The media are already after Andy!

I know!

I suppose in the past it was possibly more "*big*/scandal stuff coming out"

As opposed to a press that hunts out weeny details and blowing them up big.

Boris broke the law on Covid, it's hardly surprising, as opposed to seedy affairs and so on?

Ilovecheese

I don't think we knew about Edwina Curry and John Major until he was no longer P.M. though. I was really shocked!

We would probably have known if the Internet and mobile phones had been available!

Usual DM tripe.

If Milliband applies his zeal for environment and renewables to the treasury it will be a disaster for the economy because he goes over the top, so Im hoping he will be one of the other ministers.

We will know soon enough, so far Burnham is making sensible decisions, I hope that continues.

We need someone to try and get moving on Climate Change, that's for sure. Our world is changing and not for the good!

Grantanow

Usual DM tripe.

It wasn’t, as far as I know, in the DM as I don’t read it.
Thanks for the information. You obviously know better.

It is the usual riposte, label it Daily Mail speak.
I knew that Starmer knew about Louise Haigh's conviction before he appointed her, and I thought it poor when he did not support her. I am aware that she resigned, rather than be sacked, not much of an option.

It is the usual riposte because the DM starts most of the vitriolic reporting and it's picked up elsewhere. It is a poisonous rag which thrives on churning out clickbait headlines, whether it's political or delving into the private lives of minor celebrities.

What is the reputation the Daily Mail newspaper?

AI Overview

The Daily Mail has a highly polarising reputation characterised by a massive global readership and widespread criticism for sensationalism, right-leaning political bias, and frequent inaccuracies. It operates the largest English-language newspaper website in the world, alongside its print edition.

On major discussion platforms like Reddit and Quora, opinions are mixed, though there is a strong consensus among many readers and critics that it prioritises "clickbait" and rage-baiting over rigorous, objective journalism. Its primary reputation points include:

Accuracy & Journalistic Integrity It is heavily scrutinised for its factual reliability. In 2017, Wikipedia famously banned the Daily Mail as an unreliable source for its editors, citing its reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism, and fabrication.
Political Ideology The publication is recognised for its hard-right editorial stance, often aggressively campaigning on issues surrounding immigration, national sovereignty, and "anti-woke" culture wars.
Celebrity and Entertainment News Its online division, MailOnline, is incredibly popular but is frequently criticised by Quora users for intrusive paparazzi coverage and the objectification of young women and celebrities.

The power doesn't lie with newspapers anymore, I am not sure the absolute change in how people consume news/political discourse has been fully appreciated.

I am not sure whether the main 'risk' to Burnham will come from newspaper headlines but rather from within the party or from those who used to support labour, Owen Jones is currently in full outrage mode over the leaked suggestions for Chancellor, etc.

Galaxy

The power doesn't lie with newspapers anymore, I am not sure the absolute change in how people consume news/political discourse has been fully appreciated.

I disagree- a large number if not the majority of people are well aware of the changes in how a proportion of the public consume news and political discourse and how that often is via unreliable sources.

The inherent dangers and risks of this change are appreciated and we see that playing out in political discourse and in occasional civil unrest and occasions where individuals incite racial hatred online based on social media rumours- e.g. Lucy Connolly.

Hence impending Strategic direction for UK Media green and public consultation. All posters will be able to include their views in the public consultation- so the outcome will be democratic. On Gov.uk:

Trustworthy news, subject to rigorous editorial standards, provides the shared understanding and facts needed for people to trust one another......However, these benefits are under pressure in today’s media environment where a limited selection of broadcast channels has given way to an explosion of seemingly unlimited content, accessed primarily via the internet. The digital age has seen audiences move away from traditional linear broadcasting and into the online world where, rather than watching together, we are encouraged to consume content in individually curated feeds, and divisive and inaccurate narratives are more likely to thrive.

I actually thought Jones would move back towards Labour with the change of leadership but I guess not. I suspect there will be a brief honeymoon period and then burnham will face criticism from within, the Labour party has always been a tricky beast to 'manage'. I find it interesting that Starmer was quite successful at that for quite a long time.

Galaxy

I am afraid if you present yourselves as 'the adults in the room' and a change from the dodgyness of the tories under Johnson then yes of course people will highlight your failings.
I want the press to scrutinise the government, I was profoundly grateful for the work the press did on highlighting the Mandelsson scandal.

Disagree.
Yes, if there's backroom machinations going on that affect us.
Yes, if there's a 1,000000 "gift" which is undeclared & has potential to be a bung.
No, if some clothing magnate has donated a modest free clothing allowance for official functions. No, if someone has made a minor mistake in the past (wanted a new work phone & went about getting it dishonestly but they've been upfront about it.
No if it's an ill-judged social media "re-tweet" from yonks ago.
With Mandleson, everyone knew he was shifty, everyone knew he's been appointed as a trump whisperer. When it emerged there might be real wrong-doing, yes let us know but don't make it the top headline for how many days? 20+? While there's all sorts of sensible legislation going unreported & next to no mention of the famine in Sudan.

I get it Vivaldi.
Some dishonesty in politicians should be allowed.

Sorry, Valdali. auto correct didn’t like my spelling.

The media isn’t just newspapers, and the Daily Mail isn’t now just a newspaper. News outlets and commentators abound, as well as conspiracy theorists, deliberate misinformation peddlers, ignorant reporters and complete nutcases.

nanna8

If it ain’t there they’ll make it up. I just wish they would wait and give this new bloke and his chosen ones a chance.

"chosen ones"!? He's not the messiah

Burnham "chooses his cabinet as do all new PMs- nanna8 is right.

13:12valdali

That's not you is is Louise with the dyed red hair? Who knew it's OK to make out your phone's been pinched and claim a new one not once but twice. If Burnham picks a convicted fraudster to be in his government well not a good look.

Celebrities have always been given items like glasses, as their endorsement more than repays the cost. Stories about someone forgetting to report that she found a phone she thought she'd lost, and then calling her a 'convicted fraudster' are not real news - they are gossip.

I'm not sure what people want here - maybe for someone who made a mistake over a phone to spend the rest of her life unemployed? For entry to parliament to be dependent on intense scrutiny of applicants' background, with all the implications for democracy that that would throw up? Or is it just to have another excuse to have a pop at a Labour administration?

Louise Haigh resigned as Transport Secretary in November 2024 after it was revealed she pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation. The conviction stemmed from a 2013 incident where she lied about her work mobile phone being stolen in a mugging to secure a replacement from her employer. Google

Sunshinegirls

13:12valdali

That's not you is is Louise with the dyed red hair? Who knew it's OK to make out your phone's been pinched and claim a new one not once but twice. If Burnham picks a convicted fraudster to be in his government well not a good look.

There is much in politics that is not a 'good look'.

1) Is it a good look for Farage to take a £5million personal sum of money from a non UK a crypto millionaire and not declare it within the rulest?
2) Is it a good look that Farage, as many school peers claimed, was antisemitic in his beliefs and behaviours in teenage years?
3) Is it a good look for Farage to recently lobby the governor of the Bank of England in said crypto benefactor's considerable financial favour?
4) Is it a good look for a Conservative chancellor, Zahawi to have to pay almost £5million to HMRC for unpaid tax that due to his false/incorrect tax returns? (its not as though he couldn't afford an accountant!)
5) Is it a good look for Farage to welcome Zahawi into Reform UK?
6) was it a good look recently that Farage to picked an MP for selection in recent Makerfield by election with misogynistic and racist online history and advise said not to apologise for past actions?
7) is it a good look for Farage to welcome so many ex Conservative minsters who breached acceptable standards and rules?

Apart from 2) above all those "not good looks" for Farage post date Haigh's 2025 unconditional discharge over a mobile phone.

Depends who's doing the looking I guess, how far back they go the extent of the behaviour lapse, whether they apply comparable scrutiny, equal standards and equitable expectations.

I mean- Farage and Zahawi deal in sums of £5million- Haigh a mobile phone.

Haigh resigned- Farage stages stunts and believes the rules dont apply to him- just saying 🤷‍♀️

correction - 2015 not 2025