In 2016, the government passed plain cigarette packaging legislation. The new law stated that packaging for cigarettes must have a standardised size, shape, and shade of green. The boxes must also carry health warnings which cover at least 65% of the surface area.
This was fantastic news for anti-tobacco industry lobbyists and public health campaigners. In the North East of England, it is predicted that the average smoker starts at the age of 15. At that age, being cool is often considered to be important and smoking can be perceived as the chic thing to do because of the glamorisation of smoking through fancy packaging. Plain packaging aims to prevent this.
Unsurprisingly, cigarette manufacturers were less pleased about the new laws. Last May, they accused the health minister of introducing these new regulations unlawfully. However, the high court and the court of appeal have since ruled against these claims.
A loophole was exploited in the plain packaging law though. Companies were allowed to sell cigarettes which don’t have the new packaging as long as they were produced before 20 May 2016. This caused cigarette manufacturers to ramp up production so they had a large amount stock to sell off before the law was implemented.
Another tactic that the cigarette manufacture Imperial employed involved applying stickers to the standardised packs to make them look more appealing. They argued that this technically was not part of the manufacturing process however a legal expert disagreed.
Ultimately, this is win for public health campaigners. Despite creative efforts from the cigarette companies and spending large sums of money on legal hours in attempt to stop the legislation, plain packaging is now almost universal everywhere. All non-standardised cigarette packaging produced before 20 May 2016 must be sold off by 20 May 2017 meaning that fancy cigarette packaging will gradually become increasingly rare as the dark green boxes finish phasing in.
For months, President Trump has been saying that his number one priority with regards to health policy is to “repeal and replace” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Immediately, questions were raised about what it would be replaced with and how many people might become insured as a result. Last night, the Republicans unveiled the American Health Care Act (AHCA) – the healthcare bill which will replace the PPACA and which may become ‘Trumpcare’.
What immediately strikes me about the bill is how like Obamacare it is. Children can remain on their parent’s plan until the age of 26 still and insurers cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions by jacking up prices. The stark similarities have caused many Republicans to condemn the AHCA as ‘Obamacare 2.0’ or ‘Obamcare-lite’.
Even some of the changes are minor. Under Obamacare, people without health insurance were penalised in the form of a tax. Under the AHCA, although there is no tax for people who go without cover, if they decide to re-enrol after being uninsured for more than 63 days, insurers can add a surplus charge of 30% for the first year of being covered again regardless of their health. The effect of this resemble that of Obamacare: US citizens are better off owning health insurance and keeping it.
Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge old people 3x more than they would charge young people however under the AHCA, insurers can charge old people 5x more than young people. Many predict that this will make health insurance slightly cheaper for young people but slightly more expensive for old people.
Many are pleased that Medicaid (the health care program that assists people on low-income) will continue to expand until 2020. After that, it will ‘freeze’ and be re-evaluated.
However, basic insurance plans will not be required to cover paediatric and maternity care from 2020 onwards.
The changes to tax credits are where things get slightly more complicated and the effects become more unclear. Under Obamacare, any individual with an annual income less than approximately $24,120 would be able to get a midlevel insurance plan for no more than 6.4% of their income. People earning more than that figure would not be entitled to any tax credits.
Under the AHCA, any individual earning less than $75,000 will be entitled to tax credits. The amount depends vastly on age though and varies from $2000 for those under the age of 30 to $4000 for those over the age of 60.
Accurate statistics regarding who will benefit and who will not are still emerging. As are the Congressional Budget Office’s figures showing how much the AHCA will cost the US government.
All of this might not matter anyway, the bill is currently facing intense scrutiny from Senators and congressmen both sides of the aisle and Trump is yet to endorse it. The future of the AHCA/Trumpcare may still look very different to the bill released yesterday.
Over the last few years, Twitter has subject to excessive scrutiny over its inability to deal with online trolls and failing to make people feel safe on their platform. However, with a new safety policy that they announced this week, Twitter might be finally about to deal with online harassment.
Before this week, if users saw something they thought was unacceptable on Twitter, they could report it. However, there was no guarantee that anything would be done to resolve the issue. Twitter now says that the report tool has been strengthened. Plus, they have announced three new ways of dealing with online abuse.
Firstly, for serial harassers, Twitter is working on solutions to permanently suspend them from creating new accounts. The focus of this will be to prevent the creation of accounts that are created primarily for abusive content.
Secondly, Twitter is working its algorithm into tweet replies so harassment is filtered out. This will also bring to the top higher-quality tweets.
Finally, Twitter is currently developing a ‘safe search’ which will filter out potentially sensitive content and Tweets from accounts that you don’t want to see.
According to Vice-President of Engineering Ed Ho, these modifications to Twitter aim to "give people more control over what they see on Twitter”. The changes will be rolled out to users over the next few months.
It has been one week since the final episode of The Grand Tour was released on Amazon Prime Video and since then I’ve had time to consolidate my thoughts on the show.
First, a bit of context. Jeremy Clarkson punched a producer and the BBC had to end his contract. It wasn’t long until Richard Hammond, James May, and Andy Wilman then decided to leave the BBC too and form their own production company with Clarkson. A few months later, Amazon snapped them up to create a car show for their streaming service.
In interviews before the release of the show, Clarkson, Hammond, May, and Wilman attempted to spin a positive view on what they have been making. James May said in an interview with Christian O’Connell, “It’s a relief because it has forced a rethink and it has refreshed us which is something we probably should have done - but which we wouldn’t have done had we stayed where we were because there’d be no incentive to.”
Their new show, The Grand Tour, launched in November and immediately it was far better than Chris Evan’s refreshed Top Gear but far worse than the Top Gear that was relaunched in 2002 by Clarkson and Wilman. Here is what is wrong with The Grand Tour:
Too Scripted
With speculation that Amazon have provided Clarkson, Hammond, and May with a budget far larger than the BBC ever did, they have (presumably) been able to employ new/more writers. Problem is: Clarkson, Hammond, and May are not actors. Jeremy’s opening monologue in each show, supplemented with canned laughter which doesn’t even attempt to appear remotely authentic, is not funny. And, the pseudo-banter exchanged in ‘Conversation Street’ is just awkward. Remember this?
🤗 hello & here's the full richard hammond 'ice creams are gay' piece and yeah, it's awful pic.twitter.com/JhDisRsc1Q
Entertainment First; Factual Second
At least at the BBC they pretended to be a factual show. They justified their crazy trips across India and their races across London and St. Petersburg as pieces mildly resembling public information films. They justified their homemade electric cars, hovercrafts, and emergency service vehicles as possible alternatives to solve the problems of the current ones. Furthermore, they concluded many episodes with ‘Top Gear Top Tips’. Long story short: everything had a point to it. However, on The Grand Tour, hardly anything seems to have a point to it. For example, in episode 2, the boys imitate special forces soldiers for no apparent reason. The cars in the scene feel like they were only added as an afterthought.
4K HDR
Admittedly, shiny red Ferraris do look good, and The Grand Tour will do joys for Amazon’s 4K TV sales figures, however most of the show is three wrinkling, middle-aged men mooching about. Therefore, extremely high picture quality and HDR is certainly necessary. Maybe I’m just bitter I don’t have a 4K TV.
The American
I get he is a Stig replacement but I just don’t get him. Does anyone find him funny?
Midnight Release
The Grand Tour is released on Amazon Prime every Friday at midnight. Online streaming already means that the notion of collective viewing is dead but releasing it at midnight eliminates the hype people have the next day. “OH MY GOD, did you see who/what Jeremy Clarkson insulted last night” is a phrase of the past. I would much rather The Grand Tour be released at 8pm so more people can watch it on release and talk about it straight away – this would probably increase the show’s ratings too. Apart from students, who is up at midnight?
Overall, The Grand Tour is, at best, mediocre light entertainment. I completely agree with a rather scathing Guardian review which singled James May out as the most valuable player but quipped "The Reassembler … is a trillion times better than The Grand Tour."
In other news, the BBC (remember them) released a trailer this week for the new Chris-Evans-less Top Gear. It actually looks half-decent.
A person, probably a woman, talking and smiling into
a generic microphone. Little does she know that she is
the cover image for a post on my blog
I don’t listen to much music but I spend a lot of time on public transport and walking around in London. What a predicament! So, instead of listening to traffic or attempting to make conversation with strangers on the tube, I opt to listen to some of the many podcasts that I’m subscribed to. Here are my six favourites.
(Note: From my choices, I think it will become quite clear what my interests are)
Commons People
This is The Huffington Post’s weekly politics podcast. It is light-hearted, fun, and the presenters are humorous but knowledgeable. Every episode, after discussion of the top news stories, there is a quiz about a topic that has been relevant in the past week. My favourites quizzes from previous episodes are: ‘Grammar or Bog-standard’, where the journalists needed to try and guess whether said politicians attended grammar, state, or private schools. And the ‘Morgan or Less Than’ quiz, where the journalists (with the help of Heidi Allen MP) needed to guess whether said politicians had attended more or less fringe events than Nicky Morgan at the Conservative Party conference… (Now I write this, I realise just how nerdy it sounds)
Page 94: The Private Eye Podcast
This witty podcast hosted by QI elf and Private Eye writer Andrew Hunter Murray is my favourite podcast. Each episode features discussions on politics, investigative journalism, or Private Eye culture to produce a truly fascinating listen. Highlights, for me, include the special episode commemorating Ian Hislop’s 30 years as editor, the episode about the Panama Papers, and the episode on revolving doors in politics. Wry humour and perspicacious politics journalism are a winning combination.
The Weeds
The Weeds is a Vox.com podcast hosted by journalists Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff, and Matthew Yglesias. In each episode, they dive deep into US policy and politics. The episodes are very thorough and are great if you're interested in more niche US political news.
Coffee House Shots
One of The Spectator’s many podcasts is this short, irregularly occurring one called ‘Coffee House Shots’. Compared to the rest, this is a relatively short podcast yet it manages to summarise and offer analysis on important political events that have happened lately. In recent episodes, Isabel Hardman and co have discussed the UK Supreme Court’s Brexit ruling, Theresa May’s ‘shared society’ speech, and the battle for press freedom.
Chips with everything
Chips with everything is a technology podcast from The Guardian. It includes the kind of high quality content you would expect from The Guardian. Notable discussions from recent episodes include an interview with the former deputy social media director for the Hillary Clinton campaign and a feature on how the Y2K bug came about. I’d recommend this podcast for anyone who has even a vague interest in technology or technology culture as they cover a wide range of topics.
Sound Show
Sound Show is a podcast birthed from Joshua Topolsky’s new culture news website ‘The Outline’. This podcast, hosted by sound director John Lagomarsino, is a joy to listen to. Enthralling content and unbeatable sound quality go hand in hand to make this podcast a pleasure for my ears. Just take a listen for yourself:
All podcasts mentioned, plus thousands more, can be found on the Apple Podcasts app and other popular podcast services.
If you’ve dragged yourself out of bed at any point over the last few weeks, you will have heard about the ‘leaked' Russian dossier stating crude things that President Trump allegedly did in Moscow some years ago. Although many news sites admit that it had been on their radar for a while now, they had decided not to publish it because the provenance wasn’t even slightly credible. Enter BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed published the dossier and sparked a media frenzy as mainstream news organisations (such as the BBC and CNN) started to report the story too - admittedly, in a more delicate kind of way. In a press conference following the reports, President Trump slammed CNN as “fake news” and wouldn’t take their question whilst he condemned BuzzFeed as a “failing pile of garbage”.
CNN has a network that reaches millions of people every day meaning when they lay a blow in to President Trump, it has impact. However, if CNN continue to run with stories with little evidence to support it, the impact of their scrutiny will start to diminish. I use CNN as an example but this is the same for any news organisation which decided to report on the Russian dossier.
As for BuzzFeed, they've always been a lost cause in my eyes. I commend them for being a large part of the investigation that exposed the malpractice at Kids Company and for having such a large network. However, their habit of publishing sketchy stories and then saying “it’s up to the reader to decide whether it is true or not” undermines their status as a news organisation and makes the whole news industry untrustworthy.
Another reason, news organisations in general should clamp down on their coverage of Trump controversies is because none of them stick. He is a snake sliding effortlessly though a field of scandals. Analysis of newspaper headlines after the election showed that Clinton’s consistent criticism was for her deleted emails yet there were dozens of Trump scandals. Muslim-ban-gate, Mexicans-are-rapists-gate, sexual-assault-allegations-gate, women-who-have-abortions-should-be-punished-gate, and grab-them-by-the-pussy-gate - to name a few.
Chart via Media Matters
The more scrutiny the better, right? Wrong. Unlike Clinton’s deleted emails, most of Trump’s scandals could only be explored superficially because it was only a matter of days before the next one came along. This meant that the significance of Clinton’s deleted email was blown way out of proportion because the coverage spanned many months.
If liberal news organisations are trying to turn Trump voters off Trump, they need to realise that controversies don’t repel his supporters. In fact, they make him appear politically incorrect thus anti-establishment (like what many Americans desire). Instead, news organisations should really start scrutinising his policy decisions. The first steps have already been made to repeal Obamacare which could cause 18 million people to lose health insurance. This is an issue which needs far more attention than what it is getting. By covering this extensively, the liberal media might win over some Trump voters but, more importantly, they would be doing an effective job of holding the President to account.
Credit where credit is due though, Vox is getting a name for itself producing in-depth policy analysis. Just before the Obama administration ended they held an hour-long interview on Obamacare and its future. Plus, they have recently also published pieces on possible Supreme Court nominations, Trump killing the TPP free trade deal, and Trump’s plan to cut Medicade. These are all matters of serious substance which need scrutinising and exploring in order for voters to understand what Trump’s administration is achieving. Sadly, at the moment, not many news organisations are rising to that challenge and instead opt to publish the platitude entertaining scandal stories.
To conclude, although it acts as excellent click-bait, the media should try and report less on the next alleged Trump scandal and, instead, home in on the many executive orders he has been signing this week and what they will mean for the American people. As for BuzzFeed, they should go back to publishing quizzes about which character from Friends I would be – and nothing else.
There is just less than one month to go until Donald Trump is inaugurated as President of the United States. Many Americans are relying on the system of checks and balances outlined in the US constitution and other forms of scrutiny to protect their civil rights. Also, to prevent Trump from implementing any of the regressive policy ideas he discussed in the campaign. However, I don’t think Trump is going to face many significant obstacles when making any kind of decision as President.
Congress
The Republicans have maintained their majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, making it far easier for Trump to pass legislation – a luxury that Obama only had for two of his eight years.
During the campaign, many Republican Senators refused to endorse Trump however, like almost everything said in the campaign, many are retracting their defiant comments. Now there is a Republican in the White House, they have a chance to make real differences. Congressmen and Senators have nothing to lose by working with Trump; every Trump victory is a victory for them so the Republicans are in a win-win situation.
Supreme Court
Obama spent the last year of his presidency trying to appoint a Liberal by the name of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Due to Republicans refusing to schedule a hearing for Garland in the Senate, Obama was unsuccessful in his appointment attempt. Trump, on the other hand, should face no problems appointing a Conservative to the court. From what he has said in interviews recently, the judge will likely be pro-life and anti-gay marriage.
It is also likely that Trump will get the chance to appoint further justices to the Supreme Court over the course of his term. The Liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Conservative-leaning Anthony Kennedy are both over 80 years-old. Given the opportunity, Trump will be able to upset the current balance of the Supreme Court and make it lean conservative.
Media
The media industry is currently going through a fake news crisis which is undermining the credibility of even respectable titles. Most of the fake news that goes viral on social media comes from Conservative leaning sources.
Furthermore, Trump supporters are very sceptical of mainstream media. A national Quinnipiac University poll in October revealed that 55% of likely voters said that they think the media is bias against Trump. Furthermore, Trump has spent the last few weeks tweeting almost endlessly about the bias of the mainstream media.
Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!
In the past, the media has had the means to sway public opinion and scrutinise decisions with some weight however nowadays there appears to be a larger trend in people only reading news that they want to believe. Trump is subtly encouraging this because it works in his favour.
Foreign Policy
With regards to foreign policy, Presidents are not subject to the same checks and balances that they are with domestic policy. For example, Trump can press the ‘nuclear button’ or order a military intervention (like what was seen in Vietnam and Iraq) without running it through Congress first. With rumours that the transition from Obama to Trump is chaotic and RealClearPolitics’ Simendinger and Caitlin Huey-Burns describing Trump’s cabinet as “loyalists”, Trump’s ability to make educated and thought-out decisions in times of crisis will be undoubtedly compromised.
There is a well-known phrase in the politics sphere that goes “you can’t do anything in opposition”. Sadly, for the Democrats and liberal media, that is even more true in a time when some opposition - any opposition - would be beneficial for democracy and the future of the US.
In October, Apple announced an update to the MacBook Pro line. The 13-inch and 15-inch models are now thinner, lighter, and boast a Touch Bar. The Touch Bar sits at the top of the keyboard, replacing the line of function keys, and changes the menu options depending on what app you are in. Many guess this the closest Apple wants to get to creating a touchscreen Mac anytime soon. However, after a month of use, many have deemed it useless. And that is only where the problems with the 2016 MacBook Pro begin.
Dongles
For any computer aimed at professionals to be decent it needs to host a wide variety of ports so it is a versatile device. Apple have however scrapped the USB ports, SD-card reader, HDMI port, and Thunderbolt ports and replaced them all with USB-C ports which are still a rare oddity. Even the MagSafe charger port has gone which is a step backwards for Apple. Numerous times when I’ve tripped on my charger, the magnetic-ended cable has just clicked out of the port rather than sweeping a £1000 laptop onto the floor.
Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to get rid of the optical disk drive in 2012 and although many found that irritating at the time, it wasn’t the end of the world because there was a trend in people downloading software and media from the internet rather than via a disk. Hardly anyone uses USB-C though so it is a nonsensical move from Apple as hardly any devices are compatible.
The lack of ports has forced many to delve into the ugly world of dongles simply to get their current cameras, chargers, external hard drives, monitors, and leads to work.
Lighter and Thinner
Why are tech companies obsessed with making lighter and thinner devices at the expense of functionality and battery life? If you want a lightweight MacBook, get the new so-called 'MacBook’ or MacBook Air. I, like many, would rather have a slightly heftier MacBook Pro though as long as it means getting a longer battery life, a deeper keyboard, and a more diverse range of ports. The old MacBook Pros are convenient because they are the sweet spot between the power and capabilities of an iMac but the portability of a MacBook Air. The new 2016 MacBook Pro compromises too much.
Touch Bar
The new Touch Bar is a great feature if you’re part of Apple’s marketing team as it makes the new MacBook appear special and your job easy, but, to everyone else, it's just an expensive gimmick. All the features and options you need already on screen so you can just use your mouse to click on them. The Touch Bar interface has been under scrutiny as well. On some menus you scroll, others swipe, and on others you press through menus. There is no uniform interactive language.
The only thing worse than a Mac with a Touch Bar is the prospect of a Mac with a touchscreen. But that, my friend, is a rant for another day.
Fashion
Half of the people who own MacBooks don’t even need them; a £300 Windows PC would be suffice for their word processing and internet browsing. So why do so many people own a MacBook? It’s a fashion statement. A key part of the appeal is the luminous Apple logo on the rear of the screen and the iconic start up chime. However, on the 2016 MacBook, in attempt to remove everything that people liked about MacBooks, Apple has removed both of these quirks. The Apple logo is still on the back but it is only reflective and the laptop now turns on silently.
Brexit
And here is the cherry on the top: it costs £500 more in the UK! Apple have raised their MacBook prices everywhere but many say that Britain has been subject to the steepest increase because of Brexit and the economic uncertainty that brings.
Overall, if you’re considering getting a 2016 new MacBook Pro, consider ye olde 2015 MacBook Pros first. They are just as powerful, have a battery just as long, but come with more ports, and a light up Apple badge. You should also ask yourself if you really need a MacBook Pro at all. Lenovo, Microsoft, Dell and HP all have exciting, practical laptops for the same price or cheaper that are just as good.
