General British politics discussion thread

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641259#Comment_120641259

When or where is communism used in Britain as some sort of political weapon?

Britain is proud of the NHS and their welfare state. They differ on the extent of it but they are proud of it. Not sure where I see the comparison with America where they believe if you fall on hard times, tough luck.

Guildenstern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641186#Comment_120641186

It's only the 'best of the lot' because it tells you what you want it to say. If you were a conservative you'd be just as happy with the Mail or The Telegraph.

As for The Guardian, just look at every news story. It's just slanted to their fanbase. Objective reporting it isn't.

And it knows it could never survive down the subscription route. It would collapse within a week.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641314#Comment_120641314

Looking in from the outside, the Mail and Telegraph seem far more sensationalist and provocative in their style of reporting than the Guardian - that seems almost sober and restrained in comparison. Only The Times and The Sunday Times seem 'normal' in the way they report things of the right leaning papers.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641314#Comment_120641314

Huh? The Guardian, famously, has developed a successful subscription model that delivers it a degree of financial security that other UK newspapers envy. This has been much commented on and studied in the media world. You didn't know this?

One of the factors that sustains the fairly sharp right-wing slant of the majority of the British print media is that they are not financially viable based on sales and advertising revenue, and depend on sugar-daddies to keep them afloat. Sugar-daddies are (a) very rich, and (b) largely only interested in sustaining newspapers that promote the kinds of views and values that very rich people like to see promoted.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641314#Comment_120641314

It has a subscription model. If you hate the paper, at least come from a position of knowing the facts about it.

So now you're pivoting to editorialising? Something that every newspaper does cos outside of, I dunno, Reuters there's little that isn't slanted. But which is it: an ideological bias or they just "don't have the best interests" of the UK at heart? It's still not clear what the latter means so maybe you can clarify that too?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641314#Comment_120641314

You've just repeated your statement here with no evidence or elaboration whatsoever. You seem more than happy to pretend that the Mail, Express, Sun, etc are somehow objective by omitting them from criticism.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641314#Comment_120641314

It really seems that you don't like the guardian because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear tbh, the fact you didn't know it actually has a very successful subscription level says a lot.

Guildenstern

Believe me I stopped reading it many years ago. I was just too straight, white and Christian. A quick glance and it is now doubling down on its liberal agenda.

If it floats your boat, fair enough, but it is just too left wing and liberal for me. I won't even go into all the stories it has downplayed over the years that didn't suit its agenda either. That would take all day.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641998#Comment_120641998

But this isn't where this segue started: you said the newspaper ... "Hates everything about the UK and want to see it fail on every opportunity.". That's a big difference to what you're snarking about now: what does that mean? If you don't buy into its ideology that's one thing, if you want to ignore the investigative part of the paper that does good work exposing corruption et al... sure, fine. Something something agendas; but your passing remark is a bit curious all the same.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641998#Comment_120641998

If you stopped reading it many years ago, I'm not sure that you going into all the stories it has downplayed over the years would carry much weight. How would you know what stories it has covered and what stories it has not? Call me a conservative old stick-in-the-mud, but I'd prefer evidence about what's in a newspaper from someone who actually reads the newspaper.

And the Guardian being too left-wing and liberal for you may tell as much about you as it does about the Guardian. Just sayin'.

PommieBast

Came across this today and thought it relevant..

Guildenstern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642036#Comment_120642036

A quick check this morning.

The Black Lives Matter potential insolvency story, and the paying of millions out to friends and family. Any mention of it in The Guardian? Of course not. Some paper of record!!

What you will get hot on the heels will be yet another opinion piece, which will keep whitey as guilty as he ever was.

Like I said, if you want to believe all this junk, work away.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120641998#Comment_120641998

So, just more US tropes. It allegedly hates the UK but you can't give even a single example as to how or why. It allegedly downplays stories that you cannot give any examples of.

I think I can consider this debunked.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642089#Comment_120642089

You mean when they started reporting on the mismanagement of funds by the current head in september last year?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/02/black-lives-matter-grassroots-lawsuit-global-foundation

I can only see reporting from UK outlets in recent days on BLM by the Telegraph and the DM which makes sense on where your getting your outrage from.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642057#Comment_120642057

I am surprised that both the GB News viewers had such a low opinion of the content.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642204#Comment_120642204

Given that "hate watching" is a thing that exists with fictional drama on TV, I'd speculate as to how many people watching GB News do it out of perverse entertainment over how much they disagree with its polemics.

Mind you, given there are only about 12 people viewing GB News at any one time, I'd call into question the usefulness of it being on the graph in the first place!

Guildenstern

https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-risks-going-bankrupt-1802304

No. It was Newsweek actually.

I do hope those liberal swords you are falling on aren't too sharp. I think you're all reading the Guardian much too much. All this moralising superiority is doing your heads in. Ta ta.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642239#Comment_120642239

Which is a US outlet..... are you moving the goalposts now?

I do find it funny your problem with the Guardian is they according to you hate the UK but your annoyed about them not reporting on a US story?

Incidentally I couldn't find any evidence of the DM or Telegraph reporting on the same story that the Guardian posted from September 2nd last year so do you have the same issues with them?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642239#Comment_120642239

Guildy, stop digging. The guy has literally posted a link to Guardian coverage of a story that you said the Guardian wasn't covering. You're in danger of confirming the stereotype that right-wingers are impervious to truth and lack the confidence ever to admit that they may have made a mistake. Graceful retirement from the fray might be your best option here.

ancapailldorcha

Sadly, the standard conservative tactic these days is to resort to feelings when the facts inevitably torpedo whatever fantasy they're indulging in. Reminds me of Damian Green waxing lyrically about swimming in sewage.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642057#Comment_120642057

FT is the best paper in the world for the last ten years at least imo. Broadly centrist, deep analysis as part of features and honest up to a point though not what I would describe as "good", in the moral sense of that word, overall. Letters page is interesting too, some sharp correspondents.

Sometimes they have that supercilious upper-class British humour thing going on. They even once had a headline mocking the Pope on the front page above the fold in 2018 iirc. It was something like "Pope, Mammon come to a compromise" after the Vatican had completed some business deal.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642349#Comment_120642349

Quote: "Pope, Mammon come to a compromise" after the Vatican had completed some business deal.

Was it not Christ who said: 'Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. '' when asked to delineate between God and Mammon/Caesar. I would not consider the headline mocking, per se, but maybe the body of the text had hidden bodies. Headlines do not necessarily reflect the actual text in the article.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642478#Comment_120642478

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Generally 'worship of Mammon' as used repeatedly throughout the Bible is a synonym for greed. Given the phraseology it seems pretty humourous to me. But as you say there's another way of reading it.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642349#Comment_120642349

Think FT.com has always had a subscription model so they never needed the cost-cutting and clickbait that everyone else seems to have suffered from. My subscription dates back to sometime around 2008 which I took it out because of how bad BBC News was becoming in the aftermath of Hutton, and I never looked back.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642796#Comment_120642796

They seemed to go subscription pretty early. They also marketed the subscription service pretty heavily.

I've ate a pretty good fake meat burger, cricket energy bar, insect ice cream and deer sht coffee thanks to people trying to sell me FT subscriptions.

Guildenstern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642298#Comment_120642298

If you bothered to read both articles, The Guardian, from almost a year ago, had no details whereas this week's news provides enough actual evidence, something that other poster, said I was lacking.

But of course you morons were too busy elevating BLM to sainthood to concern yourselves with details. Let's see if The Guardian will provide an update. I won't hold my breath.

You wanted an example. I just gave you one.

And to rubbish me assuming I'd got my news from the Telegraph/Mail, again another example of turning on the moralistic superiority. Blinded by your own dogma. This time it is a final good bye.

Leroy42

You said there was no mention in the Guardian. Now you have changed that to the Guardian didn't go in-depth enough!

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643405#Comment_120643405

Guildenstern has been banned for a week for low level trolling followed by insulting everyone who pointed out the flaws in her posts.

@Guildenstern if and when you do return to the Politics forum, I will point out that you need to become more familiar with the POLITICS CHARTER AND GUIDELINES before you consider posting!

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120642891#Comment_120642891

My lasting (though probably inaccurate) memory was The Times trying to go subscription-based, and it was a train wreck because charging for something that used to be free is a hard sell. And then they advertised on price which obviously came at the expense of quality. Top-end FT subscription is now about £550 but doubt any other UK newspaper could even remotely ask for that.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120644300#Comment_120644300

I would say a lot of it has to do with who was reading the paper in the first place.

Closer to a dedicated magazine readership than a general news one.