"Private Eye" is subtly socialist. It is against firms making profit out of the public sector. It is against tax avoidance.
The current edition, number 1287, says that plans for a household "benefits cap" of £500 a week "don't make sense". Of course they do. The reasoning is that families living in big houses in Haringey with rents of £390/week would only have £110/week to live on. This argument is terrible. If people can't afford expensive accommodation in London, they should move out of London.
The government has also said that housing associations should charge 80% of market rents. This is sensible: there is no good reason to subsidise housing just to let people live in London. The article says that a particular housing association has chosen to only charge 80% of market rents on its one- and two-bedroom properties, but not on larger ones, with the perverse result that bigger properties cost less than smaller ones. This moronic decision is blamed on the government.
In the same issue, here is a confused protectionist article on farming which claims that pig farmers lose about £20 per pig, and bemoaning predicted decline in UK pig production. The architecture column expresses surprise "that it is possible to be both a banker and a civilized, socially-responsible human being". It questions why TFL would want to sell a property in an expensive area and move somewhere cheaper. It wonders why a skyscraper is being built in an area where rents are high. The magazine is also against prostitution and striptease (Eye 1283).