Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s Daily Mail front page is one of the most controvers
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s Daily Mail front page is one of the most controversial in a long time
Where the Daily Mail is different is that it seeks to put at least part of the blame onto “Welfare UK” and in doing so, I’d suggest, minimises what Philpott did.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Personally I do not think the Daily Mail seeks to excuse this vile couple by proportioning some blame on “Welfare UK” – What it does do imo, is expose the underbelly of welfare dependence and illustrates perfectly the point that for some, ‘welfare’ is not a safety net, but a career option. – If the Liberal Left finds that uncomfortable to accept, unlucky..!
As for whether it works, we can see what the power of the media is in North Korea, where everyone speaks with one voice as that is what they have read and learned.
I think many of the daily mail readership will agree that 17 kids to 5 women and being paid welfare allowing him to live comfortably is a disgrace, and the nuances Mike alludes to about the story being contrived may be missed in a vox pop barrage of disquiet against all those less fortunate and that the blame therefore lies primarily with the poor.
I do genealogy and not many people on the census' of 100 years ago are not working, but welfare beneficiaries initially through no fault of their own start a downward spiral from one generation to another of expectation for financial support for doing nothing, and choosing to do so. That aspect is the one that hits the jackpot here for the Daily Mail; the expectation that this chap has produced offspring who have no hope and never will have.
I don't suppose there's any point in asking people to stop feeding them?
Philpott was convicted on manslughter not murder.
Mike Smithson in shock criticism of Daily Mail - will the luvvies ever forgive him? Tim, BenM, Pork Tec to boycott site:).... PLEASE!
If it gets the far right nutcases furiously w*nking then it's served it's purpose almost as much as "Hurrah for the blackshirts!" Which, as everyone knows, is not only fully representative of every Mail story ever but every newspaper story too. Since that's how Mail 'logic' works.
Speaking of which, "The electoral question is whether the Mail approach will resonate and help Osborne"
We'll find out if any enterprising journalist asks him Cammie or IDS whether they think the welfare system turns people into child killers. Would even any of his lot seriously answer "yes"?
Quite. Not a very good idea unless Cammie really does want the tories to be the nasty party again and somehow thinks that's going to help his electoral chances.
Clegg may even have to emerge from his slumber to distance himself and his party from this since the lib dem voters they have left are somewhat unlikely to approve of these kind of extremist lunatic 'tactics'.
Even on a tabloid level it's a failure because apart from the clunkingly obvious controversy aspect every other tabloid knew enough that it's Philpott who is the story and used him and his actions directly to get readers past the front page if they want all the details on the tragedy. Crass and imbecilic political posturing obscures the crime and criminal as well as creating bogus justification and excuses for what Philpott did.
As for the link between Philpott and welfare: was the way he lived his life good for his wife and mistresses, society and even more importantly, his children? If you think it was not, then you should accept that he was manipulating the welfare system for as much as he could, and the welfare system allowed it.
Witness the way he had been trying to get a larger house.
In his case the welfare system was not a safety net: it was a lifestyle.
If a detective had mentioned he was catholic or jewish and somehow felt this crime was 'god's will' would that then have justified the Mail blaming either of those religions for the crime? Do you seriously believe his 'lifestyle' is anything other than a product of his own twisted motivations and despicable intent? Do you think every criminal insurance fire that results in deaths and tragedy are the fault of the insurance system, the criminal justice system or the perpetrator?
The welfare system is policed and sends people to jail for fraud when it is uncovered. You cannot extrapolate one tragic case to millions unless you have had the kind of colossal IQ failure the Mail displays.
This Mail story is very revealing but not in the way those praising or justifying it seem think. That they cannot see how is hardly surprising.
More LDs than Cons support the Coalition (70/64).
More Cons than LDs oppose the Coalition (31/26)
Signs of growing dissatisfaction leading to more division?
Why is it necessary to insult those with a different view to your own? Since when do you need a high IQ TO express acceptable opinions?
Hardly a surprise you still don't understand. Stick to the Mail, it's certainly aimed at your level.
"Hardly a surprise you still don't understand. Stick to the Mail, it's certainly aimed at your level."
QED. Tackle the man not the argument.
"Do you seriously believe his 'lifestyle' is anything other than a product of his own twisted motivations and despicable intent? Do you think every criminal insurance fire that results in deaths and tragedy are the fault of the insurance system, the criminal justice system or the perpetrator?"
He could not have lived that lifestyle if the welfare system had not enabled it. His wife and mistresses worked, but he did not. And the comparison in your last sentence is ridiculous.
I think the 'evil' angle being used by some people is worse than the welfare angle. The three did a stupid thing that had evil consequences. But they intended to rescue the children - that is why they were tried for manslaughter, not murder. In my mind they are not evil, just incredibly self-centred and stupid.
"The welfare system is policed and sends people to jail for fraud when it is uncovered. You cannot extrapolate one tragic case to millions unless you have had the kind of colossal IQ failure the Mail displays."
That is an important question: how widespread are such abuses of the system? Is Philpott a one-off, or are many such people milking the system to various degrees? We do not know. Philpott is an extreme, but there could well be many people living less extreme, but equally odious, lifestyles off the state.
And this was evidently not seen as being fraudulent - it was allowed under the system.
Another thing that needs mentioning is that apparently the children were not considered at risk. Which makes the incredible levels of stupidity by the three people convicted yesterday even more staggering.
" The Mail has a very specific agenda and a certain kind of readership."
I try to read all the main broadsheets and tabloids - I think your statement is true of most of them - one important difference being that the Mail is more popular than most of the others. Does not make it right but may make it more significant.
@OwenJones84 You are in denial - in Court it was explicitly stated that he wanted the kids he had with ex under his roof for the benefits.
@hblondon He was evil, however his motivation - as stated in Court - was to regain the £1,000 in benefits lost when his ex took her kids.
I feel very comfortable calling the 'justifications' and blaming millions for one depraved man's actions idiotic since it quite clearly is and simply doesn't stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.
You can all moan (or not), about the causes, his lifestyle, the benefits he recieved, the vileness of the Jeremy Kyle show, whatever? The basic fact is he should have remained locked up for the remainder of his life after the first attack. There are too many second chances for scum like this. Now six kids are dead, for that I blame a liberal and extremely weak justice system that refuses to protect society from those who are truly evil and a pure danger to others. Stuff rehabilitation for such lowlives, if you commit evil acts then you should go away for good. May he be let into the general prison population this time and face the consequences, he has no place on this Earth now.
I would say nothing different if he was rich, poor, black, brown, white, gay, straight, male, female....whoever. I am an atheist, but I hope I am proved wrong and there is a hell for him. In fact, society should be sending him there by a direct route.
Lol clearly we should act quickly to amend the electoral system and only allow the vote to the clever dicks!
What are they supposed to do ? Move to a new accomodation for one year with all its attendant costs and hassle ? Because next year they would not have to pay the tax.
I think this is indeed a tax. Realistically, I can see what else they can do. What if they can't find a 3 bedroomed house/flat the following year.
This will bite back once the stories get round. Precisely, at the time millionaires are getting a huge cut in their taxes !
One cannot blame the welfare state per se for the childrens deaths, but at a simplistic level one can blame the false expectation that a succesful player of the welfare system believed he could get away with.
Having got away with silly games for years the tightening required from the authorities for common sense to kick in never came as Philpott genuinely believed he could pull off another scam.
With 17 kids and 5 women and a track record of violence, the fact this guy was not even monitored does to me apportion some blame in their direction.
I'm sure you do. You don't think directly and deliberately endangering the lives of children for the selfish and twisted 'reasons' Philpott did does not merit the word 'evil'? Your choice. Even if you don't think it was despicable or 'evil' thing to do then blaming millions on welfare instead of the perpetrator and his own actions is spectacularly and deliberately missing the point.
No. It was not their intent or plan to kill the children but they were found guilty of manslaughter because their despicable actions did.
Yes we most certainly DO know. If Philpott was in any way representative of the millions on receipt of welfare then why aren't there millions of cases like this?
Did the Mail caveat it's headline with such a qualifier? No. So try again. Philpott was a manipulating control freak and bully who used fear and the threat of violence to intimidate and fool those he could when he could. Wife beaters can also sadly escape detection for the same reasons. You are still confusing one man's actions with the welfare/criminal justice system. Neither of which can ever totally mitigate or prevent the actions of depraved individuals. If there were failures they should be corrected but they never excuse or justify the perpetrator's actions. The criminal justice system can however act when it is then in full receipt of the facts, as it just has done.
Some facts. "Ben Page, Ipsos MORI - 78% say want some people to have benefits cut, 72% say politicians should bring benefits bill down"
The Mail has the most popular online presence of the UK newspapers.
It's only a matter of time if the Mail and it's 'acolytes' are to be believed.
Really? Just self-centered and stupid? Well, that's alright then. Sounds like we need a couple of years in low security and some rehab and all will be well and out they come. Maybe they can rebuild their family and have another 6 kids? (I'm sure nobody expects them to be that self-centered and stupid again. No risk at all).
May I just put forward a slightly different position. The evil manipulating scum should die a slow painful agonising death. May he rot.. May all three of them rot.
As usual, your reply lies about what someone said. I said 'many', not 'millions'. And I said that, in my opinion, Philpott et al were not evil. But I did not say that I thought they were not despicable.
To make it clear: in my mind their acts were despicable (in the 'worthy of contempt' sense of the word), but not evil. Others will disagree, because the concept of 'evil' is very much in the eye of the beholder.
" Are you feeling okay? Because you sound just as shrill and hysterical as the Mail."
I'm fine. The only hysteria I've noticed today has come from those ranting about people with low IQs who dare to read the Mail. Hyperbole in political debate can be seen across the press - I think the Guardian on Monday over the benefit reforms was a good example.
But do carry on whinging. Maybe you could introduce a benefit for it?
What you are talking about is the completely false perception perpetrated by the lunatic bile Dacre and sad his little helpers adore.
The more scrutiny and focus there is on welfare the less easy it will be to lie about it.
If Cammie will praises the Mail's headline then he will reap the nasty party reward. I somehow don't think he will be very eager to, but he may be further down the imbecility of dog whistle politics than we think.
Which has little to do with it's print edition. It followed the 'celeb gossip and nipslip' model perfectly and did so faster and more efficiently than any of the other tabloids who are belatedly trying to copy it.
1. Says he would introduce.
2. Says he would remove when elected PM.
There have been plenty of criminals who were gainfully employed. Peter Sutcliffe for one. to paint this horrible philpott creature as representative of all on welfare is disgusting.
There is a middle ground between scrap it all and everyone for themselves, and everyone should get money from the government so we are all recipients.
As usual you seek to divert attention away from the facts because you clearly don't have a credible argument or justification for Dacre and the Mail's actions. Not that there is one of course. Those who appear to be seeking to demonise the welfare system (which self-evidently serves millions) off the back of one depraved individuals actions, should perhaps consider the irony of them then complaining about how their own words depict them, lest this get any more ridiculous.
Mine has though it took a day or so.
What you must understand is that the Mail is employing a common tactic whereby they set out, deliberately, an extreme position. They are too smart not to know this but are creating a mood, some filtered down version of which they hope will inculcate itself into the popular consciousness.
It’s as little use raging at the DM for doing this as it is to rage at, say, Polly. Or even Tim, of this Parish. Both of whom do the same thing.
Do the IMF still do 70's style bailouts? I assume you've checked? Not sure I'd want my grandkids owing trillions of quid worth of debt to wonga.com at their interest rates.
Labour's blank piece of paper isn't even a piece of paper anymore. It's just a void, a vast emptyness in space where some policies should be.
Have you learnt the difference between 'many' and 'millions' yet?
But where they are spot on is to conflate welfarism (or at least welfare as a lifestyle and abuse of a system intended as a safety net not a lifestyle) with the economic and moral decline of our country. To have 17 kids and an income of over 60k paid all paid for by others is indeed an outrage. Philpott is a parasite and there are far too many like him.
The left will absolutely detest the direction the welfare debate is taking because it pits the working poor against the idle poor. And the larger and much more righteous group of the working poor are not welfarism fans AT ALL. Cutting welfare for the idle poor is very popular with them. 'Fop' Osborne's speech yesterday was very well received. That does not compute inside Polly's head or at Islington dinner parties. But it is where the large majority of Middle England lies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303086/Inside-Mick-Philpotts-house-depravity-Giant-TVs-snooker-room-children-barely-fed.html
I not only understand it I know of cases where such 'tactics' were hastily shelved at the last minute. For reasons other than 'taste'.
There is a difference between supposed low cunning and being 'smart'. Ask the Sun how 'smart' their Hillsborough headlines were in retrospect. This won't be that but doing so while the Mail is trying to justify keeping the likes of Dacre on the PCC is curious to say the least.
I'm not raging at it it. I'm pointing out the stupidity of it's headline and supposed 'reasoning'.
If that upsets some on here then I'll just have to live with that burden.
I have, have you?
The welfare system serves millions not 'many' and the Mails depiction did not specify either but chose to scapegoat the entire welfare system for one man's abhorrent actions.
If you accept the tactic then you will agree that the headline isn't _supposed_ to be reasoned. It is a primary colour extreme position, of which even a diluted version will nevertheless be nudging the appropriate (in this case anti-extreme welfere benefit) reaction.
For Tim it is the Tories' "gender gap" (hi @Tim) which Anthony West in the article he referenced, called "small but consistent"; being "small", Tim must employ DM tactics to create the mood that it is a significant issue.
I don't buy the Daily Mail but I've picked up odd copies on the train or bus. It has a populist slant but I'm not sure why it evokes such hysteria.
We Catholics used to have an Index Liborum Prohibitorum - a list of banned book, necessary to prevent the hoi- polio from reading and thus falling into error. Obviously the clergy could read them without being affected but the innocent and the gullible were a different matter.
We formally scrapped it half a century ago although it had already withered away.
It seems some posters on here would like to revive it for the Mail. They know better than the general population what is good for them.
When I 've seen the Jeremy Kyle show, which seems to be popular, you have generally idle, drug-taking members of the benefit population giving a bad impression, but no one has suggested banning it. Come on, you moaners, be consistent.
And don't forget that the Catholic clergy did it with the best of intentions.
"The Mail headline will resonate with many Mail readers."
sorry to bang on about this but that isn't the point. It will surely resonate with many Mail readers and many others will think to themselves "what rubbish." But a seed will have been planted and the result is that the overall impression will come to be seen that "welfare" is in some way a problem.
Some would argue, what with the various poll findings (where not all of the respondents are DM readers), that the Mail has been spectacularly successful in this. Non-DM readers are now "on board" with the idea that welfare is a problem.
A fair response would be to look at the system in the light of this case and see if/why/how it enabled Philpott to maintain an approach to life that was far from what the system intends. There may be valid reforms that should be made. That's not the same as blaming the system for Philpott. He was what he was.
As for Dacre, I doubt he is running a political campaign. He doesn't really care about politics. He just wants to sell newspapers (something he is very good at). Fear sells, as does scandal. Mike is giving him a bunch of free advertising as will, I assume, the BBC and Sky press reviews: I assume he thinks he will get more sales as a result
It's a useful yardstick for the PB Leftards when the Catholic Clergy look sensible in comparison
The problem is that the welfare state as it exists today (and IIRC your experiences were some time ago) has grown beyond all proportion and envelops people, trapping them in a life of dependency. That is why IDS's reforms are so important: it is trying to make it easier for people to escape the system in a positive direction.
That said, the failure of the education system over the last 30 years, has resulted in a segment of society who lack certain basic capabilities. That is the fundamental problem for the country that our politicians have created for us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
I am "elite" it seems, though then it goes on to say that many in this group went to private school and like classical music, not true of me. The last slice of the pie was near empty, I seem to be the prole elite.
If you use extreme controversy as an online click magnet and self perpetuating circle for comment then you always run the danger of misjudging it. The Mail has done so before with belated apologies and it will do so again. The core Mail readership may well lap it up but they and the other papers print editions are diminishing in their influence and will continue to do so. Tactics such as this are desperate which is why they always look desperate.
The reasoning that says any story that depicts welfare as inherently bad or 'evil' always helps anti-welfare hysteria misses the point that if the story is blatantly not true then the case is diminished. Cammie, Osbrowne and IDS will not want to say that they approve of this headline, unless they have completely lost the plot.
That only works if everyone else is then prepared to pay more for goods and services produced by British people.
If everyone else instead prefers to buy cheaper imports or prefers cheaper foreign holidays then it fails.
It also fails if higher pay levels in this country leads to even higher numbers of low skilled economic migrants.
So it fails twice.
Basically the low skilled service economy which Labour created isn't compatible with high earnings.
For high earnings you need a corresponding high productivity and high value added workforce.
I'd like to see that but I don't see it happening.
So we're stuck in being a high cost, high tax, high regulation economy which is steadily being overtaken by lower cost, lower tax and lower regulation economies which are 'hungrier'.
I am Technical Middle Class. I scored very highly on money and education / social but am apparently a cultural desert. :-)
I will become elite when I learn to love opera and stately homes.
Tossers.
Is the guy part of the lumpen proletariat so despised by Marx?
Obviously Labour are particularly rattled by this particular Mail headline. It's hardly the first newspaper to use a contentious headline (the article itself is a bit less over the top), but the reason it has received so much attention is precisely because there is enough of a grain of truth in it to strike at the heart of the Islington left 'give them money and hope they go away' mentality. Can anyone, anyone at all, claim that the benefits system acted properly in the interests of the family, let alone society or the taxpayer, in this case?
The point is not - as our left-leaning friends here are trying to spin it - that the Mail is claiming the welfare system led to the tragic deaths of these children, but that Philpott's depraved lifestyle was enabled, encouraged, and financed by a system which is clearly severely broken. This is of course an extreme case, but sometimes it takes an extreme case to get the attention needed to improve things.
"I don't accept the tactic"
I meant as in "as you accept that the tactic exists" whether you like it or not. Polemic is a tried and trusted method to introduce a political agenda. The DM uses it, The Guardian uses it, Polly uses it, Tim uses it, etc, etc.
It seems fairly non-controversial (that it is used, not what proponents do or say). I am surprised that it has the capacity, especially on this forum, to be shocking. Or that people rage at it (I take your point that you don't). One might as well rage at the rain (I've done a lot of that lately).
True, but politically irrelevant.
Labour weren't protesting when benefits were increased by over 5% while the minimum wage was increased by under 2%.
But Labour are now complaining about 'cuts' to welfare - in reality increases below inflation, which is what most workers are getting, especially in the private sector.
The 'Labour supports layabouts' meme is widespread.
In fact if Avery is around perhaps he could pass along the phrase 'Labour supports layabouts' to his controllers. Afterwards we can discuss a suitable financial gratuity ;-)
They may go as guests, however... ;-)
Test: David is looking at Mary and Mary is looking at George. David is married but George is unmarried. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? Possible answers - Yes, No, or Undetermined.
When benefits are too low (ie insufficient to provide a tolerable life) recipients will resort to crime (benefit fraud; claiming Disability Allowances; drug dealing; theft) and /or join the Black Economy to provide a life-style with which they are comfortable.
This is bad.
My own feeling is that the Black Economy is both much bigger, and growing much more quickly, than the OBR/Treasury acknowledge, which explains the disparity between employment numbers and economic growth
When benefits are too high (ie provide for luxuries, as well as bare essentials) then recipients opt to stay on them as a whole-of-life-style choice, and/or opt to retire as soon as they can, and then live at others' expense for 20, 30 years or more.
When benefits are certain (pension, JSA, HB, CB) then there is little or no incentive to make one's own provision for life's down-sides (sickness, injury, divorce, unemployment) because the certainty of State provision means that the money that would otherwise have been put aside 'for a rainy day' is spent today.
Indeed, the relentless advertising and MSM bemoaning of 'the lack of growth in the economy' both help to feed this view.
So, this government - any government - is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Welfare: whatever they offer, it will affect millions, yet provide perverse incentives too.
I suppose heavy-handed inspection and monitoring of every recipients life-style, bank accounts and actions would solve some of these problems, but who would want that?
I offer no solution, only seek to expose the problem(s) when the whole population is encouraged to feel that the State will care for them when things go wrong in their lives (ie they can abdicate all personal responsibility for long-term hardship funding)
A side-effect is that saving is positively discouraged (QE's lowering of savers' interest rates does this too), whilst consumption is encouraged - just when we have a massive balance of payments deficit and are no longer manufacturing much of what consumers spend money on.
Any one else have any thoughts?
Sadly, during a recent holiday I was stunned by the number of fellow travellers who shared and supported the Mail's thinking - xenophobic, fascist and selfish. No wonder UKIP support is rising.