Friday 2nd June 2017
Papers Reviewed: The Sun, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Times
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: LEAF IT OUT
Author(s): Tom Newton Dunn (Political editor)
Analysis: The Sun claims that the budget from Jeremy Corbyn’s (The Labour Party Leader) platform will cost families and extra £3500 a year and “blow a £300billion hole in Britain’s finances’. This far from impartial front page headline from The Sun clearly indicates that they are not voting Labour this election. This opinion piece puts forth a number of accusations: that Corbyn proposes “eye-watering” tax hikes (this front page does not reveal who would be affected by these rising taxes); that if elected, the party hopes to write off a number of student loans; and that this budget is just a form of “election bribe” for Corbyn to secure votes. There are no opinions from any sources presented in this text, other than that of the author. While figures are given to illustrate the large sums of money referred to in the text, this is a very good example of how a simple political platform and budget can be interpreted in many ways. While Corbyn proposes writing off a significant amount of student loans, no information is given as to how much money will be saved by Labour’s proposed Tax Transparency and Enforcement Programme, which aims to close tax loopholes for the rich. Political party manifesto’s can be long and hard to read, but in only presenting a limited amount of information, and the opinions of just one author, a completely different and biased presentation of a select amount of facts, aims to convince the reader to take on the political views of the Sun. The full Labour Manifesto for the UK 2017 General Election can be found here: http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017
Topic of article: US Politics; environment
Headline: Anger at US as Trump rejects climate accord
Author(s): Oliver Milman (Environment reporter); Damian Carrington (Environment editor)
Analysis: Donald Trump has announced that the US will be withdrawing from the historic Paris Climate Agreement, signed in 2015, a significant move as the US is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. The article contains opinions from numerous sources, and differing views, from Donald Trump himself, to former US president Barack Obama (who signed the agreement in 2015), as well as arguments from an unnamed Whitehouse document claiming the deal had been “signed out of desperation”, and analyses by non-for=profit organisations. While certain Trump supporters claim that climate change is a myth, this issues is not controversial but a proven fact. Almost 200 countries signed the Paris agreement to help tackle greenhouse gas emissions, after more than two decades of failed efforts to come to a consensus. Essentially, after just a few months in office, president Trump has erased more than 20 years of work. While he claims to be acting in the best interests of his “beautiful country”, his denial of climate change jeopardises not just the future of the citizens of the US, but the future generations of the world. Trump claims to be acting in the best interests of the US economy, helping those working in the coal industry for example. He adds in a great line that he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. Poetic? For Trump, yes. If you’re looking for something to do this evening, I suggest following this story- as the Mayor of Pittsburgh himself blasts Trump for his actions. This may represent a very sad day for environmental activists and citizens of the world alike. A very worthy front page headline.
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: We will use SNP to give us power, says Labour
Author(s): Francis Elliott (Political Editor); Sam Coates (Deputy Political Editor)
Analysis: This article focusses on an in-depth look at what Jeremy Corbyn plans to do in the event of a minority government, as the shadow foreign secretary reveals that that party will look to the Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs for support. So what’s the fuss about a minority government. Essentially if the party that wins the election does not have the majority of seats in parliament, this makes it very hard to pass any bills. All of the other members of parliament (MPs), who would represent other political parties, would, as a group, have more votes than the party in power. This results in policies that need to pass with the majority of votes would stagnate in a so called “hung parliament”. The labour party here proposes that they would focus on the support and votes from SNP MPs to help pass Labour bills if this is the case. While the Conservatives have leapt on these remarks saying that Jeremy Corbyn would “invite the other parties to prop him up as prime minister”, what is not presented on this front page story is the view that this shows a great sign that Corbyn is aiming to team work in the event of a minority government. This article presents a biased view with some facts of what Labour might be planning on doing, with criticisms and opinions from the Tories. What will the Conservative party do in the event of a minority government? What is evident in this article is the growing fear of Conservative Party supporters over the rising support for the Labour Party.
Topic of article: Politics
Headline: CORBYN’S SLY DEATH TAX TRAP
Author(s): Daniel Martin (Policy Editor)
Analysis: A proposed inheritance tax change by the Labour Party for the UK general election would reduce the inheritance tax threshold from £850,000 to £650,000. While Daniel Martin does a great job here of explaining what all of this means, this article is still a biased piece. While half of the front page text is devoted to the details of the tax, the rest is coverage of the Conservative platform and the party’s own beliefs and critiques of the tax. It is ironic that Teresa May’s (the Conservative Party leader and current prime minister) platform claimed to be focussing on “mainstream Britain” in reality, their views on increasing the threshold for inheritance tax to £1million will only seek to help wealthy, upper-middle class families, as few “mainstream” folks could expect such a generous inheritance. While an in depth explanation of the ins and outs of the proposed Labour inheritance tax occurs, the author then points to the “better” Conservative plan to “charge some people more for social care”. By analysing the Labour budget while only presenting vague claims by the Conservative party, the paper attempts to convince the reader to vote Conservative. Just how many British are included in this “some people” claim? We may never know.
Front page images from: Kiokso ( http://en.kiosko.net/uk/)
Reviewed by: Anjali Menezes