David Cameron rejects calls to soften impact of planned tax-credit cuts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/04/david-cameron-rejects-calls-to-soften-impact-of-planned-tax-credit-cuts

This article story is about David Cameron's denying and disagreeing with the requests to lower tax credits despite the more popular outcry. This article is by the Guardian, and clearly aligns with it's left wing overall view it holds, as the Guardian is left wing, it clearly opposes the right wing, the side that David Cameron and his conservative party have. The guardian quickly makes points on how Tax credits have been predicted to make thousands of families worse off who are in the working class, losing thousands of pounds due to the taxes, this supports their left wing view that everyone should be considered and supported, just as much as the people in power and the people with the money. The article makes it clear how his decision has been made up and how he won't change his mind or "revise the situation", including how other conservatives like Cameron's Chancellor also agrees to keeping the taxes the same, this along with pointing out the details of how a large amount of people will be affected, (which also implies that the reader is likely to be affected making it personal), makes it appear that the article wants to make Cameron and by extension the whole of his party the one in the wrong, and the ones who everyone should disagree with. The article even goes as far to mention how this decision is so unpopular that a member of the conservative government in Scotland, even questions this decision, saying more details should be made about the refusal, making it seem like not only a bad decision by the conservatives, but by Cameron as an individual.

The article is written by two people. Nicholas Watt and Rowena Mason. both of these people are the political correspondents for the Guardian, with Watt being the chief political correspondent. Not only does the fact that Political correspondents writing this article make it seem more trustworthy because they must clearly have experience with politics and writing articles concerning such, but one being the chief suggests that this article was highly valued and was a serious thing to write about, improving it's validity, also the fact that it was written by two people, that's two different viewpoints, which could make the article a lot less bias, and more in depth. However, because they are from the guardian in particular, their political views are likely to be left wing, and there for they will both still have very similar opinions.