Charles Moore has written a piece for the Spectator in which he salutes the bravery of those standing firm against gay equality, saying that gay marriage today is “as brave as being openly gay was in 1970”.
Shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie accused George Osborne of “lashing out in a frenzied way” in his Spectator interview today.
Alex Hern reminds everyone that Rod Liddle’s never been the nicest journalist on the block – and that his latest outrageous comments are just par for the course
The latest Spectator claims the sea level rise in the Maldives is a “lie”. And their source for this claim? Climate denier and pseudoscientist Nils-Axel Mörner.
The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson is wrong on the 50p tax rate, Left Foot Forward’s Duncan Weldon reveals.
Writing in the Spectator, Fraser Nelson claims that the 50p tax rate, along with other high profile taxes on the wealthy, actually reduces tax revenue from the top percentile. The major piece of evidence he draws on is the table below. Showing the tax liability through income tax shouldered by various deciles of the tax base, he argues that as you reduce the top rate of tax, you actually collect more revenue.
Even if the Tories won a higher share of the vote in 1945 and 1966 than they did this year, Cameron clearly achieved a better result than the eight occasions when another party won a majority (1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, Oct 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005) or the one Hung Parliament where Labour was the largest party, in February 1974.
The Spectator have been rebuked by the Press Complaints Commission for Rod Liddle’s inaccurate “goat curry” blog.
Peter Mandelson has been named politician of the year by the Spectator. His speech poked fun at the Bullingdon Club, Boris Johnson, and George Osborne.
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?
