Unfortunately, this deal is no longer available
The Spectator Magazine 12 issues for £12 + Get a £20 Amazon or John Lewis/Waitrose Voucher!
229° Expired

The Spectator Magazine 12 issues for £12 + Get a £20 Amazon or John Lewis/Waitrose Voucher!

45
Posted 27th Nov 2019

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

Effectively being paid £8 to read The Spectator.

12 issues for £12, with a free £20 Amazon Voucher.


£35.99 for every 13 issues after that, so if you don't want to subscribe, make sure you cancel.

-----
Subscribe to the print & digital editions of The Spectator

‘Never work with children, animals or The Spectator’
- Theresa May
The Spectator combines incisive political commentary with books and arts reviews of unrivalled authority, as well as Britain’s funniest cartoons.

You will receive weekly delivery of the magazine; full website and app access; our Evening Blend and Weekly Highlights emails; as well as membership to the Spectator Club – including a selection of Spectator offers and events.

Plus a £20 Amazon.co.uk gift card.

Terms and conditions apply, see amazon.co.uk/gc-…gal

** Also now avaliable with a John Lewis/Waitrose £20 voucher.

spectator.co.uk/sub…NOW
Community Updates
If you click through or buy, retailers may pay hotukdeals some money, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.

Groups

Top comments
deals6927/11/2019 17:33

When do u get the gift card?


Rees Mogg brings it round at Candlemas.
You couldn't pay me £8 to read the Spectator.
jg21327/11/2019 18:03

Is it left or right wing?


It's right wing? Owned by the Barclay Brothers and in the same stable as The Telegraph.

They will have some left(ish) wing writers where standpoints coalesce, but quite staunchly supportive of the Conservative Party with a big C. Brexit supporters for all the wrong reasons: deregulation, consumer rights, privacy laws, human rights etc etc.

The fact they are being lauded for following an anti climate change editorial leaning says it all: Who needs experts.
jg21327/11/2019 18:03

Is it left or right wing?


Right and left distinctions no longer apply so well. I'm a lifelong, working-class Labour voter but find Spectator writers to be more in line with my views on liberty, for example, which was originally a left-wing value (and still should be). Same as with being pro-Brexit (O'Neil) and superb on the hysteria surrounding climate change (Delingpole). You can read as a libertarian socialist or a so-called neo-con. Writing is of a very high quality too.
45 Comments
When do u get the gift card?
deals6927/11/2019 17:33

When do u get the gift card?


Rees Mogg brings it round at Candlemas.
You couldn't pay me £8 to read the Spectator.
dearley123127/11/2019 18:00

You couldn't pay me £8 to read the Spectator.


Is it left or right wing?
dearley123127/11/2019 18:00

You couldn't pay me £8 to read the Spectator.


You don't need to read it
dearley123127/11/2019 18:00

You couldn't pay me £8 to read the Spectator.


Because you can't read?
jg21327/11/2019 18:03

Is it left or right wing?


Right and left distinctions no longer apply so well. I'm a lifelong, working-class Labour voter but find Spectator writers to be more in line with my views on liberty, for example, which was originally a left-wing value (and still should be). Same as with being pro-Brexit (O'Neil) and superb on the hysteria surrounding climate change (Delingpole). You can read as a libertarian socialist or a so-called neo-con. Writing is of a very high quality too.
dearley123127/11/2019 18:10

Because it is very left wing I think.


Eh, its pretty solidly conservative with a small c, but does have a balanced approach to both sides of the argument...
Sorry. Sounds like a great deal then.
This will be the 5th or 6th I have subscribed at this type of price. Excellent writing in the main.
Keep the voucher and use the magazine for when we have a toilet roll shortage
mike203uk27/11/2019 18:28

Right and left distinctions no longer apply so well. I'm a lifelong, …Right and left distinctions no longer apply so well. I'm a lifelong, working-class Labour voter but find Spectator writers to be more in line with my views on liberty, for example, which was originally a left-wing value (and still should be). Same as with being pro-Brexit (O'Neil) and superb on the hysteria surrounding climate change (Delingpole). You can read as a libertarian socialist or a so-called neo-con. Writing is of a very high quality too.


I'll just leave this here. dailymotion.com/vid…0pc
It’s one of the few publications worth reading,
followed by the Guardian comments section, which has normal people refuting the Momentum zealots and their ludicrous opinion pieces.

basically libertarian / very small c con
Delingpole can be flaky in interviews, something which he readily admits - possibly a side effect of Lyme disease. On paper he is articulate, witty, and uses plenty of evidence. Apparently this interview was edited to a few minutes from two hours. We all have our less than stellar moments. I would disagree with much of what Delingpole says. However I am reasonable and that means taking arguments seriously especially when empirical support is presented - from the left or the right.
jg21327/11/2019 18:03

Is it left or right wing?


It's right wing? Owned by the Barclay Brothers and in the same stable as The Telegraph.

They will have some left(ish) wing writers where standpoints coalesce, but quite staunchly supportive of the Conservative Party with a big C. Brexit supporters for all the wrong reasons: deregulation, consumer rights, privacy laws, human rights etc etc.

The fact they are being lauded for following an anti climate change editorial leaning says it all: Who needs experts.
A few months ago they were offering a £20 Waitrose gift card for a £12 trial sub . I thought about it, having only recently cancelled my own subscription - but I decided I really couldn't stand having it in the house any more. Deputy ed Mary Wakefield is Michael Gove's wife. That's all you need to know about it's political leanings.
Last year it was a Google Home for the same price.
Just signed up to New Statesman for the same money.

Have a look through the last years covers and see which one tickles your fancy...

newsstand.co.uk/197…spx

newsstand.co.uk/197…spx


Click the mag cover and you can scroll back...

edit: in saying all that, I usually find Katy Balls quite articulate when on TV - on the other hand Rod Liddle writes for them - basically sums it up!
Edited by: "meherenow" 27th Nov 2019
TheWorthinger27/11/2019 20:35

It's right wing? Owned by the Barclay Brothers and in the same stable as …It's right wing? Owned by the Barclay Brothers and in the same stable as The Telegraph. They will have some left(ish) wing writers where standpoints coalesce, but quite staunchly supportive of the Conservative Party with a big C. Brexit supporters for all the wrong reasons: deregulation, consumer rights, privacy laws, human rights etc etc. The fact they are being lauded for following an anti climate change editorial leaning says it all: Who needs experts.


I would have said something along the same lines a few years back, especially with regards to climate change. The more you read around the subject, science, politics, international relations, NGOs, the more it seems there is no expert consensus, far from it. I tend now to think of the greens as being on the right wing (conservative with a small c) and even somewhat misanthropic. No doubt many have good intentions, including members of XR, but have become blinkered. Also, ownership by Barclay Bs doesn't undermine a position. It doesn't matter who publishes, you have to evaluate what is on the page in terms of quality of argument/evidence.
mike203uk27/11/2019 22:23

I would have said something along the same lines a few years back, …I would have said something along the same lines a few years back, especially with regards to climate change. The more you read around the subject, science, politics, international relations, NGOs, the more it seems there is no expert consensus, far from it. I tend now to think of the greens as being on the right wing (conservative with a small c) and even somewhat misanthropic. No doubt many have good intentions, including members of XR, but have become blinkered. Also, ownership by Barclay Bs doesn't undermine a position. It doesn't matter who publishes, you have to evaluate what is on the page in terms of quality of argument/evidence.


The idea that there is no expert concensus on climate change is quite frankly ludicrous.

Youll be telling me theres no link between smoking and cancer next.

Or liquid and drowning.
Cheers OP, given it a go. Mind you can't find any t&c's on the £20 card as to when it's sent.

OK, up to 28 days as mentioned earlier. In confirmation e-mail under 'need to change something'.
Edited by: "Ridgehead" 27th Nov 2019
mike203uk27/11/2019 22:23

I would have said something along the same lines a few years back, …I would have said something along the same lines a few years back, especially with regards to climate change. The more you read around the subject, science, politics, international relations, NGOs, the more it seems there is no expert consensus, far from it. I tend now to think of the greens as being on the right wing (conservative with a small c) and even somewhat misanthropic. No doubt many have good intentions, including members of XR, but have become blinkered. Also, ownership by Barclay Bs doesn't undermine a position. It doesn't matter who publishes, you have to evaluate what is on the page in terms of quality of argument/evidence.


Owners: Barclay brothers
Former editor: Boris Johnson
Current Deputy Editor: Dominic Cummings wife!
Edited by: "bitsmissing" 27th Nov 2019
seanjames27/11/2019 21:13

Comment deleted


That's an interesting opinion, I cancelled my TV licence because I was fed up of the constant progressive liberal group think

I defy you to find any item on R4 Woman's Hour that isn't copied verbatim from the ranting loons over at BuzzFeed
Edited by: "horsey" 27th Nov 2019
Heat added as I've gone for the deal. I shop a lot on Amazon so that was what appealed to me. Never read it before. I would say my politics are more liberal leaning, but maybe I will get something out of it other than the voucher.
I think there are more Spectator readers on HUKD than I imagined...
Can someone post that New Statesman offer and see which heats most?
Expensive for a comic.
TheWorthinger27/11/2019 22:39

The idea that there is no expert concensus on climate change is quite …The idea that there is no expert concensus on climate change is quite frankly ludicrous.Youll be telling me theres no link between smoking and cancer next.Or liquid and drowning.


Ok, let's take the IPCC consensus view then, they predict 1.5 million global deaths due to climate change by 2100. Terrible , shocking...

Except that's on a par with diarrheal diseases today...but I don't see anyone demonstrating about that? Smoking, road accident deaths, diabetes, cancer etc etc the list of more pressing concerns is quite long.
Signed up. Says nothing about the gift card on confirmation? How regular does the magazine issue weekly?
zcaprd728/11/2019 01:02

Ok, let's take the IPCC consensus view then, they predict 1.5 million …Ok, let's take the IPCC consensus view then, they predict 1.5 million global deaths due to climate change by 2100. Terrible , shocking... Except that's on a par with diarrheal diseases today...but I don't see anyone demonstrating about that? Smoking, road accident deaths, diabetes, cancer etc etc the list of more pressing concerns is quite long.


I think you'll find that some people are complaining about all of those issues - that they don't have the media attentionis hardly a reason to shelve action to halt/reverse/ameliorate climate change.

Compare smoking now to 30 years ago? Or road accident deaths? Massive reduction in both because there was demand for action.

The point about climate change is that's it's first world problem the brunt of which will probably be borne by those in the third world who haven't caused it.
TheWorthinger28/11/2019 10:00

I think you'll find that some people are complaining about all of those …I think you'll find that some people are complaining about all of those issues - that they don't have the media attentionis hardly a reason to shelve action to halt/reverse/ameliorate climate change. Compare smoking now to 30 years ago? Or road accident deaths? Massive reduction in both because there was demand for action.The point about climate change is that's it's first world problem the brunt of which will probably be borne by those in the third world who haven't caused it.


Agreed, its a problem, but it needs some context, the language as become far too emotive, its blatantly not an emergency.

who.int/new…ath

All of the 'killer"problems are felt more strongly in developing countries, but these are deaths happening right now, every year, not what might happen in 2100.

The cost of a zero carbon economy is huge, unless its done slowly and sensibly, and that money could be better spent on other priorities. But the movement doesn't really care about lives, do they, they care about stopping capitalism.

By rights, because of diabetes and heart disease, we should be gluing ourselves to newsagents, because they sell fags and sweets!
zcaprd728/11/2019 10:10

Agreed, its a problem, but it needs some context, the language as become …Agreed, its a problem, but it needs some context, the language as become far too emotive, its blatantly not an emergency.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-deathAll of the 'killer"problems are felt more strongly in developing countries, but these are deaths happening right now, every year, not what might happen in 2100.The cost of a zero carbon economy is huge, unless its done slowly and sensibly, and that money could be better spent on other priorities. But the movement doesn't really care about lives, do they, they care about stopping capitalism. By rights, because of diabetes and heart disease, we should be gluing ourselves to newsagents, because they sell fags and sweets!


Hmm. If u want y have heart disease because you smoke and diabetes because of your diet there is action that you can take on an individual level. Climate change requires action at a governmental level hence the protests.

As for capitalism - it is easy to increase profits by dumping costs straight on to the environment.

And I'm not a tree hugger and have huge objection to "protestors'" blocking people from using mass transit or idiot actors flying to climate protests to join in. However something needs to be done.
TheWorthinger28/11/2019 10:38

Hmm. If u want y have heart disease because you smoke and diabetes because …Hmm. If u want y have heart disease because you smoke and diabetes because of your diet there is action that you can take on an individual level. Climate change requires action at a governmental level hence the protests.As for capitalism - it is easy to increase profits by dumping costs straight on to the environment. And I'm not a tree hugger and have huge objection to "protestors'" blocking people from using mass transit or idiot actors flying to climate protests to join in. However something needs to be done.


Well, yes, you can decide not to smoke as well, but government action is required to ban it in public places, and advertising cigarettes etc. Government can impose things like sugar taxes to prevent diabetes, and help build proper roads in the developing world, where individuals cannot.

The individual role in protecting the environment should not be underestimated either, but turning the majority off with daft protests and extreme language won't help that will it?
zcaprd728/11/2019 10:53

Well, yes, you can decide not to smoke as well, but government action is …Well, yes, you can decide not to smoke as well, but government action is required to ban it in public places, and advertising cigarettes etc. Government can impose things like sugar taxes to prevent diabetes, and help build proper roads in the developing world, where individuals cannot. The individual role in protecting the environment should not be underestimated either, but turning the majority off with daft protests and extreme language won't help that will it?


I'm not sure I see your point really: it's better to do nothing than to upset people by highlighting the issue?

Individual action will not reverse climate change whereas I DID stop smoking 20 years ago. My stopping has helped no one but me really, other than than the odd passive smoker but I wasn't the type to force my habit on to others.

We have government for a reason and that's to get things done that are beyond the ability of the individual. Climate change is one of those efforts. Flood defence are a classic example of this - if each householder builds their own that just won't work - you only need one individual to not do it and everybody else's work in undermined or undone.

The environment has been sacrificed for decades in order to keep costs down and ensure the continuance of profit derived from carbon emissions. The world relies on oil etc not just for energy but for the monetary churn it enables and the political muscle it provides.

Anyway that's enough from me.
No, my point is to demand something that is relative to the scale of the problem, 1.5 million deaths in 80 years time is a miniscule problem relative to the noise it is generating.

But I guess preventing diareahal diseases is less glamorous, with less virtue signaling opportunities...
Entire island nations (some of which are carbon neutral already) will be flooded by 2050 at the current rising sea levels if the CO2 reduction targets aren't met (and it's still increasing!)

It's an emergency, and anyone claiming otherwise is being deluded.

Climate change also causes war, food scarcity, famine, disease, displacement of people (with sanitation issues - so the very diarrhoeal diseases you're referring to), immigration issues. All of the worlds issues are exacerbated by it.

It's the single biggest threat to humanity.
zcaprd728/11/2019 10:10

Agreed, its a problem, but it needs some context, the language as become …Agreed, its a problem, but it needs some context, the language as become far too emotive, its blatantly not an emergency.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-deathAll of the 'killer"problems are felt more strongly in developing countries, but these are deaths happening right now, every year, not what might happen in 2100.The cost of a zero carbon economy is huge, unless its done slowly and sensibly, and that money could be better spent on other priorities. But the movement doesn't really care about lives, do they, they care about stopping capitalism. By rights, because of diabetes and heart disease, we should be gluing ourselves to newsagents, because they sell fags and sweets!


Climate change is causing natural disasters and deaths now, along with food scarcity, bleached coral reefs and wildlife harm and extinction, displaced people, famine, disease, you name it.

The government want and support capitalism. It's what they collect taxes from!
And their donors are wealthy business owners and oligarchs etc!
They also get lobbied by bad industry (oil, tobacco etc.)
Basically the opposite of what you state.

And spending money for example on dedicated cycle lanes, and cycle to work schemes, would boost the economy, provide jobs, improve quality of life, reduce noise and air pollution, improve people's living environment, reduce the burden on the NHS, improve people's health, and help the environment!
So it has a local, national, and global positive effect!
Yes, it's causing deaths, do you know how many? Because I do...
zcaprd728/11/2019 18:39

Yes, it's causing deaths, do you know how many? Because I do...


No you don't. And it's incredibly difficult to accurately determine the effect on current disasters but it definitely is having a negative effect.

Anyway I just felt I had to counter your statements, but I know I'm not going to get you to change your views.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text