The commentators 12-02-15
...on UK politics
It’s often said that David Cameron and George Osborne suffer as a result of their privileged backgrounds, which render them out of touch and incapable of understanding how ordinary people think. Maybe. But surely the most privileged person can understand how offensive it is to ordinary people that their leaders consort with rogues such as dodgy bankers and pornographers.
- Stephen Glover, Daily Mail
As the two-party system shatters, we ought to be seeing more individuality, not less, but the opposite is happening. Who can blame the young for their lack of interest? The mythical youth vote cannot be Snapchatted into existence. Not even by Jacob Rees-Mogg. An interest in party politics already marks you out as prematurely aged. The common reaction of most people watching PMQs is that we would not let a class of eight-year-olds behave like this.
- Suzanne Moore, The Guardian
Britain could still become Europe’s model economy if we start taking some big decisions on Heathrow, fracking, GM crops, housebuilding and, yes, public debt. Alternatively we could decide that the economic storm has passed and go back to our bad old habits until crisis returns. Because, like toothache, it will return – but with an awful lot more menace.
- Tim Montgomerie, The Times
The Coalition has done much good work, and Tory policies are far superior to those of Labour. But David Cameron’s party, which seems stuck at 33-34 per cent in the opinion polls and has been unable to reach out to new groups of voters, is paying the price for its lack of ambition.
- Allister Heath, Daily Telegraph
There has been celebration today of the recommendation that a judge should approve applications relating to journalists - but most reports have omitted the caveat in the second half of the sentence from their intros. Here it is in full (my underscore):
"Judicial authorisation must be obtained in cases where communications data is sought to determine the source of journalistic information."
Even under the commission's formula, journalists could still have their phone and email records examined by the police on the say-so of a senior officer for other purposes...And why shouldn't they?
No similar protection is proposed for lawyers, doctors, priests and their confidential dealings with clients, patients or parishioners. Perhaps their respective trade journals should kick up a fuss as Press Gazette did.
And how about the other half-million people whose personal data are scrutinised every year?
Protection for sources, not journalists
Please sign up for SubScribe updates
Anti-semitism and Islam
Religion and freedom