Express v Scottish Express (cont.)

Today's Express announces a great 'triumph' for the, err, Express:


The paper says:

MPs yesterday backed the Daily Express crusade to bring more sunshine into our lives.

They voted overwhelmingly for a Bill to move clocks forward by one hour all year round – despite opposition from the Government.

It is only in the eleventh paragraph that the Express finally admits this isn't exactly the 'victory' it wants to claim. The Bill:

...now goes to committee stage for scrutiny by MPs and peers...

The Bill requires the Government to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits.

This evidence has then to be assessed by an independent commission.

If the commission considers that the move would benefit the whole of the UK, a three-year trial will follow.

Rebecca Harris, the MP whose Private Members' Bill this is, says:

...the Bill did “not enforce an immediate change” but simply asked the Government to “take an objective, informed decision based on the best available evidence”.

Only 92 MPs voted for the Bill yesterday, and given the Government is opposed, its long term future looks less certain. Declaring 'victory' certainly appears premature.

The Sun agrees with the Express that there should be:

at least an experiment in saving Britain from Daylight Robbery.

Yet the Express' crusade does have opponents in the media. The Mail newspapers have dismissed it as a switch to 'Berlin Time'. The Express refers to this as 'claims' from 'some quarters'.

But perhaps the strongest opposition has come from 'some quarters' rather closer to home. When the Express launched it's campaign, the Scottish Express came out against it.

And today, while the south-of-the-border Express declares 'Daylight Victory', the Scottish paper says it is:


(Apparently, it's Daylight Robbery if we do change and, according to the Sun, Daylight Robbery if we don't...)

The paper says:

Controversial plans to plunge Scotland into darkness for almost half the year took a major step forward yesterday after only eight of the country’s MPs turned up for a crucial vote.

English MPs came closer to forcing through a Bill that would see British Summer Time introduced throughout the year to give families one hour more of daylight in the evenings.

Most Scots are firmly opposed as they worry about children travelling to school in darker mornings throughout much of the winter, risking more traffic accidents.

So which version of the Express will triumph? We will wait and see.

But the final word should go to Mikexxx, whose comment on the Express website takes proper account of the pros and cons of the argument:

To hell with the North especially Scotland the way they voted in the last election they should be sentenced to live in darkness.

Express clock-up (cont.)

Two-and-a-half months ago, the Express launched a 'crusade' to 'stop Britain being plunged into early evening darkness every autumn':

The Daily Express is calling on the Government to move UK time forward by an hour permanently, bringing the country into line with much of the rest of Europe.

Bring Britain into line with Europe? You don't hear that very often from the Express.

The campaign launched with a bit of a whimper when the most vocal media opposition came from the, err, Scottish Daily Express.

Well, tonight the clocks will be put back an hour. As the Express hasn't got its way, it's claiming the country is going to plunged into 'chaos':

Britons face a day of chaos tomorrow as the clocks turn back an hour, plunging the country into evening darkness.

A third of us will oversleep, 20 per cent will wake up to a cold house after forgetting to change the central heating timer and one in eight will arrive at work late over the coming days.

That's a few minor inconveniences for a minority of people. It's not 'chaos'.

But how come the Express hasn't go its way? After all, on Thursday they were claiming that '29 million people' supported their 'crusade':


As Atomic Spin observed:

Wait, 29 million? That sounds a bit much, surely? The turnout at the last general election was only 29.6 million – are you telling me as many people care about the Daily Express‘s “crusade” as care about national politics in general?

Well, no. Of course not. What the Express did was take a poll that found 58% of people supported their plan, worked out what 58% of the population (of England, it seems) is, and then claimed that many people therefore backed their cause.

The Express also claimed:

Concerns are also mounting about children walking home in the dark and the danger of personal injury, with one in four people saying they feel more at risk as evenings draw in.

In addition, some 36 per cent – 17.7 million people – believe there is an increased chance of road traffic accidents, and one in four also insist they feel more at risk from burglary.

Atomic Spin points out:

In other words, 3 in 4 do not feel more at risk, 64% of people did not say they believed there was an increased chance of road traffic accidents, and 3 in 4 do not feel at risk of burglary.

On Monday, the paper's editorial said:

Next week we’ll put back the clocks and plunge properly into winter.

It’s a gloomy prospect so no wonder support is growing for the Daily Express crusade to stop this wholly detrimental annual ritual.

Is support 'growing' for the Express' crusade? Well, the latest poll quoted by the paper shows support at 58%.

Alas, a poll conducted the day after the crusade was launched showed support at, err, 60%.

An Express clock-up

Today's Express front page leads on the launch of a new 'crusade'.

It is a campaign about one of the big issues of the day.

Well, not really - it's a crusade to stop the clocks being put back an hour this autumn:


Here's the start of Martyn Brown's article:

The Daily Express today launches a crusade to stop Britain being plunged into early evening darkness every autumn.

The Time for Change Crusade would give us an extra hour of daylight in the evening all year.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last night he would “look at” whether Britain should turn the clocks back each year.

The Daily Express is calling on the Government to move UK time forward by an hour permanently, bringing the country into line with much of the rest of Europe.

Our crusade has already won the backing of politicians and campaigners who say longer, brighter evenings would make roads safer.

He goes on to list a small number of people and organisations who back the plan.

But another paper had a slightly different take on the issue:

David Cameron sparked fury yesterday as he agreed to consider plans to move Britain’s clocks forward by an hour all-year round.

Ah, 'fury'. Where would the tabloids be without it?

The article continues:

English MPs want the Prime Minister to introduce British Summer Time throughout the year to give families one hour more of daylight in the evenings.

But most Scots are firmly opposed as they fear children would travel to school in darker mornings throughout much of the winter, risking more traffic accidents. Tourism chiefs south of the Border back the move to bring Britain into line with most of continental Europe, saying it would boost the leisure industry...

...the move remains strongly resisted in Scotland, where it would mean that in winter, the sun would not rise until almost 10am.

The journalist, Paul Gilbride, goes on to quote a number of people opposed to the plan, including the Scottish government.

And where does Gilbride's article appear?

Err, the front page of the Scottish Daily Express:


No wonder he blames 'English MPs' for wanting the change and forgets to mention the 'crusade' by a certain newspaper...

(Hat-tips to Adam Bell and Duncan Stott for the story, and Bryan McComb for the pic of the front page)

Mail reveals new 'wheelie bin' evil

Surely the Daily Mail wouldn't do something as tasteless as try to exploit this man's death to boost its anti-wheelie bin campaign?

Although tragic, it doesn't appear to be worthy of being the 'top story' on the Mail website.

Mail's D-Day campaign farce

The Independent has an interesting story today (We'll fight Brown on the beaches) that, sadly, doesn't have the courage of its convictions.

The story reads (abridged, but these are the important bits, with my bold):

Survivors of D-Day reacted angrily yesterday to what they claimed was a belated attempt to politicise and hijack a nine-month campaign to take British veterans to mark the 65th anniversary of the Normandy landings.

A public appeal for funds to take 500 ex-service personnel to the commemorations in France, launched in The Independent on 6 June last year, has been assured of success for weeks.
...
But Peter Hodge, secretary of the Normandy Veterans Association (NVA), said: "Ministers on the beaches is not really what we wanted or needed. We never complained about the Government not giving us money. We wanted this to be between the veterans and the British people. The public response to our appeal, first publicised in The Independent, has already been fantastic."
...
After reading The Independent's story about the appeal, the advertising executive Trevor Beattie took up the cause...[he] said: "Everyone who wants to support these magnificent men is very welcome. But it would have been courteous to recognise all that has already been done by Peter Hodge and myself and The Independent. Most of all I object to the clear attempt to hijack and politicise our campaign. This was never about attacking Labour or Gordon Brown. It was always about supporting our veterans in a practical way."
...
Mr Hodge wrote to every British newspaper last May asking them to highlight the plight of the veterans. In 2004, the Labour Government paid for veterans to travel to the 60th anniversary, and he said this was more than any previous government, Labour or Conservative, had done. The NVA accepted that the Government could not pay again, so it appealed directly to the public to help raise funds for a "last parade" of D-Day survivors in 2009.

The only national newspaper to respond to Mr Hodge's letter at the time was The Independent. "The truth is that it is rather too late to be raising funds now," Mr Hodge said yesterday. "We are talking about elderly people and that means you have to plan well in advance. Luckily, thanks to Mr Beattie and others, we already look like we will have all the money we need."

So there you have it. The NVA tried to kick start this campaign 9 months ago and the Indy was the only newspaper that bothered. All the money was then raised. But like Voldemort, who is the un-named evil who can not be named?

Step forward the Daily Mail. 'The Great Betrayal' it thundered on the front page on the 18 March edition, with the continuation: Ministers are treating the anniversary with disdain. The editorial said it was 'dishonouring the heroes of D-Day' and blamed 'petty-minded, mean-spirited ministers'.

On 20 March, the Mail led with the story again (The tide is turning). Suddenly, it became clear that Gordon Brown hadn't been invited by the French organisers, so the question of him going or not was rather moot. The PM's spokesman is quoted saying: 'If it were decided by the organisers that heads of government should be there, then the Prime Minister would be pleased to be there.'

The Mail claimed this was a 'u-turn' and marked a 'triumphant first day for the Daily Mail's D-Day campaign'.

They go on to claim 'the veterans themselves voiced their delight and thanks for the magnificent response to the Daily Mail's fund-raising appeal - and called a halt to further fund-raising. Generous readers donated £70,000 on the first day of our campaign'.

Now, let me repeat what Peter Hodge said in the Indy story: 'The truth is that it is rather too late to be raising funds now'.

So what is the Mail going to do with the £70,000 it has apparently raised, if the veterans said they have all the money they need?

There is something so despicably cynical about the way the Mail has run this campaign. It chose to ignore the veterans' plea a year ago, and once the money had all been raised by other people, it cranks up a campaign knowing it will be able to claim success.

This isn't the first time the Mail has done this - it launched its anti-plastic bag crusade at the time Marks & Spencer had pre-announced it was going to charge for bags, then claimed the M&S move was in response to their campaign.

But this is a more important issue. They love to promote themselves as patriotic and they love a chance to bash the Government on an issue like this because it fits their anti-immigration agenda of Britain not being what it once was - they can claim the Goverment doesn't care about British history and doesn't care about people who fought for the country. It's the thread that runs through all their coverage of political correctness, Islam and immigration.