BBC News were reporting last night that the Conservatives' new slogan will be 'Vote for Change'.
For a party that 36% of people doesn't know what it stands for and a same proportion knows but doesn't like it, it is an abysmal choice. It certainly does little to suggest there is meat on Cameron's rather brittle bones. Change for what? for the sake of it? So you can live out a boyhood dream? What are you selling us here Dave?
Even 'Vote for a change' would be better, try to win over that substantial apathetic bloc. But Vote for Change, that's Diet Tory; low in cholesterol and 100% risk free. It is also another worrying chapter in who can out-Obama the other side.
And now, from the ridiculous to the malign.
The Herald is continuing its dastardly conduct with a story bearing the headline "Recession 'good for SNP's cause'", clearly trying to suggest that the SNP is enjoying the recession. Having read the article, as many who saw the article will not have, it is clear that Nicola Sturgeon is pointing out that Scotland being in financial difficulty may be a good time for Scots to consider their options regarding how they are governed.
General Election 2010 - bland down South and biased up North.
Salmond vs Trump
16 minutes ago
33 comments:
I'm glas you've highlighted this Herald Story Jeff, it's very unclear who is saying tht the 'recssion good for snp', if it's the herald's own quotes it must surely mark a new low in this papers trajectory towards collapse.
That a journalist would then go on to quote Brown saying,
“There is a time to deal with constitutional issues but it’s not now.”
But not mention Brown's own AV Referendum is quite frankly incompetent at the very least or an intentionally bias form of reporting.
Either way, Scotland really deserves better than this level of trash, but don't hold your breath, expect much more of the same from those betrothed to Labour.
I'd only just got used to buying the Herald too. I have stopped purchasing the Glasgow Evening Times too as it all of a sudden took an anti-SNP line where no real political line had previously existed.
Thing is with Cameron, he is in an absolute quandry. The election is his to lose. Calm heads have been urging caution, do little, do nothing, say nothing etc. However Labour have quite rightly been banging on about the lack of substance. Does he show his mettle and possibly convince just enough people that he is just another Tory, and hey ho it is better the new-labour Tories we know.
lol, Jeff, "Vote for a change" would indeed make more sense in Britain.
Re the Herald, someone said they're running with a skeleton crew but I think a skeletor crew would be nearer the mark.
I remember there was a big kerfuffle when they changed their name from The Glasgow Herald to The Herald. Nowadays if they changed their name to The Labour Herald no-one would bat an eyelid.
I used to think Alf Young was bad but this lot....
Was it just me or did I hear the following on BBC Scotland this week this jem?
'All the major parties at Holyrood are opposed to a referendum.'
This was after they announced the referendum proposal and cut to a negative piece by Gray.
"Vote Labour get Tory"
It is a totally reprehensible headline - but should one be surprised? This is now just stock in trade for the Glasgow Herald which seems determined to punish the government at every opportunity for having the temerity to suggest that local authorities might wish to consider making savings in advertising by considering other media (ie online)thereby threatening the heroin supply, er...I mean, revenues of this bastion of local democracy.
Given only c.1% of the Scotish population actually buy The Herald, it's no wonder it's corporate journalists are completely adrift from Scottish society and politics in general.
Strathturret noted of BBC Scotland claiming -
'All the major parties at Holyrood are opposed to a referendum.'
- brilliant observation.
This all just goes to show how representative of Scotland, and the truth, these foreign-owned and controlled corporate news organisation are.
By the way, Osama Saeed has profered an SNP slogan on hisFacebook page which i quite like -
No more Broon and Bust
Arrghh Joe, now you'll bring Alec round. Mentioning Osama Saeed on a blog is like throwing down raw meat to a wolf as far as he is concerned!
Gawd, has Osama Saeed been mentioned already?
The Herald is continuing its dastardly conduct with a story bearing the headline "Recession 'good for SNP's cause'", clearly trying to suggest that the SNP is enjoying the recession.
And I bet you've never mentioned Jo Moore's brain-fart on 11/9.
less than 5 minutes, I'm impressed!
By that token, Grassy, anything I said in this thread would have counted.
Saeed is not relevant to this thread. He's made some banal comment which doesn't even rhyme (broon, boom? If you say so).
The monomania has been Joe's National Bolshevik-like pre-occupation with corporate media.
Anyway, back on topic... it strikes me as arrogant to boast of stopping buying X newspaper 'cos it's taken an opposing line to one's preferred political party.
What's wrong with reading a competently written newspaper (which the Herald is, unlike the Scotsman, in my view) which one disagrees with, and using those grey cells to critique the reportage? I do.
Or even reading domestic newspapers to find out about non-political domestic news?
Better that than sealing yourself in a bubble, never having your pre-conceived views challenged.
That said, the domestic Scottish print-media is generally pretty much pants. I personally have respect for the Sunday Post, though.
By far the most consistently reliable national newspapers - and this will have Joe's temples bulging - is the Financial Times and Economist. The Daily Telegraph ain't bad either.
A perfectly valid viewpoint Alec.
In a spirit of fairness I suggest we now have a period of say 30 years where the media in Scotland are solidly nationalist in order that any unionists who've become complacent over the decades can have their pre-conceived views challenged.
The monomania has been Joe's National Bolshevik-like pre-occupation with corporate media.
- If you say so,
except the blog post mentions both the BBC and The Herald, both being corporate media.
Saeed is not relevant to this thread. He's made some banal comment which doesn't even rhyme (broon, boom? If you say so).
- If you say so,
except sloganeering is also a topic of the blog post and Saeed's is pretty nifty.
Presumably, for balance, I should have mentioned non-corporate media such as Alec's Harry's Place-esque islamophobic sewer of a blog.
Balance in Alec's terms is between an British SNP-hating islamophobic corporate media - and an British SNP-hating islamophobic blog, which nobody reads or cares about.
Myself, I regard balance as commenting on a nominally pro-SNP blog -
- but, according to Alec and his pals in the British corporate media, this is evidence of National-Bolshevism and deviation from British norms and, therefore, has to be stamped on by such methods as constantly repeating the same Goebbellian-type propaganda slogans and negative attributions -
- ie charges of totalitarianism, pre-occupations, monomanias etc etc
- all of which, Alec is guilty of.
Talk about giving the victims the blame.
Has anyone on blogs like this done anything to redress the balance except complaining on blogs like these how much more brainy they are than hoi polloi?
If you say so, except the blog post mentions both the BBC and The Herald, both being corporate media.
You are a National Bolshevik, Joe. You may not know it, you may have arrived by a different route, but you are a National Bolshevik.
If you say so,
except sloganeering is also a topic of the blog post and Saeed's is pretty nifty.
No, it's pretty pants. And, if he's relevant 'cos of the thread title, then he's relevant to *any* thread here given Jeff's support for the SNP.
British SNP-hating islamophobic corporate media
Now you're taking the piss. You forgot the bit about my being smelly.
Myself, I regard balance as commenting on a nominally pro-SNP blog
That is demonstrably not balanced.
And you still don't know what totalitarianism means.
Better that than sealing yourself in a bubble, never having your pre-conceived views challenged.
- Can you give examples of where these paragons of truth live up to your hype?
For example,
the SNP consistently challanged the British Govenment claims about the existence of Iraq-WMD, which no British-based corporate ever did, except, perhaps the BBC Radio 4 at c.7am in the morning - for which journalistic service to the truth, the journalist, Andrew Gilligan, was sacked, so was his boss, and so was his bosses boss.
Can you give examples of where these paragons of truth live up to your hype?
Paragon of truth doesn't mean what you think it does.
For example,
the SNP consistently challanged the British Govenment claims about the existence of Iraq-WMD, which no British-based corporate ever did, except, perhaps the BBC Radio 4 at c.7am in the morning - for which journalistic service to the truth, the journalist, Andrew Gilligan, was sacked, so was his boss, and so was his bosses boss.
You're mad. Mad as a waltzing mouse.
"You forgot the bit about my being smelly."
You mean that you really are smelly?
You stinker.
Has anyone on blogs like this done anything to redress the balance except complaining on blogs like these how much more brainy they are than hoi polloi?
- What, you mean, ordinary people need to tell highly paid trained experienced professionals, such as journalists, how to do their job?
Having to tell journalists to adhere to standards of truth and accuracy is like telling engineers how to build cars, bridges and aircraft, or telling doctors and nurses how they should be treating their patients.
Hur, hur, hur... dat a funny!
~alec
What, you mean, ordinary people need to tell highly paid trained experienced professionals, such as journalists, how to do their job?
What, you mean the corporate media can be a force for good? Or that the print-media should answer only to a higher purpose and not the oiks?
The latter would certainly fit with totalitarian control of the debate.
Having to tell journalists to adhere to standards of truth and accuracy is like telling engineers how to build cars, bridges and aircraft, or telling doctors and nurses how they should be treating their patients.
There are ombudsmen and regulatory bodies which do just that.
So, Alec who claims others are totalitarian, monomaniacs living in a bubble -
- when confronted with the truth about BBC radio journalist Andrew Gilligan being sacked for claiming, on air, that the British Government dossier on Iraq WMD was 'sexed up' can only expostulate
You're mad. Mad as a waltzing mouse.
- quite Alec.
Just what I'd expect from a properly disciplined mind such as yours.
Denying history actually happened and pouring abuse on anyone that claims diffirent - there is name for that.
Don't do it Joe, don't talk to him, you'll only encourage him.
What, you mean the corporate media can be a force for good?
- The reason for their existence being what then?
Doctors, engineers, philosophers, workies, are all there to do good - if they aren't then what purpose do they serve?
The latter would certainly fit with totalitarian control of the debate.
- I certainly agree.
Truth and accuracy is a totalitarian issue hence the reason you are unable to come up with a single instance of it in the British corporate media when invited to do so. This is despite the mountain of corporate media dross you have to choose from.
Or that the print-media should answer only to a higher purpose and not the oiks?
- So the oiks aren't interested in truth and accuracy is what you're saying.
What are they knowingly interested in, lies and propaganda perhaps?
I don't see many of the oiks visiting your appalling dross of a blog. Says a lot don't you think?
My Keeper, Joe's been a bit crotchity ever since a thread at Bellgrove Bella's when I laughed in his face for attempting to turn a discussion 'bout SPT onto Israel. I pity... and I mean truly pity anyone who's unable to look at the chuffing Clockwork Orange without seeing Jaffa oranges.
This being a blog, I don't imagine I'm engaged is a real-life game of Risk in which I control entire continents. I don't even see myself as swatting gnats... I'm here only as a decorate hero of the Stupid Wars.
Alec
I don't want a pro-SNP paper, but I do want a paper that is reasonablyimpartial and does not attack the SNP because it might lose some advertising revenue. I finally got sick of The Herald when it supported the ludicrous "ripped-off Glasgow" campaign thought up by Purcell. Pitting Glasgow against the rest of Scotland is deplorable.
I stopped buying the Herald and I haven't missed it a bit. My blood pressure's down too.
So, despite a mountain of examples to choose from, regarding the balance of the anti-SNP hating islamophobic British corporate media, Alec when invited to do so is unable to come up with a single example of the balance he claims exists.
It's not as if Alec is stuck for material, as this is the internet after all, which Alec claims is being used by SNP-supporters for totalitarian purposes. Asked to substantiate his pathetic claim it turns out the opposite - how unexpected.
Obvioulsy, an honest and open soul such as Alec, is going to have to change his ill-informed opinions, which are based, after all, on a life closeted only with pro-brit blatts.
I don't want a pro-SNP paper, but I do want a paper that is reasonablyimpartial and does not attack the SNP because it might lose some advertising revenue.
That's eminently understandable. When I say well-written and eye-pleasing, I don't necessarily mean fully honorable - I consider the Daily Express to be only a bit less reactionary than the Daily Mail, but it's by far the better written of the two.
Yet, the consistent lament that X is biased against the speaker's view can be heard from both sides - notably against BBC News which, depending on who's speaking, either is pinko liberal or part of the corporatist establishment.
When the SPT debacle appeared in the Herald, posters on this blog complained that it was avoiding reference to Scottish Labour's involvement... yet all the facts were there about who did what.
When the so-called Unionist meedja was seizing upon Sturgeon, it was not noticing the suspension of the referendum proposals... not so much anti SNP and anti complex thought.
I finally got sick of The Herald when it supported the ludicrous "ripped-off Glasgow" campaign thought up by Purcell. Pitting Glasgow against the rest of Scotland is deplorable.
Bloody dangerous if you ask me. Those Wedgies could run amok. (And this does suggest that Scotland isn't one homogeneous and docile mass, but filled with its own competing dynamics.)
Yet, the consistent lament that X is biased against the speaker's view can be heard from both sides - notably against BBC News which, depending on who's speaking, either is pinko liberal or part of the corporatist establishment.
- Really Alec.
Care to give some real-life examples.
As someone who continually castigates others for their totalitarianism your claims are singularly devoid of empirical evidence - an attribute of totalitarianism itself.
So Alec establishes himself as an aribiter between competing left-right claims yet is unable to furnish even a single example of his high-minded grasp on the spectrum that is liberal reality.
Presumably ,I'm too totalitarian to recognise Alec's even-handedness - back to Alec and his reasonably-minded anonymous pal.
"The most potentially momentous issue for the country for more than 300 years failed to make the lead item on BBC Scotland’s news website and was largely ignored in first minister’s questions later in the day. Even some of the indigenous press relegated it to the inside pages, with the Daily Record dismissing the whole thing as a “referendumb”."
I was struck with the above paragraph in the Times today and what it says about the Scottish media, it's bias and unrelenting negativity.
What other country in the world would such an announcement not make the front pages?
POLL ALERT - NEW SCOTTISH YOUGOV POLL - BOTH WESTMINSTER + HOLYROOD VOTING INTENTION
YouGov/Scotland on Sunday
Westminster voting intention - Scotland
Sample size = 1000 Scottish adults
Fieldwork = ?
(+/- change from YouGov/Scottish Sun 17-24 Feb 2010)
Lab 38% (-4)
SNP 21% (+1)
Con 20% (+1)
LD 15% (+1)
- Doing a good job? (net rating)
Gordon Brown +8
Alex Salmond -2
David Cameron -5
Holyrood voting intention - constituency vote
(+/- change from YouGov/SNP 12 - 13 January 2010)
Lab 33% (+1)
SNP 28% (-7)
Con 16% (+2)
LD 16% (+3)
The Scotland on Sunday makes a cryptic comparison to "the same YouGov poll at the beginning of January". But there was no YouGov/SoS poll published in January! In fact the last published Scottish Westminster v.i. YouGov poll (prior to the two small YouGov's for the Scottish Sun in late February) was for the Daily Telegraph in autumn 2009 (18-20 Nov).
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time: the unionist press may have been conducting opinion polls but not publishing the results when they have been favourable for the SNP. Peter Kellner: now that the cat is out the bag, we want to see the detailed datasheets from that unpublished YouGov/SoS-Scotsman poll conducted in January. Per BPC rules.
If there is no such poll, then what is "the same YouGov poll at the beginning of January" that the SoS refers to?
Links:
SoS article: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/SNP-hit-by-big-slump.6110907.jp
YouGov/Scottish Sun (Westminster poll 24 Feb 2010): http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/ScottishSun02.24.pdf
YouGov/SNP (Holyrood consituency poll January 2010): http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/SNP_Jan10.pdf
YouGov/Daily Telegraph (Westminster poll Nov 2009): http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/ScottishTelegraph_20-Nov09.pdf
Post a Comment