
Labour’s BSkyB windfall
In the 1990s, there seemed to be two kinds of people in the Labour Party. Those who treated winning the election as the top priority, and those who were unwilling to enter into any kind of Faustian pact with Ruperttest

In the 1990s, there seemed to be two kinds of people in the Labour Party. Those who treated winning the election as the top priority, and those who were unwilling to enter into any kind of Faustian pact with Ruperttest

An article in today’s Daily Mail willfully misconstrues the findings of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. While the article says the research goes against Government work-life balance policy, the report itself says the opposite.

The Independent today headline, “£2,840 – cost to every family of filling public finance black hole.” The problem is that the number is only half right.

The Daily Mail this morning falsely and maliciously lied about the cost of quangos.

Simon Heffer in today’s Telegraph (“The underserving poor will be Cameron’s biggest headache”) repeats the myth of: “an underclass of single parents that sociological surveys since Charles Murray have shown lead to poverty, criminality and underachievement by their children.” In fact,test

The Daily Mail headline screamed, “A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist’.” But American bloggers at Left Foot Forward’s sister site, Think Progress, have revealed that the organisers inflated the attendance by over 2,000 percent.test

When offered a greater choice in opinion polls, the public offer a truer reflection

In a story about the launch yesterday of the National Year of Music by Ed Balls, the Express highlighted the explicit content of music by NDubz, Lily Allen and Guns N’ Roses, claiming it will “dumb down music for millionstest

The Equalities Bill, will, for the first time, outlaw discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic background.

One of Ian Plimer’s central claims – reported by Melanie Phillips for The Spectator – is that Arctic sea ice is in fact growing. This assertion is, of course, simply wrong. But this week’s magazine, in arguing for new fossil fuel extraction in Arctic wilderness areas, carries the reverse claim. Are we witnessing a new editorial line on climate change – or is the magazine simply unconcerned about contradicting itself in the starkest terms on the biggest issue of our time?