Though the Mirror is seen as the third most negative paper and backed Remain and the Telegraph which backed Leave has a clear net positive rating, so not quite as clear cut.
was great watching Mark Kermode's TV movie of the week selection made on R5 on friday .. it was on last night - "it's Christmas, so clearly my movie of the week is Die Hard"
was great watching Mark Kermode's TV movie of the week selection made on R5 on friday .. it was on last night - "it's Christmas, so clearly my movie of the week is Die Hard"
Top man Mr Kermode. Clearly knows his Christmas classics.
was great watching Mark Kermode's TV movie of the week selection made on R5 on friday .. it was on last night - "it's Christmas, so clearly my movie of the week is Die Hard"
If he keeps saying it, eventually he may be right. He may well win the next election, though this is by no means assured, and if the government collapses under its own divisions in the next year or so that becomes much more likely. If those divisions do not cause a fall of government, his prediction could be very far off though.
Introducing CGT on main residences would surely create an absolutely massive incentive against moving house.
We're supposed to encourage the efficient allocation of scarce capital. Discouraging people from selling homes that are now too big for them seems a dumb way to achieve that.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
Yup. Bang on. Read the Sun once a week or so in my local chippy. Some serious concepts are very well explained in decent English. It's no wonder that it is so popular.
We're supposed to encourage the efficient allocation of scarce capital. Discouraging people from selling homes that are now too big for them seems a dumb way to achieve that.
There's a whole stack of academic theory/evidence about tax efficiency and equity but sadly whether something can be dressed up in an electorally favourable or unfavourable way seems to be the main criterion.
How are social liberal and social conservative defined?
I like to think I follow politics quite closely but I'm still puzzled by these phrases and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Suppose someone supports current abortion rights and supports gay marriage but wants some reasonable level of control of immigration? Where would such a person fit within the definitions?
And such a person wouldn't be unusual - they would be in the majority on all 3 issues.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
The Sun's readership is also pretty non-partisan, which to me is really valuable in these divisive times. The way readers of The Sun and The Times voted came closest of all the papers to being representative of the spread in the last couple of elections, if I recall correctly. I think it's unhealthy to have left-wing papers with left-wing readers and right-wing papers with right-wing readers.
As for the Mail - might be worth distinguishing between its online and paper incarnations, which are not the same beast.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
The Sun's readership is also pretty non-partisan, which to me is really valuable in these divisive times. The way readers of The Sun and The Times voted came closest of all the papers to being representative of the spread in the last couple of elections, if I recall correctly. I think it's unhealthy to have left-wing papers with left-wing readers and right-wing papers with right-wing readers.
As for the Mail - might be worth distinguishing between its online and paper incarnations, which are not the same beast.
I only read online, being based in Los Angeles these days.
Here Mail Online is well read, but only for its celebrity gossip.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
Agree. But re 4: the Sun has a serious problem with veracity. Not always. And not necessarilly institutionally. Bu when caught it will instinctively double down on the bollocks it already printed. Doesn't know when to bow out.
How are social liberal and social conservative defined?
I like to think I follow politics quite closely but I'm still puzzled by these phrases and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Suppose someone supports current abortion rights and supports gay marriage but wants some reasonable level of control of immigration? Where would such a person fit within the definitions?
And such a person wouldn't be unusual - they would be in the majority on all 3 issues.
I have often wondered likewise. I have also never been able to get a satisfactory definition of "Culture War." It would help me to know which particular ditch I should die in.
"Same-sex marriage is not irreversible. Determined public pressure can influence politicians to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
On behalf of our supporters, we are committed to continuing to make same-sex marriage an issue at election time in the United Kingdom in the hope of similar change here."
"Same-sex marriage is not irreversible. Determined public pressure can influence politicians to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
On behalf of our supporters, we are committed to continuing to make same-sex marriage an issue at election time in the United Kingdom in the hope of similar change here."
"Same-sex marriage is not irreversible. Determined public pressure can influence politicians to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
On behalf of our supporters, we are committed to continuing to make same-sex marriage an issue at election time in the United Kingdom in the hope of similar change here."
How are social liberal and social conservative defined?
I like to think I follow politics quite closely but I'm still puzzled by these phrases and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Suppose someone supports current abortion rights and supports gay marriage but wants some reasonable level of control of immigration? Where would such a person fit within the definitions?
And such a person wouldn't be unusual - they would be in the majority on all 3 issues.
Where would a person who strongly opposes censorship fall within these definitions?
50 years ago, people who saw themselves as socially liberal would oppose censorship, whereas social conservatives opposed it. But these days, many of the former support curbs on speech, in order to protect minorities.
People around Justin Gatlin know where to find banned drugs. Probably today’s least surprising news story, even less surprising than Michel Barnier not wanting to give the UK a good Brexit deal.
Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.
Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.
Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.
Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.
I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
Comments
Smart chap. An LVT is probably a better idea than CGT, though.
In case this hasn't been posted at some point today.
That story is just an indicator. Keep watching your back Nigel, you pathetic little shill.
And welcome
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/03/why-did-roy-moore-escape-to-australia-clues-remain-in-the-outback-wilderness
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/18/jeremy-corbyn-will-probably-prime-minister-next-12-months/
A man has pleaded guilty to breaking electoral law by voting for Labour twice in the general election.
Mohammad Zain Qureshi, 21, voted twice in the same constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green, Waltham Forest, during the election in June.
1. The Guardian, despite its left wing editorials, produces some seriously high quality reportage. (See the exceedingly well researched Roy Moore piece, which is the complete opposite of a hatchet job.)
2. The Telegraph used to be good. Not any more. It's become utter rubbish, with journalists and opinion writers competing to be ever more sensationalist. It feels like a newspaper where the key metric is "shares".
3. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It's OK crossed with Hello and with the sidebar of shame. You feel dirty when you click on the links. But you still do it.
4. The Sun is actually a pretty good newspaper and doesn't deserve the approbation.
I like to think I follow politics quite closely but I'm still puzzled by these phrases and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Suppose someone supports current abortion rights and supports gay marriage but wants some reasonable level of control of immigration? Where would such a person fit within the definitions?
And such a person wouldn't be unusual - they would be in the majority on all 3 issues.
As for the Mail - might be worth distinguishing between its online and paper incarnations, which are not the same beast.
Here Mail Online is well read, but only for its celebrity gossip.
But re 4: the Sun has a serious problem with veracity. Not always. And not necessarilly institutionally. Bu when caught it will instinctively double down on the bollocks it already printed. Doesn't know when to bow out.
I have also never been able to get a satisfactory definition of "Culture War." It would help me to know which particular ditch I should die in.
"Same-sex marriage is not irreversible. Determined public pressure can influence politicians to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
On behalf of our supporters, we are committed to continuing to make same-sex marriage an issue at election time in the United Kingdom in the hope of similar change here."
https://www.c4m.org.uk/bermuda-repeals-sex-marriage/
They have lots of friends in Theresa May's conservative party. Sadly some in the Labour party, too.
When watching Peter Hitchens on YouTube or TV, are you more likely to nod sagely or throw up?
50 years ago, people who saw themselves as socially liberal would oppose censorship, whereas social conservatives opposed it. But these days, many of the former support curbs on speech, in order to protect minorities.
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/678f6ea9157e4e4ba821f5a31abfb740/nobel-prize-winning-author-alexander-solzhenitsyn-at-a-luncheon-held-btjgg1.jpg
Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873
I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.