• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TomWaitsForNoMan

Banned
mid83 said:
I have a quick question for those of you who live in the U.K. Ever since the Brexit vote last year, I've found myself wanting to keep up more with the consequences of Brexit, and as a result of that interest I'm now looking to keep up to date with UK and European politics. Most US based media sources don't put much time into reporting on these topics outside of major events like the recent U.K. election. The NY Times has the best US based international coverage, but it still only scratches the surface. I also read The Economist but I'd like to supplement that with more daily news.

With that said, I'm curious what sources would be good for an American who is interested in keeping with these issues. Would getting a digital sub to a newspaper like The Times of London would be a good option. It's very affordable as an iTunes subscription, but I want to be sure it's a reliable source before proceeding. I really liked the content of the Financial Times when I picked up a copy waiting for my flight home from Heathrow when I visited London earlier, but the subscription is a bit too pricy for me (around $36 a month) given I already have a couple subscriptions.

Any suggestions/advice would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the FT might well be your best bet, and I say that as a socialist. It's obviously going to be heavily tilted to the right but it has some actual analysis of issues which a lot of papers don't these days. If you want to know what the business class is thinking there's nothing better. The last 15 years or so have seen the quality of most of the press decline massively. The Times, Telegraph, Independent, and Guardian are shadows of their former selves and no longer worth the money imo.


Mr. Sam said:
Yeah, even though it's the priciest, the Financial Times is probably the best for a foreigner looking in. Neither The Times nor The Guardian are bad shouts, but I really wouldn't recommend The Telegraph or The New European. You might even consider a subscription to either of the main current affairs magazines - The Spectator (right wing) or The New Statesman (left wing). I think the United States has a better selection of newspapers, whereas their broadcast media never gets above absolute garbage level.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that although the Spectator has a rep for being a "reasonable" right wing magazine they publish an outright Golden Dawn supporting Neo-Nazi in Taki and various other flavours of bigot like Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, Rod Liddle etc. It's a fucking rancid little rag.

The New Statesman has been pretty laughable in terms of its analysis too. It's very much a left-liberal magazine which means they're oblivious to a lot of the political changes that are occurring at the moment. You need only see the number of times George Eaton's "scoops" have been hilariously off the mark to be put off taking it seriously. They've got a pretty bad record on transphobia too. They do have some good eggs though, Stephen Bush for example has been pretty decent. Might be worth having a look through the articles on their website to see if it's for you or not.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
TimmmV said:
The Telegraph seems to have degraded into absolute trash in the last few years, I don't think this is really true anymore.

Some of their Brexit coverage has been absolutely woeful. I wouldn't really recommend them to someone new who doesn't know where to start
Click to expand...

Maledict said:
Yeah, the Times is clearly better reading than the Telegraph at this stage. The Telegraph is the paper Daily Mail readers pick up when they start to develop dementia. It's truly terrible.
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough. Slim pickings in the UK media now, then. :/
 
J

JonathanEx

Member
This has made me realise how little I settle on an 'individual' site nowadays, more just follow the better reporters for analysis on Twitter and go to what they write/recommend. Or what people share in threads like this.

Hadn't really twigged how much I'd stopped reading the Graun as often. And that the FT is doing well, particularly well with their tech reporting too as those bits and where they've had things bit a bit more bite and personality.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
JonathanEx said:
This has made me realise how little I settle on an 'individual' site nowadays, more just follow the better reporters for analysis on Twitter and go to what they write/recommend. Or what people share in threads like this.

Hadn't really twigged how much I'd stopped reading the Graun as often. And that the FT is doing well, particularly well with their tech reporting too as those bits and where they've had things bit a bit more bite and personality.
Click to expand...

Same way for me. The amount I read of the traditional newspaper has absolutely nose-dived over the last few years, mostly in response to their declining quality.
 
K

Kotetsu534

Member
I've made the same move from being a Guardian CiF native (circa 2007-09) to curating Twitter lists of writers/reporters/commenters from across the spectrum and reading whatever they find worthwhile. I do subscribe to the FT and Telegraph though.
 
U

Uzzy

Member
The FT has had some really good articles on Brexit lately, and host a blog written by one of my favourite commentators, David Allen Green. The Times, Telegraph and Guardian are also worth paying attention to, along with the Economist, Spectator and the New Statesman. Caveats on all of them, of course.

The rest of the papers you can leave. Check 'Tomorrow's Papers Today' if you have to see what nonsense about Diana the Express is printing.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
It does feel like the British press has really failed to provide proper reporting that justifies their existence. By comparison, areas of the USA press has really stepped up the mark in investigative reporting. They still have many flaws, but they are doing good work. Here they just seem to be subservient.
 
M

Maledict

Member
War Peaceman said:
It does feel like the British press has really failed to provide proper reporting that justifies their existence. By comparison, areas of the USA press has really stepped up the mark in investigative reporting. They still have many flaws, but they are doing good work. Here they just seem to be subservient.
Click to expand...

It's not that they are subservient to government. They are subservient to their pay masters, whose interests currently align with the governments (but may not in the future). Our press is far too controlled by its owners, be they Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Maledict said:
It's not that they are subservient to government. They are subservient to their pay masters, whose interests currently align with the governments (but may not in the future). Our press is far too controlled by its owners, be they Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers.
Click to expand...

The alternative isn't much better. In the absence of an incredibly wealthy benefactor willing to tolerate a newspaper running a loss, you instead get the pressure to make profits on the online era, which means maximising click-through, which means incendiary titles and 'controversial' opinion pieces that get shared a lot. This seems to be the model the Guardian and the Independent are pursuing. I mean, you end up with less corporate propaganda and there's less definite intention to influence, but instead you just get a vague morass where the line between meaning and nonsense is increasingly blurred.

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the idea of the Guardian requiring a paywall.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
The Spectator is undoubtedly right wing but they do publish a plurality of views, usually. I can't stand Liddle (and Philips doesn't write for them anymore), but they also print David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Peter Hitchens (right but not exactly normal right). You have to get past the idea that they print a bunch of columnists that abides by some editorial standards and acknowledge that it's a bit of a free for all, even if they hire more right wing ones than left wing.
 
M

Mr. Sam

Member
Crab said:
The alternative isn't much better. In the absence of an incredibly wealthy benefactor willing to tolerate a newspaper running a loss, you instead get the pressure to make profits on the online era, which means maximising click-through, which means incendiary titles and 'controversial' opinion pieces that get shared a lot. This seems to be the model the Guardian and the Independent are pursuing. I mean, you end up with less corporate propaganda and there's less definite intention to influence, but instead you just get a vague morass where the line between meaning and nonsense is increasingly blurred.

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the idea of the Guardian requiring a paywall.
Click to expand...

The Independent is much worse about this since it went digital only, but The Guardian is about as bad as The Independent was when it was still being printed (i.e. I think we've been given a grim look into The Guardian's future).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Mr. Sam said:
The Independent is much worse about this since it went digital only, but The Guardian is about as bad as The Independent was when it was still being printed (i.e. I think we've been given a grim look into The Guardian's future).
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing! I'm very pessimistic about the Guardian's direction, I think it's starting to enter the irreversible downward spiral.
 
Spuck-uk

Spuck-uk

Banned
Maledict said:
To be honest with you, The Economist is the only thing I pay for nowadays...
Click to expand...

Also hilariously biased towards it's editorial staffers preferred economic model. They suuuuper love free market economics. It's generally well written but real lopsided.

The Telegraph is nicknames the Torygraph for good reasons. It's almost as shit as the Daily Mail, but they dogwhistle their racism instead of smearing it openly.

Nthing that the Financial Times weekend edition is probably your most neutral option in a very crappy field.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Spuck-uk said:
Also hilariously biased towards it's editorial staffers preferred economic model. They suuuuper love free market economics. It's generally well written but real lopsided.

.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's the only workable model we have so far. And it's been responsible for the greatest improvement in life quality for people across the world...

It's also fair to note that whilst the economist leans centre right business wise, that's very much a mild Tory approach and not a republican or Thatcherite model nowadays. The economist was in favour of the bailout, was in favour of ending the austerity programme in Europe, and was pro gay marriage before even Stonewall was.

It represents in my mind that most mythical of beasts - the moderate, socially liberal, economically prudent person. The one right wingers talk about but never really demonstrate... ;-)
 
T

TomWaitsForNoMan

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
The Spectator is undoubtedly right wing but they do publish a plurality of views, usually. I can't stand Liddle (and Philips doesn't write for them anymore), but they also print David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Peter Hitchens (right but not exactly normal right). You have to get past the idea that they print a bunch of columnists that abides by some editorial standards and acknowledge that it's a bit of a free for all, even if they hire more right wing ones than left wing.
Click to expand...

Again, they publish a literal actual Nazi. If you're ok giving money to a publication that does that then keep on keeping on.
 
Spuck-uk

Spuck-uk

Banned
Maledict said:
To be fair, it's the only workable model we have so far. And it's been responsible for the greatest improvement in life quality for people across the world...
Click to expand...

Hooo boy there's a whole big can of worms you've opened. Let's avoid the derail and just state I strenuously disagree with your assertions about free market economics.
 
K

Kotetsu534

Member
The Spectator posts best weekly print circulation in its 189-year history. Up 11% YoY. That works out at a 94K weekly average, 70K purchased individually. The editor more or less says what Crab did above, by implication.

Newspaper sales have fallen by more than a third in the last ten years: it has never been easier to find news and analysis for free online. But a big change is taking place in the market. There’s now too much writing online, and in an era of fake news, where you get your analysis from has never been more important. As newspapers and magazines are finding out, if you can publish writing that is consistently and significantly better than what can be found online, people will pay.
Click to expand...

If (when) the Guardian continues to decline in quality, someone will set up a "Spectator of the left" in a similar manner and be successful.
 
J

Jackpot

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
That's still not what a Nazi is, though.
Click to expand...

Why don't you enlighten us the key differences between supporting these people

article1439223362.jpg

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/241

and these people

29055.jpg


Spectator has had some fucking hideously racist and sexist Op-Eds.
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
Why I'd never. It's very weird denying that, especially when trying to address that is probably one of the only good things Theresa May has ever done.
 
P

pswii60

Member
tuxfool said:
DHV2MgsXgAAtewz.png
Click to expand...

Dipped slightly again. Increasing productivity at those pre-2008 levels seems like a massive ongoing challenge. It seems we're employing more people than ever before in the UK but getting the same out the other end - perhaps because we're paying peanuts and employing monkeys.

The government should be doing more to encourage apprenticeships, management training and automation investment/subsidies.
 
B

Bony Manifesto

Member
pswii60 said:
The government should be doing more to encourage apprenticeships, management training and automation investment/subsidies.
Click to expand...

While the government desperately needs to invest in increasing the skills of the workforce, I'm wary of giving money to businesses and hoping things will trickle down. The apprentice industry is an example of why this doesn't work - for every company that uses the system (and the subsidies) to give a young person a chance to get their foot on the ladder in a particular field, there's ten 'Customer Services Level 2' apprenticeships which offer nothing to the applicant and are just a way for companies to get cheap skivvies.

Though I guess theses days absolutely everything is so thoroughly privatised and deregulated, it doesn't matter where you inject government funding as it's always going to get gobbled up by those in charge (related: https://www.theguardian.com/educati...t-pulls-all-learndirect-contracts-and-funding).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Jo Swinson's becoming involved in an election funding scandal. Same dodge the Conservatives had - attributing what is pretty clearly local spending to the national level.
 
M

Mr. Sam

Member
I've been told that such practices aren't actually uncommon in... non-Tory circles. People just don't often get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Genuine question, why does anyone on the street care about productivity? I get that, in theory, lower productivity means the same wage costs with lower (or, in reality, the same) income and therefore it stagnates wages, but is it a useful statistic on a national, generalised level? It's a bit like inflation in that respect - if you're a freight company, the cost of food isn't that relevant to your costs but the cost of fuel has a huge impact. Likewise, surely whether Tesco and ARM have decent productivity (or not) is irrelevant to you at Starbucks or Saatchi. People on the street (as opposed to businesses) care about inflation because their spending tends to be generalised and the inflationary "basket" is designed to be an average of household costs, but productivity? It seems too generalised.

I get why it's important from a macro point of view, just not for actual human people.
 
J

jelly

Member
Crab said:
Jo Swinson's becoming involved in an election funding scandal. Same dodge the Conservatives had - attributing what is pretty clearly local spending to the national level.
Click to expand...

I got like a billion LD leaflets in the run up to the election. I can believe it.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
CyclopsRock said:
Genuine question, why does anyone on the street care about productivity? I get that, in theory, lower productivity means the same wage costs with lower (or, in reality, the same) income and therefore it stagnates wages, but is it a useful statistic on a national, generalised level? It's a bit like inflation in that respect - if you're a freight company, the cost of food isn't that relevant to your costs but the cost of fuel has a huge impact. Likewise, surely whether Tesco and ARM have decent productivity (or not) is irrelevant to you at Starbucks or Saatchi. People on the street (as opposed to businesses) care about inflation because their spending tends to be generalised and the inflationary "basket" is designed to be an average of household costs, but productivity? It seems too generalised.

I get why it's important from a macro point of view, just not for actual human people.
Click to expand...

You can say this of literally any macro statistic. Why do I care if GDP/capita is higher? I'm only concerned with my own real income, not the national average. I don't care what Bobs earns.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Crab said:
You can say this of literally any macro statistic. Why do I care if GDP/capita is higher? I'm only concerned with my own real income, not the national average. I don't care what Bobs earns.
Click to expand...

I dunno, productivity just seems especially detached, company to company. Lowered GDP means less money sloshing around which is bad for basically everyone except pay day loan companies. Whether you're self employed or a grunt in a giant corporation, there are basically no circumstances where strong GDP growth isn't good for you, even if very indirectly. If company A has contributed a lot to GDP growth and Company B has lost a ton, they're both still affected by the resulting GDP figures. But productivity just seems useless as a metric for anything. If Company A's productivity is great, and company Bs isn't... Who cares? I mean, beyond what that means for GDP.
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I dunno, productivity just seems especially detached, company to company. Lowered GDP means less money sloshing around which is bad for basically everyone except pay day loan companies. Whether you're self employed or a grunt in a giant corporation, there are basically no circumstances where strong GDP growth isn't good for you, even if very indirectly. If company A has contributed a lot to GDP growth and Company B has lost a ton, they're both still affected by the resulting GDP figures. But productivity just seems useless as a metric for anything. If Company A's productivity is great, and company Bs isn't... Who cares? I mean, beyond what that means for GDP.
Click to expand...
Question: Do you think the Gross National Product is not contingent on productivity?
 
J

JonnyDBrit

Member
In today's NHS news: Stephen Hawking vs Jeremy Hunt
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hunt-says-stephen-hawking-is-wrong-on-the-nhs

Jeremy Hunt has been criticised for claiming Stephen Hawking is wrong in the row about the government’s seven-day NHS plan.

Hunt was responding to criticism from the renowned 75-year-old physicist and author of A Brief History of Time ahead of a speech at the Royal Society of Medicine on Saturday.

In the speech, Hawking will accuse the health secretary of “cherrypicking” favourable evidence while suppressing contradictory research to suit his argument.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Final Fantasy VII Rebirth is 100 hours long
News 2 3
135
11K
TrebleShot replied
Fallout - Series Reviews
14 15 16 17 18
883
42K
Dr. Claus replied
  • Locked
Metaphor: ReFantazio Details Story, World, Tribes, Characters, English Screenshots
Hype
2
499
Fake replied
These bugs come out at nighttime, and attacking victims, they silently kill or leave them with a lifelong infection
33
3K
Happosai replied
"Mass Effect: Parallax" -- Can an AI write a complex, branching video game story?
Game Dev
31
2K
Denton replied
Top Bottom