You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The Black Shirts - who did love Britain - not like you, you treasonous scumbag - will be along to sort you out shortly Bazz
his sentiments are correct IMO as is the idea that "profit, wealth creation, tax cuts and enterprise" are not in themselves bad words
The synonym is greed, greed, greed and greed which is less catchy and a bit bad IMHO
Wealth creation in particular is a total misnomer - it makes it sound like they want to help others rather than help themselves.
Its interesting to consider that the strongest critic of Ed's campaign on the Left would probably be his own father
My own view, often reiterated, is that the belief in the effective transformation of the Labour Party is the most crippling of all illusions to which socialists in Britain have been prone.
ninfan - MemberIts interesting to consider that the strongest critic of Ed's campaign on the Left would probably be his own father
That's the bizarre thing, there's this US-style "Ed is a communist", "Red Ed" thing that people keep trying to do but it's total mince really, he's as communist as David Cameron. It's like they've seen it work with nutjobs and Obama so they're trying it here.
(meanwhile, lots of people slag him off for not being far enough to the left! Me included. Can't win...)
This might yet turn into quite a canny bit of pro-tory/ukip skulduggery.
Cameron and Clegg gain kudos by 'putting party politics aside' to criticise the Fail. Ed just looks like someone doing what anyone else would do.
The Fail doesn't lose any readers because, to be frank, they won't change their attitudes in a million years. They probably view Cameron as a dangerously liberal 'leftie' anyway.
The best stuff I've heard so far was a former(?) Times man on Radio 5 this morning. He basically said that this Levy character is an un-read halfwit who 'wasn't up to the job' of conducting any serious critique of someone who wrote sophisticated books on left-wing doctrine.
However, he declined to add the obvious point that this is probably what makes him appeal to readers of the Fail. They probably wouldn't trust someone who knows his subject matter - dismissing him as a 'wet' intellectual.
Whatever your politics you have to realise that the Fail is just a nasty, narrow-minded and vindictive little rag. Written by bigots and read by people who have given up thinking and actively regard thinking as a frivolous activity in the first place.
Dreadful.
yesw the idea that he is a socialist is preposterous - I would imagine Cameron is as close to Hitler as Ed is to Marx tbh - ie nowhere near.
I think that rather than a 'tory plot' you need to look somewhere further at what is behind the hatchet job (even if its partially accurate) as this would be the last thing they wanted in the middle of their conference.
Its far more beneficial to UKIP in reality.
However more than anything, this is about Leveson - anything that Ed now says about press regulation, particularly about the mail, can be painted as revenge!
I would think this is due to a lack of investment in new plants. When the utility company have no option to build new plant or repair a significant part of the network due to age the cost of our energy is going to sky-rocket.
Not if Eds plan for a cap on energy prices comes into effect when he becomes PM...
However more than anything, this is about Leveson - anything that Ed now says about press regulation, particularly about the mail, can be painted as revenge!
Only by swivel-eyed right-wing loons (sound like anyone you know?)
anything that Ed now says about press regulation, particularly about the mail, can be painted as revenge!
I would rather have though that any right [ not politically clearly 🙄 ] minded individual would be able to see that this hatchet job is because of what he has already said about press regulation and they oppose regulation as they can self regulate. This hatchet piece of retaliation is not the most convincing case or example of how the press can be trusted to regulate themselves without interference now is it ?
Shot themselves in the foot somewhat with this to all eyes except the friends of the brown shirts.
Whatever your politics I dont really understand how anyone can think this is fair, reasonable , accurate or acceptable tbh.
"I don't get the whole 'the Mail supported the Nazis' stick. I mean, it's not like anybody currently linked with the paper (owners, employees, shareholders, whoever) was in any way a part of this support. "
The company is a legal person. It existed then, it exists now, and it has maintained its property and rights from then to today. Unlike Hugo Boss and IG Farben, there was no denazification and no compensation paid for their support for the nazis. And the Daily Mail has never said "we did it, and we're sorry". So they can FOAD.
My grandad hated Britain so much he fought years in the jungle, almost died, and was traumatised for the rest of his life for it...and that was a decade after he was a shop steward in the general strike and crypto-communist that wanted to overthrow aristo-capitalism.
I'd like to see Milliband punch people. It's how these disputes would have been settled When Britain Was Great.
Junkyard, while there's no doubt this is a particularly distasteful hatchet job - I think its fair to say that some of the arguments are valid when it comes to press regulation; The Guardian and the Left in general had no qualms about attacking Camerons dead fathers tax arrangements (but not those over Ed's dads house), and there's no doubt that Ed has repeatedly referred to his fathers politics in speeches, so there's an argument that he 'opened the door' to criticism.
I think its fair to say that some of the arguments are valid when it comes to press regulation
😆
It not accurate to claim the left did a hatchet job like this on his dad is it? Links please
Even if it were two wrongs dont make a right and I would be happy to criticise them as well rather than claim it was fair game as you suggest.
Read what i said again!
if you don't love britain, [s]leave[/s] improve it!
I agree with Z-11, Ukip are much more likely to benefit from a headline grabbing fight, in the middle of the Tory Conference, between the Daily Mail and Miliband.
If the aim was to boast the Tories whilst damaging Labour then the obvious time to break this "story" would have been in the middle of the Labour Party Conference, not the middle of the Tory Conference.
.
no qualms about attacking Camerons dead fathers tax arrangements
I'm not sure people are that outraged that the Daily Mail attacked Milibands father, I think what most people find unacceptable was the manner of the attack.
The headline screamed that Miliband's father "hated" Britain, which as pretty serious and nasty allegation, and one which they provide no evidence of.
Of course the real target in this attack is ED Miliband himself and by claiming that he shared the same values as his father they are in fact very clearly implying that Ed Miliband hates Britain.
All of which is a very standard right-wing tactic. Obama gets accused of hating America everyday by right-wing US fruitcakes.
How is it that the DM manage to get away with what would get us done for incitement or hatemongering? Clever journoes and lawyers who know exactly how far they can push it I suppose.
the hate mails getting a bit of a backlash now
gove and IDS may be to petty/ scared to condemn the article
but the bandwaggons getting busier
Nick Clegg says "if anyone excels in denigrating and vilifying much of modern Britain it is the Daily Mail
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/03/daily-mail-ralph-miliband-francis-maude
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3884755.ece
Ed seems to have emboldened people to speak out against it
How is it that the DM manage to get away with what would get us done for incitement or hatemongering?
Eh?
I'm sure that if we were to post on social media what the DM prints, we'e have our collars felt in short order.
As for Clegg, he can say what he likes. It's the Litle Man expressing the public disquiet about that hate rag. But I'm sure you'll find the tory arm up that little puppet; and once the fuss has died down it'll be business as usual for Der Sturhmer.
a daily mail 'reporter' gatecrashed his uncles memorial service
http://news.sky.com/story/1149750/miliband-complains-to-mail-boss-over-reporter
and according to twitter Co-Op, Morrisons, Waitrose and Sainsburys have pulled advertising 🙂
The worst thing about all this is that not only did I agree with Alistair Campbell ('[the mail is]the worst of British values posing as the best') but now Frances Maude as well!
Thankfully the horrible rightwing troll Paul Staines's smug support for the mail has reassured me that I'm not on the switch.
more malcolm tucker I say
oh look; from twitter:
[i]Understand Mail on Sunday to apologise to Ed Miliband. Lord Rothermere will be writing to him. Editor calling him. Staff suspended.[/i]
...and after the fuss has died down the normal hateful service will be resumed.
im loving the fact that sainsburys, morrisons, currys etc are getting their twitter feeds spammed with litterally hundreds of daily mail tweets a minute off the back of this page
http://politicalscrapbook.net/virals/daily-mail-boycott/
Dunno if this has been linked to yet, but it's much better than you lot
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/the-internet-vs-the-daily-mail
ninfan - Member
Its interesting to consider that the strongest critic of Ed's campaign on the Left would probably be his own father
I'm more amused that no-one has picked up that an avowed marxist's sons are millionaire's on the back of inheriting the property he bought and smart use of tax avoidance schemes
I quite like that the BBC are using 2 pages of Michael Gove as the lone voice defending the Mail on this
[img] 
[/img]
big_n_daft - Member
I'm more amused that no-one has picked up that an avowed marxist's sons are millionaire's on the back of inheriting the property he bought and smart use of tax avoidance schemes
I does completely belie the idea that ed is any sort of marxist
big_n_daft - MemberI'm more amused ......
I'll tell you what I'm amused by big and daft, the seemingly endless stream of very senior Tory politicians who are prepared to very publicly defend the honour of a deceased Marxist academic 🙂
The best so far imo is from that former Thatcherite Tory cabinet minister John Moore :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/thatcher-ally-daily-mail-ralph-miliband-lies ]Thatcher ally accuses Daily Mail of 'telling lies' about Ralph Miliband[/url]
[b][i]Praising Miliband as a "great academic" and an inspiring teacher, Moore said: "Ralph Miliband taught me and I can say he was one of the most inspiring and objective teachers I had. Of course, we had different political opinions but he never treated me with anything less than complete courtesy and I had profound respect for his integrity."
In a statement issued to the Press Association Moore added: "He had come here as a refugee, done his duty to his adopted country by serving in our Royal Navy during the war, become a great academic and raised a good family.
"I saw him week after week and it beggars belief that the Daily Mail can accuse him of lacking patriotism. I never heard him ever say one word which was negative about Britain – our country.
"The Daily Mail is telling lies about a good man who I knew. The people of this country are good and decent too. They do not want the Daily Mail attacking the dead relatives of politicians to make political points."[/i][/b]
The real irony of all this is that senior Tory politicians see the Daily Mail's hatchet job as offending that most British of characteristics, the British sense of "fair play".
The country which gave the world the Queensberry Rules doesn't like below the belt blows - by all means fight, but fight clean, even in a system which is based on intense adversarial politics.
This latest shameful episode, in the Daily Mail's long shameful history, shows just how unBritish the Daily Mail really is.
What do you reckon big and daft ?
I'm more amused that no-one has picked up that an avowed marxist's sons are millionaire's on the back of inheriting the property he bought and smart use of tax avoidance schemes
Why's that amusing? Ed's not a marxist, after all. Or are you suggesting his dad should've left it all to charity or something? Which could be a fair point.
so you are surprised that ed's politics are not like his marxist dads - quick tell the daily mail as they seem to think they are both marxists and a danger to the country
Any views on what the DM did seeing as that is what the thread is about?
Its amusing you seem to be criticising the left for not commenting whilst not commenting on the actual issue and throwing in a diversionary point that weakens the case of the DM
I'm more amused that no-one has picked up that an avowed marxist's sons are millionaire's on the back of inheriting the property he bought and smart use of tax avoidance schemes
Yes, indeed! It really shows the rigor of Marxist economic analysis of the accumulation of capital.
So who saw qiuestion time last night ? Quentin Letts just kept digging , was enjoyable seeing the mail booed by the audience
I liked the gale of dismissive laughter when the audience member decrying socialism admitted to being in UKIP 🙂
It was a weird QT last night. Two politicians that I normally dislike intensely Cooper and Schapps were not a bad as normal although Schapps tried hard. QL dealt with the indefensible in a reasonable way IMO but also reverted to type as the program went on. But he did make the good point about DD's bias which was worth making. And the bloke from the Huffington Post played the slightly "angry man" role quite well. But the level of debate was pretty poor.
The UKIP fellow in the audience was a beauty!!!!!
DD?
felt a bit sorry for the ranty old man in the audience, he was a ukiper tho
shapps was as wet as usual imho
it was an odd show, the lefties were keen not to gloat too much (still scared of the mail maybe?) and the righties? knew they were in a tough spot as they had to defend milliband or risk looking like...well quentin letts
mehdi hassan had obviously prepared his little daily mail speeches well and he seemed to shine though perhaps only because the panel was so stilted
the oddest thing about it all was that weird bulge under grant shapps eye
DD?
I'd love to see Deadly on QT. 😀
teamhurtmore - Member
But the level of debate was pretty poor.
As opposed the usual high standards of QT?
( 😆 )
If this kid's son ever gets to be Labour Party leader it'll return to haunt them;
[img] 
[/img]
Wow. What was his mother thinking?
His parting's on the wrong side for a start!
I'd like to thank the Daily Hate, it's like they've condensed every car crash you tube video and Muslamic ray gun rant into one piece of of bile filled, hate motivated car crash journalism..
They might as well have donated a million pounds to the Labour Party and kneed CMD in the nuts!
It's been more entertaining than watching Faulty Towers.. 😀
Oooh;
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
poosibly the greatest exercise of people power in Britain during the 20th Century. An entire section of the city just said 'No'. The law was changed and the fascists never achieved their aims.
[i]On the day, up to 250,000 people gathered to defend the East End. There was a fierce battle with the police when they attempted to clear a path for the march and a barricade was erected and defended in Cable Street. People in their houses threw eggs, milk bottles and the contents of chamber pots from upstairs' windows, whilst at ground level, marbles were rolled under police horses' hooves. The march could not proceed and Mosley was ordered to abandon his plans. It was a blow against fascism and that night there was dancing in the streets. [/i]
Guess which side the Daily Mail was on...
[img] 
[/img]
Wow. What was his mother thinking?
He'd be sent home from the school I work at (in between STW posts 😆 ) too.
No tie and top button undone, disgraceful!
On a serious note Mehdi Hassan is one of my favourite contributors to the New Statesman, as he is very astute and tells it as it is, and isn't afraid to challenge the consensus view. I'm only disappointed that he's not a weekly contributor. I actually stood up at my desk and applauded after watching the clip of his performance on QT.
If the SUN is correct, the notion of sending a child home on WW2 for dressing up as one of the key characters is bizarre. Are you only allowed to dress up as "one of the nice guys"?
Are we allowed to dress kids up as Brits when studying the Boer War? Opps, the Wail will call me a Brit-hater now!!!!
The notion of having a 'WW2 dress up day' is, in itself, bizarre imo.
i think they do it in a what was the war like for kids way - well that is what they did at my kids school and they were expected to dress like they were being evacuated to the country
At my kids prep schools they had regular history dressing up days nd lunches - they loved them as it helped bring history to life like a 650b 😉 can't recall any censorship on characters though.
they do it in a what was the war like for kids way
So no kids dressed up as Churchill then ? How disappointing.
My kids the did the 'evacuation' thing too. I think the idea wasn't to dress as a combatant.
My son's infant school still had the bomb shelter under the playground so they got to spend a couple of hours in there, too.
can't recall any censorship on characters though
Did you try sending your kids in striped pyjamas ?
No but if it helped raise understanding on why they were wearing them, that would have been a positive. At that age they read the "boy in striped pyjamas" instead. Airbrushing history doesn't help educate children.
Airbrushing history doesn't help educate children.
And stopping a kid turning up to school dressed as Adolf Hitler is airbrushing history ? 🙂
you seem confused between poor taste of fancy dress outfit and airbrushing history.
Perhaps they explained how naughty adolf was and why it was not a good idea to dress as him so it was all rather educational?
Would it have been appropriate for the girls to go as Joy Division?
Is this airbrushing history?
IIRC that Prince Harry fella got a bit of grief for it as well...some folks seem to think it is poor taste to do this rather than denying that Hitler existed or was a baddy.
Genius from the Sun though, behind a paywall so can't actually check the facts of the story so all just supposition.
ernie_lynch - Member
"Airbrushing history doesn't help educate children."And stopping a kid turning up to school dressed as Adolf Hitler is airbrushing history ?
😆
Bloody hand-wringers!
Not confused at all (but as in the Scotland thread) always happy to be told what I am thinking!!!!
It's bad enough having to access the Wail for the Milliband story but I draw the line with the SUn, so I don't know the story here. However, if it is the case that a school is simply sending a child home because he is dressed up as Hitler (or /Stalin/Pol Pot etc or any of their victims,) then i think that is a poor decision.
Blimey it will be poor taste to dress up as a Roman legionnaire sent over to surprise our forefathers soon! And better abolish pith helmets, Campbell tartans etc.
Not confused at all (but as in the Scotland thread) always happy to be told what I am thinking!!!!
No one has made any suggestion of what you're thinking. Junkyard said that you seemed confused, and you certainly do.
You claim that children should be allowed to attend school on WW2 days dressed as Adolf Hitler, but you provide no reason why other than apparently prohibiting them to do so is "airbrushing history".
Do you actually believe that ? Do you think that they will grow up to be ignorant of Adolf Hitler because they weren't allowed to dress up like him ?
You seem confused. And I have no idea what you're thinking.
I would not flatter you by suggesting your post included thinking 😉
I suggested a reason as to why it may not be appropriate which you could have addressed or ignored.
I can see no reason as to why you need to dress as hitler to understand WW2 properly or know who or what he or stood for.