Tories attack Labour over number of Press Officers
Posted: August 30th, 2006 | Author: Aaron | Filed under: media, politics, scandal, uk |The Tories, spurred on former-Nazi-fanzine The Daily Mail, have criticised the number of press officers the government employs on the public purse. The Tories claim there are some 3,200 press officers employed by the state – Labour argues that many of these press officers are not just press officers, but do various other tasks such as carrying out ‘road safety and crime prevention campaigns’. (source: BBC)
Labour admits there has been an increase in the overall number of press officers since 1997, but that it is no where near the number quoted by the Conservatives.
But, as the Tories forget to mention, the media is vastly bigger than it was in 1997, and with 24-hour rolling news, online news outlets, and the blogosphere, the government must react quicker and savvier than ever before. It’s another cheap shot from a Conservative Party light on polices yet big on rhetoric.
Knowing this administration, it probably does employ too many press officers, but someone has to employ all those feckless media studies students, because the media certainly won’t. If they weren’t spinning the government line, they’d be begging on the streets. Consider it a public service.
Sphere: Related Content
Of what relevance is your snipe at the Daily Mail ?
When the former incarnation of the newspaper was supportive of Fascism in the 1930s, the Fascists in Britain were lead by Sir Oswald Mosely, who started off as a Conservative MP , then defected to Labour and became a Labour Cabinet Minister before breaking away to form his various Fascist parties and movements.
If the Daily Mail was Fascist in the 1930s, then so were many Labour supporters and party members.
What about the Daily Herald which supported Labour and “socialism” (including all of Stalin and Mao’s evil) until it became The Sun in 1964 ?
How very simplistic an argument?
Mosely may have indeed been part of both the Labour and Conservative parties. His transient political loyalties convey someone desperate for power, regardless of ideology – maybe he had a fragile ego? (Would have been better employed in the city methinks, he would have found many a kindred spirit). But how some Labour Party members are consequently fascists is unclear in your argument, such as it is.
However, may I add that these prior political dalliances were before Mosely found a home on the extreme right, and it was during this period that Rothermere wrote glowingly about ‘Sir’ Edward. Rothermere was also, I understand, in correspondence with Hitler (and Mussolini) himself during the thirties.
The company some people keep, t’sk!
“desperate for power, regardless of ideology ” - isn’t that rather NuLabour ?
New Labour has its critics, not least this site!