Suddenly the Mail cares about the gap between rich and poor
In a head-spinning U-turn today, the Daily Mail is suddenly bothered about inequality.
For anyone who followed its coverage of the general election, this is extraordinary.
Commenting on how top CEOs now make 183 times what an average employee earns, the Mail says:
“…no wonder Labour activists demand radical solutions, when the High Pay Centre finds the bosses of our top 100 firms earn almost £5million a year each.
That’s a staggering 183 times the average worker’s annual salary of £27,000.
You don’t have to be a Bolshevik to find this huge disparity offensive.
For in most cases, it owes nothing to merit – and everything to the greed of mutually back-scratching remuneration committees.”
‘You don’t have to be a Bolshevik’? Can this be the same newspaper that accused Ed Miliband, then Labour party leader, of having a communist kitchen?
The same paper which, when he pledged to raise taxes on the richest, said he was practising:
“the politics of envy, spite and class war.”
The paper which, when Miliband criticised zero hours contracts, said:
“Listening to the BBC news, anyone might believe Ed Miliband is telling the unvarnished truth when he suggests ruthless employers are exploiting British workers on an epic scale. […]
But Mr Miliband has never allowed reality to interfere with his quasi-Marxist convictions.“
And the paper which, when Miliband pledged to tackle non-dom status, (a policy since adopted by the Tory government, to applause from the Mail), accused him of:
“pander[ing] to core Labour voters’ envy of the rich.”
‘You don’t have to be a Bolshevik to find this huge disparity offensive’.
Well, quite!
***
Labour made inequality a major plank of its general election campaign, and was attacked by the Tory papers for every proposal meant to address this.
It’s telling that though the Mail’s editorial today blasts ‘the boardroom pay racket’ – largely for giving ammunition to ‘the enemies of capitalism’ – it says nothing about doing anything to change it.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
DONATE to support MediaWatch here.
Read more:
Daily Mail claims ‘7 in 10 Calais migrants get into UK’ – without any evidence
Daily Mail is annoyed women were released from Yarl’s Wood ‘onto Britain’s streets’
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
9 Responses to “Daily Mail slams millionaire CEOs… but trashed Ed Miliband’s ‘politics of envy’”
mrwho
it’s almost as if more than one journalist works for the Mail…
Roy
Its called balanced reporting in the interests of its readers.
Dave Stewart
are you seriously suggesting the Daily Mail operates balanced reporting?
jacko
Just goes to show that the Mail gives more than one point of view, unlike LFF.
keeshond
Three of those who have left comments seem to have misunderstood how the Mail operates. I’m afraid the same goes for the author of this piece who has failed to appreciate that the writ from Lord Northcliffe still runs large: namely that the only formula for success is to give readers a “daily hate”.
Adam Barnett may be too young to remember the Mail’s attack on bankers’ greed during the 2008 financial crisis. The paper’s front page assaults lasted long enough to enrage its readers before suddenly changing tack to identify the real villain of the Lehman Brothers collapse. You would think the US bank’s Chief Executive, Dick Faulds might have been a possible candidate. But no, it turned out to be UK premier, Gordon Brown, whom columnist after columnist was instructed to ridicule for a slip-up at PMQs when he claimed to have saved the world after his emergency recapitalisation programme.
When it comes to the Mail titles I can assure you it has nothing to do with balanced reporting and just about everything to do with maintaining the paper’s circulation.