We get the government that Murdoch wants us to have. He is massively influential in politics and can (and does) make or break politicians. Look how much support that Blair received prior to election from the Sun, then just as quickly support is pushed Cameron's way. Always been the same. The red top reading electorate seem to believe everything they see published and consequently support is given. He is probably the most powerful and influential person in politics. Incidentally the Sun newspaper prior to being bought by Murdoch in the 60's had been through the 30's to the 50's a hugely left wing paper representing the working class and the biggest share holder was the TUC it was called the daily herald.
Kinnock was a classic case of a man from modest beginnings being intoxicated by the sniff of power and wealth. He let it go to his head and the people saw through him.
If you scratch the surface on any of them you will find enough dirt and aggrandising on a huge personal scale. Very few politicians engage in a political life for the common good, from local through national to European . Sadly the days of political integrity appear over.
The very last people who should be granted the privilege of being a politician are typically the ones who want to be one. Interestingly, the same principle applies to gun ownership.
Great, that means I can be an MP and shoot the constituents, then.... "...Hello, is that Nigel? Do you need a hand?"
I thought the express bit would get a bite- ignore the wrapper and froth , and look at the figures. Which should be a matter of record but from what i understand can't be. Modest pension? You decide. I can give u a Telegraph link if you prefer.....
So? The Kinnocks were paid salaries for the work they did - the Express article adds together many years of salaries into a global figure. Why? The Kinnocks were reimbursed their expenditure for travelling and living abroad, and for the secretarial staff in their offices, over many years - the Express adds these amounts all together into a meaningless total. Why? The Kinnocks are entitled to pensions on retirement - the Express is not content with reporting a pension of £66K, so has to make up an entirely hypothetical huge figure. Why? This is just a patently nonsensical made-up article from 2009. A journalist has tried to find some dirt about the Kinnocks taking bribes or acting corruptly or dishonourably in some way, but has failed to find even the smallest scrap of a real story. So he has had to settle for reporting the salaries they earned, the expenses they were reimbursed, and the retirement pensions they are entitled to. The figures being unremarkable, the journalist has been reduced to multiplying them up absurdly to try and make the figures look bigger, finishing up with a fictional £10 million. If this is the worst you can find, that it is pretty clear demonstration of the Kinnocks' honesty.
"The figures being unremarkable", I've seen reports suggesting that the "genitalia were unremarkable" is that the same?
I was watching PMQ's today.Cameron ducking and diving as Milliband tried to pin him down over his employment of Coulson and continued employment of him,despite some adverse reports in the press. Cameron would only quote the Levenson enquiry as his only reply to Millibands questions. After reading your post,as above,it does make me wonder?
I dont understand where people question Kinnocks integrity. When you stand his up against the tories of the day and even this day, he will be cleaner than all and probably cleaner than some on here. The media campaign against him was so torrid it even had me as a labour member thinking maybe he was too hard line. You may question his convictions but to stoop to his integrity via some poorly calculated and likely scurrilous reporting is naive. But its easier to take the reporting at face value as it means you do not actually have to do any thinking for yourself. Something a great many of our populace do. The amount of Murdoch patsies here is frightening and I am taking notes come the revolution brother.
