It's not the principle of coalition that should be judged, it's the actions of such an body, says Giles Fraser
Why are the newspapers being so stupid about the nature of coalition government?
They are running all those shock-horror stories exposing the differences and tensions between the parties.
No: “Coalition partners disagree” is not a headline — it’s a tautology. Of course coalition partners disagree: that’s why it’s called a coalition.
Read full article here.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(41)
-
▼
June
(25)
- New wine in old church buildings
- Crayfish, mixed cloth and homosexuality
- God, Google and the Gospel
- Ambition and a Future Target
- Ambition Without Risk?
- New religious freedom rhetoric within the Obama ad...
- A Review of The Rage Against God. By Peter Hitchens
- Teasing out the morality of coalition
- The courts of ‘Oh Canada’: From gay marriage to po...
- A good explanation of Conservative Evangelical con...
- Angry Anglicans
- Inventing homophobic bogeymen
- Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?
- The science of cake
- To Prosperity Preachers: Teach Them to Go
- Hurt Before Fruit
- Session 2 - Matt Chandler at the 300 Leaders Confe...
- None but Jesus
- Politics of Pentecost
- Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the...
- Rowan’s Pentecost letter in a nutshell
- Divorced bishops to be permitted for first time by...
- Sexually Indulgent Now, Marriage Ruined Later?
- I'm a spiritual person
- It is best to mark the death of a ‘child of God’ w...
-
▼
June
(25)
No comments:
Post a Comment