HOLIDAY cottage rentals in popular locations across the UK have ramped up prices amid the ongoing demand for a summer break. According to experts from Which? though, those looking to save a sizeable amount of money should plan ahead for the next school holiday. Where can savings be found?
The by-election victory over the Conservatives in the Chesham and Amersham constituency has been hailed by Lord Adonis as a sea-change in attitudes. In the June 17 by-election, Liberal Democrat candidate Sarah Green took 56.7 percent of the vote and the Tory candidate Peter Fleet lagged behind with 35.5 percent. The chair of the European Movement UK, Lord Adonis, was referring to the Liberal Democrats shock win in the Chesham and Amersham by-election when he tweeted: “The campaign to rejoin the EU just took a big step forward after last night’s by-election.”
However, some analysts say that voters were swayed to side with the Liberal Democrats in the by-election because of local issues, rather than Brexit.
One major issue debated in the by-election was the Government’s plans to build the new HS2 rail link through the areas’ Chiltern Hills.
Other analysts point to deeper sentiments, because of the fact that Liberal Democrat Sarah Green secured a majority of 8,028, which overturned a seat held by the Tories since 1974.
Polling guru Professor John Curtice reacted to the Chesham and Amersham win by pointing out that most citizens in the constituency voted to stay in the EU.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he said: “The result was a combination of the Remain inclination of the constituency and a number of local issues, HS2, planning.”
He added: “Labour voters, who of course the majority are Remain voters, were quite happy to switch to the Liberal Democrats.”
Lord Adonis was derided with suggestions that he was over-reacting after the Chesham and Amersham Liberal Democrat win.
One Twitter follower of Lord Adonis responded with a sarcastic tweet and said: “Yes, The Lib Dems rocketing from 11 to 12 seats is going to make all the difference.
When Josh Hawley was last in the headlines, it was for spearheading the effort to challenge the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s victory on January 6. The main legal theories behind the objections were specious and contradictory; it was a deeply cynical effort. And in The Tyranny of Big Tech, Hawley has produced a deeply cynical book. The Missouri senator raises valid concerns about the technology industry, and he proposes solutions worth taking seriously. But he embeds these ideas in a broader argument that is so wildly misleading as to call the entire project into question.
Hawley’s substantive critiques of Silicon Valley will be familiar to anyone who has watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix: Smartphones are addictive. Behavioral advertising is manipulative. Social media is bad for children’s mental health. The biggest tech companies together spend tens of millions of dollars each year to buy influence in Washington. Facebook, Google, and Twitter wield too much power over communication. And they use it, Hawley says, to discriminate against conservatives. (Likewise Simon & Schuster, the book’s original publisher, which dropped Hawley after the Capitol riot—evidence, Hawley writes, of corporate America trying to silence him. The book eventually found a home with Regnery Publishing, a conservative imprint.)
Where Hawley’s book departs from the standard anti-tech treatise is in his attempt to tie the current moment into a grand theory of American political history. In Hawley’s telling, people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are the direct ideological descendants of the original Gilded Age robber barons. Their dominance is the culmination of what he calls “corporate liberalism,” a philosophy in which, he writes, the state and big business conspire to deny the common man his independence and self-government. According to Hawley, corporate liberalism became entrenched a century ago in both major political parties, and today, “Big Tech and Big Government seek to extend their influence over every area of American life.”
And so Hawley spends a large portion of the book recounting these historical roots. The hero of his narrative is Theodore Roosevelt, whom Hawley views as the champion of a small-r republican tradition dating back to the nation’s founding. “He believed that liberty depended on the independence of the common man and on his capacity to share in self-government,” Hawley writes. “He believed concentrations of wealth and power threatened the people’s control and thus their freedom.” Roosevelt established those bona fides by bringing a successful antitrust case against financier J. P. Morgan in 1904. But his republican vision met its tragic demise in the election of 1912, when Roosevelt lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, whom Hawley calls “the nation’s first prominent corporate liberal.” Where Roosevelt championed the common man, Wilson favored government by corporate aristocratic elites. Once in office, he put an end to the anti-monopoly movement, settling instead for friendly cooperation with big business. “This was the Wilsonian settlement, the triumph of corporate liberalism that would dominate America’s politics and political economy for a century and reach its apotheosis with Big Tech,” Hawley writes.
It’s an interesting story, and Hawley tells it well. The trouble is that it gets almost every important thing wrong. In the 1912 election, it was Roosevelt, not Wilson, who favored cooperation between government and business elites. After the 1904 showdown with Morgan, Roosevelt had decided that “good” trusts were fine, as long as he got to regulate them. This arrangement was much more palatable to the tycoons. George Perkins, a partner of Morgan’s at US Steel, was a leader and major funder of Roosevelt’s Progressive Party during the 1912 campaign. Morgan himself donated more than $ 4 million in today’s dollars to Roosevelt’s 1904 reelection bid. Hawley does not mention these cozy relationships.
Wilson, on the other hand, was the real anti-monopoly candidate of 1912. His “New Freedom” platform was heavily influenced by Louis Brandeis, generally considered the godfather of anti-monopolism; as president, Wilson would elevate Brandeis to the Supreme Court (a connection Hawley only briefly acknowledges). To portray Wilson as the pro-corporate candidate, Hawley pulls his words so far out of context that they take on the inverse of their actual meaning. He cites a speech, for example, in which Wilson said, “Big business is no doubt to a large extent necessary and natural.” But if you follow the footnote, you will find that this is part of an argument against monopolies. “What most of us are fighting for is to break up this very partnership between big business and the government,” Wilson declared. “I take my stand absolutely, where every progressive ought to take his stand, on the proposition that private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable.”
Hilary Duff is now a mother of three! The millennial queen revealed that she welcomed her precious bundle of joy with husband Matthew Koma in the most adorable way.
Welcome to the world, little one! Hilary Duffand her husband Matthew Koma welcomed the newest member of their family: their second child together, and Hilary’s third overall. Hilary revealed the big news by confirming that her second child, Banks Violet Bair, is no longer the youngest member of the family…which Banks didn’t seem too pleased about.
Hilary shared a photo of Banks looking grumpy while soaking in the tub. “I’m a big sister …… marinating on how I feel about that!,” Hilary wrote as she pretended to be her daughter. The Disney Channel alum also tagged her husband, Matthew, in the photo. While the Younger star didn’t outright state that she gave birth, fans presumed that this was Hilary’s hilarious way of delivering the news and offered their “congratulations.” This announcement arrives five months after Hilary revealed that she’s pregnant again.
It doesn’t seem like that long ago when Hilary and Matthew shared that they were expecting a new addition to their family. Hilary took to Instagram on October 24, amid the coronavirus pandemic, to share that she was “growing!” Her post included a video of her doting husband rubbing her belly, with a caption that read, “We are growing!!! Mostly me.”
This is Hilary’s third child that she has given birth to. The Younger actress welcomed her first child, son Luca Cruz Comrie, on March 20, 2012 during her first marriage to NHL player Mike Comrie. The couple were married from 2010 until their divorce was finalized in 2016. In January 2017, Hilary began dating her love Matthew, with whom she worked on her 2015 album Breathe In. Breathe Out.
It wasn’t long before sparks flew between the co-workers, who quickly took their relationship to the next level! While they were dating, Hilary became pregnant with their daughter, Banks Violet Bair, who was born in October 2018. The couple solidified their love for one another by finally exchanging their ‘I dos’ in a romantic ceremony on December 21, 2019!
Matthew considers Luca as his own child, and has totally immersed himself in the role of father to the youngster, along with his and Hilary’s baby girl! Hilary has always been so forthcoming about her time being a mother, sharing sweet photos and videos of her youngsters often. We cannot wait to see Hilary’s kiddos grow up before our eyes!
Russian star Daniil Medvedev will become the first new name in more than 15 years to break into the rankings among the world’s top two players when the ATP ratings are updated later this month.
The ATP confirmed on Saturday that Medvedev, 25, would rise one place to number two on March 15.
That means Medvedev will become the first player outside of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Andy Murray to be among the world’s top pair since July of 2005.
Medvedev achieves the feat despite suffering a shock defeat in the first round of the Rotterdam Open earlier this month, when he went out to Serbia’s Dusan Lajovic.
If Medvedev had reached the final in Rotterdam, he would have been guaranteed to overtake Nadal as number two, behind Djokovic.
However, the ATP confirmed on Saturday that the Russian is still now assured of that spot despite his early exit in the Netherlands.
The news came as the draw was made for the Open 13 Provence trophy in Marseille, where top seed Medvedev will play Egor Gerasimov of Belarus in the first round.
Current number two Nadal was forced out of an ATP tournament in Acapulco, Mexico, later this month due to a back injury.
Medvedev has enjoyed some remarkable form in recent months. Prior to his loss to Lajovic, the big Russian had suffered just one other defeat in his past 21 matches – going down to Djokovic in straight sets in the final of the Australian Open in February. Also on rt.comRackets and Australian Open dreams broken for Daniil Medvedev as 20-match winning run ends against Novak Djokovic in final (VIDEO)
There was also further joy for Russian tennis on Saturday as world number eight Andrey Rublev beat Greece’s Stefanos Tsitsipas to reach the final in Rotterdam.
Rublev, 23, will meet either Borna Coric of Croatia or Marton Fucsovics of Hungary in Sunday’s final.