All this really began in the 1980s.
Nationalised industries were being sold off and proceeds used to fund tax cuts. Building societies were being sold off and the proceeds used, not to buy housing as intended, but just spent. People were re-mortgaging their houses to fund extensions, cars, holidays, etc. It was the start of the current consumer spending boom.
And were was the Daily Mail while all this was going on? By this headline you’d think they were issuing dire warnings about the dangers of this kind of wreckless consumerism. But of course they weren’t. They were right up the front singing its praises; principal cheerleaders for the brave new world.
Now they’re trying to tell us it’s our fault: we’re all in denial!
Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Mail just makes you want to puke.
Reported by Express online but strangely missing from the Mail’s front page:
“SHARES in Daily Mail owner DMGT fell sharply this morning after the company reported newspaper revenues had plunged 12 per cent.”
I’m assuming you know the Express story relates to an interim management report from DMGT – not exactly the stuff of tabloid headlines. I’m fairly sure that Mail readers (and, after all, I am one) aren’t buying the paper for it’s coverage of the financial markets.
I’m also assuming you know that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday increased their market share over the past three months – and that the 12% revenue fall does not take into account the closure of London Lite and the sale of the Evening Standard and therefore does not give an accurate picture.
Oh and shares were down 3.5p on the day. Hold the front page…not
karlo
No, I was being slightly sarcastic there. Obviously the Mail wouldn’t make a shock-horror headline out of themselves the way they would about one of their bogey men.
MAIL REVENUES PLUNGE 12%
SUPPORT FOR LABOUR PLUNGES 12%
Similar sort of headline, but only one would be suitable for the Mail.
woman earns more than man? Oh the horror! Can love survive? No, so get back in the kitchen darling
Guess who is to blame?
Clue: It’s not the generation in question.
A generation of greedy Mail readers obsessed with house prices.
Can love survive when a woman earns more than a man?
Are you fucking KIDDING ME? They even put ‘more’ in all-caps as though they very idea is revolutionary.
All this really began in the 1980s.
Nationalised industries were being sold off and proceeds used to fund tax cuts. Building societies were being sold off and the proceeds used, not to buy housing as intended, but just spent. People were re-mortgaging their houses to fund extensions, cars, holidays, etc. It was the start of the current consumer spending boom.
And were was the Daily Mail while all this was going on? By this headline you’d think they were issuing dire warnings about the dangers of this kind of wreckless consumerism. But of course they weren’t. They were right up the front singing its praises; principal cheerleaders for the brave new world.
Now they’re trying to tell us it’s our fault: we’re all in denial!
Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Mail just makes you want to puke.
Reported by Express online but strangely missing from the Mail’s front page:
“SHARES in Daily Mail owner DMGT fell sharply this morning after the company reported newspaper revenues had plunged 12 per cent.”
‘Can love survive when a woman earns more than a man?’
I bloody hope so, my wife earns loads more than I do…
Isn’t that there fault then………..harsh but true
er Phil
I’m assuming you know the Express story relates to an interim management report from DMGT – not exactly the stuff of tabloid headlines. I’m fairly sure that Mail readers (and, after all, I am one) aren’t buying the paper for it’s coverage of the financial markets.
I’m also assuming you know that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday increased their market share over the past three months – and that the 12% revenue fall does not take into account the closure of London Lite and the sale of the Evening Standard and therefore does not give an accurate picture.
Oh and shares were down 3.5p on the day. Hold the front page…not
karlo
No, I was being slightly sarcastic there. Obviously the Mail wouldn’t make a shock-horror headline out of themselves the way they would about one of their bogey men.
MAIL REVENUES PLUNGE 12%
SUPPORT FOR LABOUR PLUNGES 12%
Similar sort of headline, but only one would be suitable for the Mail.