cities from rural communities and also the decline in the church's role in local life have all had an impact.

[url= http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 ]"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know...., [/url]

Owen Jones

OP, I've always been interested in Politics, after all its the Government who control many things in our lives. At 53 I have never been more engaged. If the EU Referendum doesn't get your interest ask yoirself why not. Its a Yes/No question on a specific and vital issue, thenkast time we where asked was 40 years ago.

I have always felt helpless in the far east politics mixing with religion since the early 70s.

Over there we have the same govt since independence (nearly 60 yrs now) and each govt would be much more corrupted than the previous.

The current PM is so corrupted even the previously corrupted ministers are outdone by him ... oh ya ... he is mate with Obama and play golf together. Take that you PC ZM!

[b]In the UK the only thing that get on my nerves is the EU ZM bureaucratic system.[/b] When I was younger I thought nothing of it (it was contained then) but as I work in one now I realised that this is not only a dangerous entity but an extremely dangerous one (expanding like parasite). It might look docile but this beast packs a punch so hard that it cannot be controlled once it has taken root ... ZM is an understatement.

The communists (all those Utopians) might think they can control the beast of EU ZM but they are wrong coz this beast has no identity yet decide to create own identity but it cannot coz it is "soulless" and is caught between no way land.

Remember I told you so and you heard it from me first here ... 😯

I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.

My natural basis is to be stay in the EU and I can't see how the conclusions have been draw logically from any of the leave EU evidence. Even the side I am more pro (stay) I see very little logically mad assertions, no one rigorously pulls apart either arguments on either side.

TheBrick - Member
I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.

Very simple ... as a nation you do not give up control to external entity.

Just like me telling you how you should live your life in your home.

Ya, you have to follow club rules to be in the club but that club rules should not dictate your home life. Unless we are in the cult ...

🙄

Attributed to Joseph de Maistre

In many ways it's very true, in most political systems there are a bunch of people that would vote for a penguin if it had the right colour next to it's name those views are therefor not as important. The views and opinions you need are in the middle and hence most of politics is heading to the centre. Couple that with the sort termism that the population demands and a decent long term outlook on life is hard to find.

A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription calls out a share of every class — no matter whether your son or my son — all must march; but our friends — I may say it in this room — are the very scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, [b] and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are. [/b] - Nelson

I think this can be said about most civilians as well, the only reason why the ****ing plebs are halfway civilized is because of centuries of hard work by the political classes. 😈 Half of them still shouldn't be trusted with the vote, they'd be lynching ginger midgets and stringing them up from trees given half the chance.

Oh and

aaaaaaand

TheBrick - Member
I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.

Politics in our media is laughable.

But that's the point, get people discussing/het up about irrelevant issues while others get on with the rob.. erm governing.

It's not like any of it is particularly hidden either.

Turns out, the Daily Mail does make quite a lot of money from its online content.

Wrong

He said there was no focus on making Mail Online profitable in its own right.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/mail-online-revenues-grow ]From here you seem to like the Guardian[/url]. You need to learn the difference between income and profit and stop being blinded by big numbers, £60 million is only just over 10% of the income of the Mail businesses, which only make £70 million.

I can't speak for the demographics of 2004, but in 2016 a staggering 95% of UK adults access their news and magazines online.

Read your link according to NSR, a trade funded body

95% of GB adults consume newsbrands or magazines across [u]Print[/u], PC & Mobile

So not just online.

I can't be bothered to follow your other links as I can't imagine they will be anymore enlightening.

Very simple ... as a nation you do not give up control to external entity.

Just like me telling you how you should live your life in your home.

Ya, you have to follow club rules to be in the club but that club rules should not dictate your home life. Unless we are in the cult ...

And you show me a perfect example of what I am on about.... Some claim of "its obvious" with the stment of a philosophical point of belief.

I'm guessig you didn't watch the media coverage of the scottish ref then, or of the GE just past?
Politics is in our media is laughable.

I did. I thought that too. Was bad, again on both sides.

I can't be bothered to follow your other links as I can't imagine they will be anymore enlightening.

Mefty, you've provided absolutely no citations to back up your assertions. Just curious as to your sources...? I'm quite keen to read them.

You don't seem to have read any of the citations I've shared at all, the text below states that the Mail Online's revenue growth more than offset the decline in print revenue.

...he company said the Mail Online’s revenue growth of £19m year-on-year outstripped the £10m decline in print advertising revenues.

You've also completely ignored the point about people only reading the stuff that supports preconceived world views...?

There is an article I linked with a quote from the FD of the company - saying it is not profitable - what else do you need management accounts?

EDIT: You are looking at income, they took cost out in the print side, put cost on on the digital side. They have 600 staff plagiarizing for the online side.

You've also completely ignored the point about people only reading the stuff that supports preconceived world views...?

Because it is bollocks

You do realise that the comment "...there's no focus on making the Mail Online profitable in its own right..." does not mean that its not making a profit?

I can see no quote from the FD in that link stating that Mail Online is not profitable.

The entire DM portfolio returned an overall operating £71m profit, with a drop in return from print media. You might have missed this telling paragraph:

Total ad revenues across the Mail businesses hit £252m, a 4% year-on-year increase (£9m). Within this, Mail Online grew ad revenues by 46%.

The company said the Mail Online’s revenue growth of £19m year-on-year outstripped the £10m decline in print advertising revenues.

I'm well aware of the difference between profit and revenue BTW, but I'm still waiting for some citations to back up your assertions.

Because it is bollocks

Citation please. It's been a theory in social science since the 1960s, with many, many academics publishing papers on this subject. Unless of course, your unsupported opinion holds more weight?

You do realise that the comment "...there's no focus on making the Mail Online profitable in its own right..." does not mean that its not making a profit?

It is a pretty clear implication.

The entire DM portfolio returned an overall operating £71m profit, with a drop in return from print media.

A drop in revenue does not mean a drop in return if they stripped out costs, which I understand they did.

Don't get me wrong their online business is fantastic compared to the competition, a reason why the guy who was the managing editor and who I played cricket against last year has been poached by News International.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2015/05/07/yougov-study-reveals-how-newspaper-readers-will-be-voting/ ]Source[/url]

Thanks Mefty. I take the implication under advisement.

I used to work with a bunch of ex-Guardian media staff so I also have some anecdotal knowledge of the online business model they'd tried to adopt and the applications elsewhere in the media industry.

What's the age of that infographic, I assume it's pretty recent given the representation of UKIP voters? Also, it supports the Confirmation Bias theory that a newspaper with a right wing bias is going to be bought mainly by those with a preconceived right wing political stance.

[ninja edit] - the source is reasonably up to date being published in May 2015.

I used to work with a bunch of ex-Guardian media staff so I also have some anecdotal knowledge of the online business model they'd tried to adopt and the applications elsewhere in the media industry.

No better advice on how to lose money can be obtained.

I'm well aware of the somewhat turbulent recent financial history of GM group.

In terms of online content, it's a similar story to Mail Online, digital revenues up by £14m alone between 2014-15.

In terms of online content, it's a similar story to Mail Online, digital revenues up by £14m alone between 2014-15.

Cost base is horribly high though, far better plagarising like the Mail and all successful online media operators do.

EDIT:

Overall, British newspaper readers are split between Labour (35%) and Conservative (34%) - followed by UKIP (13%), 'other' (11%) and Lib Dem (8%).

If only the whole population were newspaper readers.