The commentators 27-02-15...on UK politicsWith an entry fee of tens of thousands of pounds, Parliament is effectively closed to shop workers, manual workers and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. If you run a corner shop and want to improve your community, you’d balk at the amount of money you’d have to shell out yourself to do it. Today just 4 per cent of our MPs were manual workers before they entered Parliament, compared to 16 per cent in 1979.
- Isabel Hardman, The Independent The unlikeliest graveyard of political ambition is university tuition fees. Labour broke a 2001 manifesto promise not to put them up, Michael Howard was saved from his reckless pledge to abolish them only by losing the 2005 election, and Nick Clegg has never recovered from his university apostasy. Tuition fees is one of those policies that the opposition opposes and the government implements, irrespective of which party is playing which role.
- Philip Collins, The Times If we want immigration to carry on at the rate of around 300,000 a year, we can carry on as now. But if we don’t - if we think that this has an impact on public services, on housing, and on crime - then we need to take action to change it. That means one thing. We either get the EU to abandon its central tenet of free movement of labour. Or we leave. Anything else is hot air.
- Stephen Pollard, Daily Express David Cameron’s pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands was rubbish. A pipe dream. A little Englander fantasy. But then, we always knew it was a fantasy. And we knew it was a fantasy for this reason: although David Cameron pledged to reduce immigration, he couldn’t, and he knew he couldn’t. There are many popular theories for why immigration to Britain is increasing. One favourite is the loucheness of our benefits system. Another – recently propagated by the Home Secretary herself – is the corruption of the student visa system. A third is an erosion of those stout sentinels that constitute the UK Border Force.
- Dan Hodges, Daily Telegraph Up until five or ten years ago, it would not be unusual for editorial to throw out or move an ad if it sat uncomfortably with the news on a given page. That tended to be in everybody's interests: BA no more wants its ad on a page devoted to an air crash than the journalist placing the story. This may still be the case, although I suspect that these days pressure would be on editorial to reposition the story rather than the other way about.
If so, that is an example of fissures starting to appear in that dividing wall. If a story, however insignificant, has to move from its optimum position in the paper because of advertising considerations, a line has been crossed. A layman's guide to the relationship between editorial and advertising Please sign up for SubScribe updates
|
|
February 26
Minor party leaders February 25 Natalie Bennett February 24 Rifkind and Straw February 23 World affairs February 20
UK politics February 19 Chelsea and racism February 18 UK politics February 17 UK politics February 16 Copenhagen shootings February 13
UK politics February 12 UK politics February 11 UK politics February 10 UK politics February 9 Politics February 6
UK politics February 5 Isis atrocity February 4 UK politics February 3 UK politics February 2 UK politics January 23
UK politics January 22 Chilcot inquiry January 21 Page Three January 20 Anti-semitism and Islam January 19 Religion and freedom January 16
World politics January 15 Election debates January 14 Charlie Hebdo January 13 Charlie Hebdo January 12 Charlie Hebdo January 9
Charlie Hebdo January 8 Charlie Hebdo January 7 UK politics January 6 UK politics January 5 UK politics |