Thought this was interesting in so far as it's a bit of a hit job, get us all angry at the wank pass government, and I am.
This one seems more to do with the local council though, not sure why that would interest the economist.
Former Economist subscriber, in my opinion this plays into the Economist's centre-right positioning. They are liberals and might not be the most fiscally right-wing but there is a trope they sometimes use where they remind readers that Labour aren't always socially liberal; Tories are bon vivants who let people have a little flutter/gander/drink while Labour are hall monitor buzzkills. You actually see the trope a lot more often in the Spectator but it's present in miniature in the Economist too.
Which based on the last 12months of Queer Harmer's govt seems to be a fairly accurate position
I can't work out your political persuasion from that nickname for Sir Keith. There are reasons a right wing person would use it and there are different reasons for a left wing person.
Edit: But yeah, to your point, I agree that Labour - since New Labour - have had a bad record on civil liberties. Both parties do to be fair, and I think it's mainly due to the policies being popular amongst the general public and cheap to implement (for the government at least).
Well it's an epithet I use because it appropriately mocks a govt who were elected on a groundswell of "we've had the Tories up to the back teeth" and then preceded to do things even the Tories shied away from. I dunno where Starmer & Streeting got the idea that being a Poundland Reform was going to endear them to voters but the polls answer the question. That and the fact he's filled his Cabinet and the Human Rights board with TERFs, cracked down on protests worse than the Tories have previously done and generally made the worse parts of the Conservative party seem like reasonable people. I can't recall who it was but a former Tory minister criticised him a couple of weeks ago for going too far on authoritarian crackdowns. Hell the welfare changes he walked back were ones the Cameron govt considered and rejected for being too extreme.
Ok, I understand where you're coming from now!
People are employed at these places, people spend money, workers get income etc.
Its straight up included in the GDP figures as it's a service.
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.