4 ms·

It's called a 'sleaze' because the media decided to call it that. And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way ( even to some ridiculous degree ), then the other me

It's called a 'sleaze' because the media decided to call it that. And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way ( even to some ridiculous degree ), then the other media just run with it because it's mostly copy & paste. As far as survival goes, Bozo Johnson is a top performer. He only talks to the media he vets, that's why the UK is something like a mix of Truman Show with a sprinkle of 1930's Germany.

flooow 5y ago
It is quite instructive that the press have managed to damage the Tories' poll rating simply by pulling up the publicly-available list of MP registered interests and reporting them as the scandal they are and always were. Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda. So why are they doing it now? Because a) the opposition has been thoroughly defanged after the wholesale demolition of the left-wing Corbyn project and b) a lot of top Conservatives do not like Johnson because he makes them embarrassed at dinner parties, and would prefer someone like Gove. In other words, it's a Barclay twins vs Murdoch ruling-class squabble.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  > Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda. Maybe I'm just too cynical but I think if you're the media you need to shake down your favourites from time to time, even if you do prefer them over the opposition. If you can make a storm, you can make it blow over as well.
- drcongo 5y ago
  This comment is absolutely bang on, but leaves out one minor detail - this digging was done by openDemocracy who have been doing this constantly over the last 10 years. The fact that the print press also picked it up eventually is entirely down to your point (b). You can always tell when the tories are tired of their current leader because the rest of the party starts briefing the press with damaging stories.
pm215 5y ago
AIUI the term first became common in the mid-1990s; Labour at the time were in opposition, and I have read Labour were very fond of using the term because it was wider and easier to apply to any even slightly-murky thing a Tory MP had got involved in, whereas if you claim that thing to be "corruption" then a chunk of voters will feel you're over-exaggerating and won't be so likely to go along with your argument.
- cjrp 5y ago
  I wonder if it's also to do with slander/libel laws. Saying something is sleazy is more subjective than saying it's corrupt.
- michaelt 5y ago
  You can also apply "sleaze" more broadly - which despite being less precise, may let you represent the facts more accurately. Senior politician cheats on his fiancée with a former stripper? Not corruption. But definitely sleaze. That same senior politician gives £25,000 of taxpayer money to the former stripper - but giving 'business development' grants is within his power? Arguably corruption. But definitely sleaze.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    Paying off a indiscretion with tax payer money is sleeze. I don't care how he acts privately. (consenting adults stuff.)
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Right. As an example from the other side, just this morning I read a Private Eye article (it's from last month, I am busy at work, I have a backlog) about a Labour MP who happens to be renting a London flat whose actual owners are hiding behind a series of offshore entities presumably to both dodge taxation and hide their identities. Officially Labour is staunchly against such things, but rather than help uncover what exactly is going on with her flat of course she, and Labour itself, threatened to sue any journalist who mentioned the matter... That is what sleaze looks like. We've got no proof there's any wrongdoing here, much less anything illegal but that sure would be easier to believe if they didn't threaten to sue people who report what they do know... A lot of the Tory stuff is plainly corruption, but expect Tory papers in particular to soft pedal it. They don't want to get called out for not reporting a huge story, but they needn't emphasise how bad it really is.
ReptileMan 5y ago
* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country * The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country * The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country * The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country * Financial Times is read by people who own the country * The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country * The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. (The Sun readers do not care who runs the country as long she's got big tits!)
- rjmunro 5y ago
  From "Yes, Prime Minister": https://vimeo.com/110662596 https://vimeo.com/110662596
- Tsiklon 5y ago
  “Yes, Minister”, and it’s spiritual successor “The Thick of It” are incredible shows.
- regularfry 5y ago
  Credit where credit is due... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
  - regularfry 5y ago
    And the absolute best part of that clip, on a rewatch, is seeing all three of them trying not to corpse.
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    Yes, minister ... every time I feel down, I watch a couple of episodes ... restarts my day.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Full Credit where credit is actually due: http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/ http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/
gadders 5y ago
>>And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way Except for the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and the BBC.
- poooogles 5y ago
  BBC is pro whoever is in government at the time. Laura Kuenssberg thrown softballs to Johnson enough times to prove this.
  - gadders 5y ago
    The Tories have been in power for 11 years. I don't the BBC have been pro-them all this time, if at all.
    - an9n 5y ago
      They appear to line up dutifully when it comes to COVID.
- an9n 5y ago
  Left or right is misdirection in 2021. The biggest issue right now is Coronavirus, and on this the entirety of the MSM obediently spout the same pro-pharma line virtually without question.
  - gadders 5y ago
    Political parties are mostly in alignment on that as well. It's not like Labour is anti-vax or anti-big pharma.
    - an9n 5y ago
      That's kind of the point - there is no difference between the two parties. The whole thing is theatre, the leaders actors, and the system is intentionally designed to prevent choice. Look at Brexit - the people were never supposed to vote Leave, and the blob did it's damndest to prevent the will of the people being heard. The apparent acquiescence of so many in the face of encroaching tyranny is the most frightening thing I've ever seen in my life. The vaccines don't work properly ('my vaccine only works if you're vaccinated too!'), the long term effects are unknown (despite their claims of safety for which they simply have no long term evidence), it is all obviously being used as a precursor to a social credit system, there is no evidence that masking the public works, the WHO etc. in an act worth of Orwell changed the actual definition of vaccine and herd immunity (nothing fishy there eh!) to suit their interests, the UK intentionally recorded any death within 28 days of a test (including being run over by a bus!) as a COVID death etc. etc. etc.... The whole thing stinks, and I won't be silent. Any downvoters please respond with evidence to refute me. Bet you can't.

flooow 5y ago

It is quite instructive that the press have managed to damage the Tories' poll rating simply by pulling up the publicly-available list of MP registered interests and reporting them as the scandal they are and always were. Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda. So why are they doing it now? Because a) the opposition has been thoroughly defanged after the wholesale demolition of the left-wing Corbyn project and b) a lot of top Conservatives do not like Johnson because he makes them embarrassed at dinner parties, and would prefer someone like Gove. In other words, it's a Barclay twins vs Murdoch ruling-class squabble.

lordnacho 5y ago
> Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda. Maybe I'm just too cynical but I think if you're the media you need to shake down your favourites from time to time, even if you do prefer them over the opposition. If you can make a storm, you can make it blow over as well.
drcongo 5y ago
This comment is absolutely bang on, but leaves out one minor detail - this digging was done by openDemocracy who have been doing this constantly over the last 10 years. The fact that the print press also picked it up eventually is entirely down to your point (b). You can always tell when the tories are tired of their current leader because the rest of the party starts briefing the press with damaging stories.

pm215 5y ago

AIUI the term first became common in the mid-1990s; Labour at the time were in opposition, and I have read Labour were very fond of using the term because it was wider and easier to apply to any even slightly-murky thing a Tory MP had got involved in, whereas if you claim that thing to be "corruption" then a chunk of voters will feel you're over-exaggerating and won't be so likely to go along with your argument.

cjrp 5y ago
I wonder if it's also to do with slander/libel laws. Saying something is sleazy is more subjective than saying it's corrupt.
michaelt 5y ago
You can also apply "sleaze" more broadly - which despite being less precise, may let you represent the facts more accurately. Senior politician cheats on his fiancée with a former stripper? Not corruption. But definitely sleaze. That same senior politician gives £25,000 of taxpayer money to the former stripper - but giving 'business development' grants is within his power? Arguably corruption. But definitely sleaze.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Paying off a indiscretion with tax payer money is sleeze. I don't care how he acts privately. (consenting adults stuff.)
tialaramex 5y ago
Right. As an example from the other side, just this morning I read a Private Eye article (it's from last month, I am busy at work, I have a backlog) about a Labour MP who happens to be renting a London flat whose actual owners are hiding behind a series of offshore entities presumably to both dodge taxation and hide their identities. Officially Labour is staunchly against such things, but rather than help uncover what exactly is going on with her flat of course she, and Labour itself, threatened to sue any journalist who mentioned the matter... That is what sleaze looks like. We've got no proof there's any wrongdoing here, much less anything illegal but that sure would be easier to believe if they didn't threaten to sue people who report what they do know... A lot of the Tory stuff is plainly corruption, but expect Tory papers in particular to soft pedal it. They don't want to get called out for not reporting a huge story, but they needn't emphasise how bad it really is.

ReptileMan 5y ago

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country * The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country * The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country * The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country * Financial Times is read by people who own the country * The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country * The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. (The Sun readers do not care who runs the country as long she's got big tits!)

rjmunro 5y ago
From "Yes, Prime Minister": https://vimeo.com/110662596 https://vimeo.com/110662596
Tsiklon 5y ago
“Yes, Minister”, and it’s spiritual successor “The Thick of It” are incredible shows.
regularfry 5y ago
Credit where credit is due... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
- regularfry 5y ago
  And the absolute best part of that clip, on a rewatch, is seeing all three of them trying not to corpse.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  Yes, minister ... every time I feel down, I watch a couple of episodes ... restarts my day.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Full Credit where credit is actually due: http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/ http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/

gadders 5y ago

>>And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way Except for the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and the BBC.

poooogles 5y ago
BBC is pro whoever is in government at the time. Laura Kuenssberg thrown softballs to Johnson enough times to prove this.
- gadders 5y ago
  The Tories have been in power for 11 years. I don't the BBC have been pro-them all this time, if at all.
  - an9n 5y ago
    They appear to line up dutifully when it comes to COVID.
an9n 5y ago
Left or right is misdirection in 2021. The biggest issue right now is Coronavirus, and on this the entirety of the MSM obediently spout the same pro-pharma line virtually without question.
- gadders 5y ago
  Political parties are mostly in alignment on that as well. It's not like Labour is anti-vax or anti-big pharma.
  - an9n 5y ago
    That's kind of the point - there is no difference between the two parties. The whole thing is theatre, the leaders actors, and the system is intentionally designed to prevent choice. Look at Brexit - the people were never supposed to vote Leave, and the blob did it's damndest to prevent the will of the people being heard. The apparent acquiescence of so many in the face of encroaching tyranny is the most frightening thing I've ever seen in my life. The vaccines don't work properly ('my vaccine only works if you're vaccinated too!'), the long term effects are unknown (despite their claims of safety for which they simply have no long term evidence), it is all obviously being used as a precursor to a social credit system, there is no evidence that masking the public works, the WHO etc. in an act worth of Orwell changed the actual definition of vaccine and herd immunity (nothing fishy there eh!) to suit their interests, the UK intentionally recorded any death within 28 days of a test (including being run over by a bus!) as a COVID death etc. etc. etc.... The whole thing stinks, and I won't be silent. Any downvoters please respond with evidence to refute me. Bet you can't.