politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next Presi

A TV personality who has never held elected office becoming President?

Nah, the Americans will never go for it.

To be fair, it makes a bit more sense than the Michelle Obama idea.

Oprah, as far as I can tell, does seem to be one of the few women in any field who's got a public persona of being defiant and strong-minded, yet also at the same time being warm and "relateable" (Hillary scored well on the "tough" scale, but failed badly on the "warm" scale - one of the big reasons for her underperformance with white women in particular, who should've been easy pickings in a contest against Trump). On paper, it looks like an Oprah candidacy could work.

But of course, there's the small matter of whether she's actually any good at politics/campaigning....

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

If Oprah wants it, Oprah gets it.

But does Oprah really want to spend her days getting North Korea to disarm its nukes?

323 million people and they only get to choose from a few political families or millionaire TV celebs. Sad.

FPT - for what it's worth, I think Poles are quite Eurosceptic, but also very pro EU as they're they are the major military bulwark for Europe with Putin's Russia*, and know how in the past they've been crushed when completely on their own.

[*That's notwithstanding the fact they actually border Belarus (basically a Russian satellite) and Ukraine (divided) which doesn't necessarily mean very much]

Jonathan said:

She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

Kilroy to return?

Oprah is an embracer of anti-vaccine conspiracy enthusiasts. In some ways she is a mirror image of Trump.

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Why? The Daily Mail is nothing more than a xenophobic right wing rag. Racist c*nts!

Well done Virgin Trains!

After four years of Trump, Americans could be forgiven for wanting a return to relative political normality. If Trump's not running again for whatever reason a moderate Republican would probably beat Winfrey. She'd probably beat Trump though.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Jonathan said:

She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

Kilroy to return?

In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.

I think this illustrates quite well how the betting markets respond to the short term and immediate circumstances of the moment without any deep analysis behind their movements -which is why they get it so spectacularly wrong most of the time. Oprah makes a good speech on Monday and becomes the second favourite to be the next President on Tuesday.

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Essexit said:

Jonathan said:

She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

Kilroy to return?

In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.

That is because the US President is the equivalent of the Queen, the UK PM is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Though Mayor of London offers a chance to get elected to the post straight away as Bloomberg became Mayor of NYC

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

Essexit said:

Jonathan said:

She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

Kilroy to return?

In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.

Lord Attenborough PM ?

Casino_Royale said:

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?

They are stopping offering it as a free newspaper from which their passengers/customers can choose on the basis of the firms "values". That is bad enough.

They've actually now effectively stigmatised reading the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains.

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

Thanks. Do you have a source for that?

Casino_Royale said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Come off it. Virgin aren't obliged to stock either the Mail or the Morning Star. The Mail can print what it chooses. It doesn't have the inalienable right to insist that others inflict it on their own customers.

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Apparently on all the services where papers are available Virgin sold only 70 copies each day.

Thanks. Do you have a source for that?

It's in the article you linked to!

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Then we need to tighten our legislation.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

It's a despicable racist publication - period.

"Period". "End of".

A sign-off used by people who aren't confident they can deal with the argument that might follow.

What a piss poor limited selection of newspapers on virgin trains...you can now only get the mirror, times and ft.

I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

What about leaflets critical of Brexit? Should jazz clubs be allowed to stock them?

I'm amazed anyone can get through a copy of the Daily Mail in a cramped Virgin Trains seat. I'd probably clobber the person next to me a few times or cover them in racing tips.

On size alone, a tablet, book, or Evening Standard at most is all I'd go for.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Then we need to tighten our legislation.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

It's a despicable racist publication - period.

What over the top hysterical and silly comments

You condone racism buddy?

I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

Again, well done Virgin Trains!

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

Of course they are allowed.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Noone has banned anybody from selling anything though ?

They are stopping offering it as a free newspaper from which their passengers/customers can choose on the basis of the firms "values". That is bad enough.

They've actually now effectively stigmatised reading the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains.

Is this on Virgin West Coast? They're a funny lot over there.

Never seen it on the East Coast.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

We know that, because they've told us.

murali_s said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Then we need to tighten our legislation.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

It's a despicable racist publication - period.

What over the top hysterical and silly comments

You condone racism buddy?

I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...

Again, well done Virgin Trains!

"I am all for free speech, but.."

The sentence of tyrants.

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

Of course they are allowed.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

Lovely.

dixiedean said:

Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
What could be more free market?
As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

Two can play at that game.

I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.

The answer to this is to pass legislation outlining which publications must be sold where and when.
It is the only liberal way!

dixiedean said:

The answer to this is to pass legislation outlining which publications must be sold where and when.
It is the only liberal way!

Not really. Virgin can do as they please, and we are free to criticise them.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

We know that, because they've told us.

That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.

I thought you were going to say, they turned it down because they were worried about what would happen to them if they lost.

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Then we need to tighten our legislation.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

It's a despicable racist publication - period.

How old are you - 13?

Just grow up. You devalue the term "racist" by such casual useage.

@DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

Carolus_Rex said:

@ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

@Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

Of course they are allowed.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

Lovely.

The BBC gives the real reason:

"The Mail has recently been critical of Sir Richard after the government agreed to bail out the Virgin/Stagecoach East Coast franchise"

Sean_F said:

dixiedean said:

Stop Funding Hate ought to be celebrated by all right-leaning and thinking folk. They are causing companies to look at a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the products they stock.
What could be more free market?
As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.

Two can play at that game.

I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.

Or perhaps boycotted EU goods...

With Christmas dinner, Grandpa Fox objected to my choice of Fleurie as the wine, as too French. I pointed that his preferred Argentine Malbec was no great respecter of British sovereignty!

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

If it's a business decision driven by customer demand, yes. If it's a political decision driven by a loud, vocal minority who are causing trouble, no.

The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.

We know that, because they've told us.

That's also quite normal. One of the titbits in Fire & Fury is that three of the most prestigious law firms turned down the opportunity to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigations because, among other reasons "All of them were afraid they would face a rebellion among the younger staff if they represented Trump". In a people business, you have to take note of your people.

It makes me glad I don't have any staff tbh. A law firm turning down the chance to represent the POTUS? Wow. Virtue signalling at its most extreme.

Law firms can decide who they want to represent, rail companies can decide which papers they want sell.
What's the problem?

No problem, it just seems a curious business decision to me. But I take Alastair's points about Trump wanting to dump on someone else and not pay his bills. Its what children do.

DavidL said:

Carolus_Rex said:

@ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

@Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?

Thank you for that image...

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.

I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.

Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.

If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.

Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.

There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

Of course they are allowed.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

The article makes a good point. It might not be a coincidence that the FT, Mirror and the Times are all pro-Remain newspapers, and Branson is the suzerain of Virgin and a very strong Remainer.

So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.

Lovely.

The BBC gives the real reason:

"The Mail has recently been critical of Sir Richard after the government agreed to bail out the Virgin/Stagecoach East Coast franchise"

Ah.

MattW said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Very disappointing to hear you say that. I had you down as a free liberal.
....

They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.

They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.

Virgin stock four (now three) newspapers. No one is stopping customers bringing the Mail or the Morning Star on the train. It is fake liberalism to claim that Virgin should be obliged to stock it.

True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.

Of course they are allowed.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.

Presumably they've looked carefully at their customer base and decided what best matches them. If they've got it wrong, I expect they'll rethink.

Daily Mail sales seem to be 70 per day (Guardian report).

I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.

The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):



There is a backstory to that as well.

But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.

Did Viscount Rothmere really write for the Mirror?

As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.

"The Football Association will interview at least one applicant from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background for future roles in the England set-up."

Should it be "from a black, Asian OR minority ethnic background" or will they be interviewing at least one black, one asian and one of minority ethnic background?

What about one woman, one disabled, one gay and one transgender?

Some interesting junior ministerial appointments: Robert Jenrick, Kit Malthouse, Oliver Dowden, Lucy Frazer, and Rishi Sunak.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/09/reshuffle-government-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-not-quite-says-new-tory-chair-when-asked-about-party-being-in-a-mess-politics-live

15:06

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

You post about so much hate but all you do is come on here with your vile hatred for anything right-wing .

You have so much hatred in your heart my lefty friend.

David_Evershed said:

Essexit said:

Jonathan said:

She could be very good, certainly better than Trump.

But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.

Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.

Kilroy to return?

In America a celebrity like Trump or Winfrey can just throw their hat in the ring (at a convenient four-year interval) and they're away. Over here they'd have to get elected and serve as an MP then wait for a leadership election to come up.

I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.

You don't have to be an MP top be PM.

You just need the party with a majority in the Commons to select you as their leader, as was Lord Home as PM but not MP.

Easier to get 300odd MPs to vote for you than the populace as a whole.

I would not back Oprah, indeed will not be backing anyone with more than penny longshots until the primaries start. Oprah doesnt need just the voters, she needs the Primaries to go her way. I will save my stakes for then.

Indeed, for both parties, the way for a candidate to emerge is via the Primary process. It has evolved as a way of testing out potential candidates in the field. Generally it produces two reasonable candidates, with 2016 the obvious exception.

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Carolus_Rex said:

@ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

@Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?

What does it matter what they wear?

Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.

DavidL said:

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Even though I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Mail, I'll be damned if I'm setting foot on a Virgin Train from now on.

A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.

I don't want a piss-poor train operating customer that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.

Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...

...but the Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it's more or less a Nazi rag - it's full of hate, bigotry and xenophobia.

You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?

I'm afraid it is a newspaper. If it were a Nazi rag (it isn't) it would fall foul of a number of pieces of anti-discrimination and anti-terrorist legislation.

Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.

I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.

Then we need to tighten our legislation.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...

It's a despicable racist publication - period.

Someone linked to their website yesterday. It's pretty much just soft porn. From my brief perusal there did not seem to be any discrimination as to colour in the endless photographs of women looking "fit" in bikinis, underwear, barely there dresses or whatever kissing whoever with suggestive looks (I've a nasty feeling I was supposed to know who these people were).

I have read on here that it is one of the most visited websites on the web. That is truly depressing. But I don't see how anyone can take the political views of such a publication seriously let alone get wound up about them.

The articles are clearly not proofread and the quality of the reporting definitely 'iffy', but the Mail wins out on SHEER VOLUME of freely accesible content whereas an FT, Telegraph or Times link is completely inaccesible to 99% of the population.
The only other site that comes close is the Grauniad