Daily Archive

The Independent recently upgraded its web site to the point of its now being almost pleasant to browse. (Previously, it had been rather drab . . .

. . . and spelling difficulties don’t seem quite the problem they had been, either.) And the paper thankfully also ditched pay per article some time ago. So the Indy is now easier on the internet eye and (insofar as one can tell) pretty much wholly available online.

In comparison, the Express’s web site seems suspended somewhere in the web stone age (c. 1999). Many avocational blogs are far better. Even worse, in only providing a few articles online (in comparison to its most direct market competitor, the Mail), it is now probably the weakest online content-providing major (semi-serious) UK newspaper.

Strangely, though, both realities don’t necessarily add up to the problem they otherwise might. For if it were far better and more complete online, many more out there globally might spellbindingly click over and take in the likes of Express journalism such as this opener (which I scanned as a photo for your entertainment) from Peter Sheridan, byline Los Angeles, April 19 (via my wife, who had stumbled upon it and couldn’t contain herself):

AT WEEKENDS, John Paulson likes to walk past the trellised roses, beyond the lily pond to the spa and pool overlooking the pristine lake on his 10-acre estate where his Georgian-style mansion rests in the elite seaside resort of the Hamptons in upstate New York…

Yes, unfortunately, given that so many excellent Express pieces remain “print-only”, you actually must fork over hard-earned cash to enjoy quality reporting such as that.

_____________________________

However, as bad and ideologically distorted as British newspapers sometimes may be, they are often founts of wonder and news-providing encyclopedias compared to major U.S. papers. Why we tolerate it I don’t know, but every U.S. newspaper seemingly looks and reads pretty much like every other one — from one end of the country to the other. And the only contact with the outside world beyond U.S. borders always seems to be reduced to a half-page stream of Associated Press blurbs. (I do not link to the A.P. any longer, and I explain why in the sidebar.) Thank goodness, now, for the internet.

The Times:

Alistair Darling will call Labour rebels to a series of private meetings today over the 10p tax issue as he begins a week-long operation to spare Labour its most embarrassing Commons defeat since it came to power in 1997.

The Chancellor launched the fightback yesterday by promising that he would seek to compensate low-paid workers made worse off by the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

If this weren’t so serious, it would almost be funny. For next, given this Government’s knee-jerk track record, once the Labour infighting winds down, the public will likely be duly informed that “low earners” (meaning single people earning under £18,500 a year) might possibly perhaps maybe, if one jumps through freakin’ here and then through these next 15 hoops, and with an accountant on retainer will be graciously provided “exemptions”.

He insisted that there could be no immediate concessions, however, and said that the current “constrained circumstances” limited what he could do for those on low pay…

If Mr Darling believes current circumstances are “constrained” as far as he’s concerned, he might ask the likes of the hair dresser interviewed by GMTV around 7 this morning, who says she now will have to pay £100 more each year? Actually, one suspects she might be underestimating her tax increase. The BBC reports:

…The tax change means people who would have paid income tax at the lowest, introductory 10% rate will now have to pay the 20% rate.

It is part of a range of measures which came into force this month. Child benefits, state pensions and tax credits have all gone up.

The Commons Treasury committee has said childless, single people earning under £18,500 will lose up to £232 a year.

That those even without children and earning over £18,500 may do better is irrelevant. What’s astonishing is this: Labour, supposedly the party of “the workers”, has chosen unapologetically to sock it to lower paid, single taxpayers. In contrast, if a nasty Conservative Cameron government had even dared to have considered introducing so regressive a tax measure for “low earners”, one just knows the red flags would already be unfurled, and there’d be marches in the streets. . .

_____________________________

UPDATE: Jackie Ashley in “Comment is Free“:

Labour MPs have a real and interesting opportunity. Let us be quite clear. If the rebellion over the 10p tax rate abolition continues to gather pace and the rebels hold their nerve, they can get rid of Gordon Brown as early as next week. The Tories, it seems, will line up with an amendment from Labour’s Frank Field to insist on a compensation package for those who will be worse off under the new tax rates. If Labour lost that vote, it would be all up for the prime minister.

It would be curtains because of the issue itself. Brown’s selling point as a politician has always been his concern for the poor. To fight and lose a key vote about taking hundreds of pounds of extra cash from more than 5 million of the poorest voters would be too big a humiliation to survive. Ahead of every knife-edge vote, government whips go around implying to possible rebels that the prime minister could resign. It happened with Blair and the Iraq war, as well as on foundation schools, and it happened time and again in the John Major years. This time, with Brown, it cannot be a bluff. He has stamped his authority on this so clearly that to lose would finish him…

And to think, Mr Brown just got back from a big trip to the U.S., too.