The new channel’s critics don’t understand the difference between impartiality, which is required, and bias, which is not.
Upper class professionals are imposing their preference for formal settings – bringing the trade-off of higher prices and fewer affordable providers.
Why, then, are certain lockdown sceptics so keen to play down the loss of older lives? Aside from these errors, I suspect motivated reasoning is at play.
Overall, I still think that their re-use in the UK after the summer lull is evidence of the failure of the Government to think on the right margins.
I believe so – but nonetheless, the balance of risks, driven by economic and political trends, has definitely shifted.
Conservative messaging implies an implicit belief that there are no major state functions ripe for reform in any fiscal repair.
If first dose efficacy proves strong, the Prime Minister will have to break with those who fail to think about the marginal costs and benefits of shutdowns.
It’s safe to say the UK will have saved tens of thousands of additional lives relative to going at the EU-4’s pace over the coming months.
This is not to say that all of Dodds’ analysis is coherent or correct, but the days of unhinged Corbynite attacks on capitalism are over.
Government sometimes treats the constraints fatalistically, rather than seeing them as a problem that prices, incentives, and regulations could affect.
It might seem far-fetched that one could face jail for eating steak frites. But one could have said the same about not eating at least a scotch egg with your pint.
It’s baffling why think-tanks are taking the OBR assessments as truth, given its prediction record.
Stateside narratives have a tendency to be imported into UK politics – one of the knock-on effects of this messy Presidential election outcome.
We should judge the desirability of a pro-wind energy policy by the social value added, not the numbers employed in the sector.