It's a smart, pragmatic move, to keep on the good side of the world's most powerful media mogul but it's infuriating that any politicians are obligated to attend private meetings with him
What does that mean? That Labour have to do what Murdoch tells them? Or offer him something?
I don’t think it’s smart. I think it raises much bigger issues of the influence that bullionaires hold over the (supposedly) democratic political system.
This. A cautious, managed Faustian pact. Sadly necessary.
Starmer doesn't need Murdoch. The Tories have imploded and no one believes their garbage media anymore. It is one thing talking to him, but remember he is not British and doesn't pay tax here. We owe him nothing except better legislation to bring our shitty media to account.
We owe him a hefty prison sentence for crimes against humanity.
Can't even call them champagne socialists any more.
If it was good enough for Blair it'll be good enough for Starmer.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(