O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[BigFatPie]

I was thinking more about Uk politics than US.

How many people of what might be called a far left or even left perspective own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms in the UK ?

[forwardmagpie]

How many people of what might be called a far left or even left perspective own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms in the UK ?

I have no idea who owns all the newspapers, tv channels (although BBC1, BBC2and channel 4 are owned by us) and all the social media websites but if you think we get non stop right wing bias then we will have to disagree.

[i961pie]

I have no idea who owns all the newspapers, tv channels (although BBC1, BBC2and channel 4 are owned by us) and all the social media websites but if you think we get non stop right wing bias then we will have to disagree.

To be honest the Sun, Express, Mail and Times are on the right and possibly more. The Mirror and Guardian are the only two I can think off on the left plus the BBC.

[BigFatPie]

I have no idea who owns all the newspapers, tv channels (although BBC1, BBC2and channel 4 are owned by us) and all the social media websites but if you think we get non stop right wing bias then we will have to disagree.

Not even a guess?

No one has claimed anything about *non stop right wing bias* but it will come as no surprise to anyone that precisely none of the owners of the Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Times, GB News, Talk Tv, or X or Meta are bleeding heart liberals, quite the opposite in fact. And anyone who thinks BBC news is left leaning is either deaf or hasnt watched it in about 5 years.

And all thats before we get to the barrage of Russian misinformation persuading people to vote against their own interests that weve all been subject to since the referendum. Simply speaking, the idea that people receive similar levels of what is sometimes called left and right wing biased information is absolute nonsense.

[i961pie]

Not even a guess?

And anyone who thinks BBC news isn't left leaning is either deaf or hasnt watched it in about 5 years.

There I've corrected that for you.😋

[andy6025]

The term left is a big tent term that actually comprises at least two often distinct sub categories: liberal and socialists.

For the socialists, think labour unions, higher minimum wages, social housing, significantly increased funds for nationalized health care systems, nationalized energy, rail and telecommunications, etc.

This ideology ought not be confused with liberals, which instead tends to promote rights in the realm of identity politics, such as people who don?t identify as hetero***ual or cis-gendered, women?s rights (feminism), and non-whites, etc. Think rainbow flags, preferred pronouns, transgendered issues, affirmative action, DEI, and what sporting categories people should and shouldn?t participate in, etc.

While many news outlets in the UK have become much more liberal leaning in the past decade (or more), they have definitely not leaned more socialist. In that regard, they?re just as right wing as they?ve ever been.

Case in point, look at how they all slaughtered Jeremy Corbyn when he last stood for election as leader of the Labour Party. That includes the BBC and The Guardian. That even includes the Labour Party themselves, who sabotaged their own chances at victory in order to purge the party of its socialist leadership and elements.

These categories are often confused because in the context of modern politics the socialists and liberals are often allied with one another on most issues, but by no means are they necessarily so. For example, some who are liberal would love to see more women and openly gay or transgendered people as CEOs of major corporations, but they don?t give a monkeys arse about nationalizing the rail system (or think it?s an outright bad idea), while some socialists want more power to the unions and higher minimum wages but don?t give a toss about allowing 11 year olds taking puberty blockers or former men beating up naturally born women in a boxing ring (or outright think its a bad idea).

I myself am a socialist, and while I generally sympathize with those whom were often marginalized for their identity politics in past decades, in recent times they and their issues seem to have taken over the left. They?ve certainly taken over control of the parties that were traditionally left in the US, UK and Canada (the European continent as well). As such, many traditional stances that were the mainstay of the left have been dropped and replaced primarily with support for multicoloured flags, pink hair, nose rings, and ambiguous genders and pronouns. Personally, as much as I sympathize, I wish our side of the political divide would let someone else hold the microphone for a while. But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC. But lets all celebrate that the CEO who used to be called Harry looks great in a skirt.

As such, to me at least, the real left barely exists any more. And it certainly doesn?t exist in the MSM or Keri Starmers hollow Labour Party.

[slack_pie]

The term left is a big tent term that actually comprises at least two often distinct sub categories: liberal and socialists.

For the socialists, think labour unions, higher minimum wages, social housing, significantly increased funds for nationalized health care systems, nationalized energy, rail and telecommunications, etc.

This ideology ought not be confused with liberals, which instead tends to promote rights in the realm of identity politics, such as people who don?t identify as hetero***ual or cis-gendered, women?s rights (feminism), and non-whites, etc. Think rainbow flags, preferred pronouns, transgendered issues, affirmative action, DEI, and what sporting categories people should and shouldn?t participate in, etc.

While many news outlets in the UK have become much more liberal leaning in the past decade (or more), they have definitely not leaned more socialist. In that regard, they?re just as right wing as they?ve ever been.

Case in point, look at how they all slaughtered Jeremy Corbyn when he last stood for election as leader of the Labour Party. That includes the BBC and The Guardian. That even includes the Labour Party themselves, who sabotaged their own chances at victory in order to purge the party of its socialist leadership and elements.

These categories are often confused because in the context of modern politics the socialists and liberals are often allied with one another on most issues, but by no means are they necessarily so. For example, some who are liberal would love to see more women and openly gay or transgendered people as CEOs of major corporations, but they don?t give a monkeys arse about nationalizing the rail system (or think it?s an outright bad idea), while some socialists want more power to the unions and higher minimum wages but don?t give a toss about allowing 11 year olds taking puberty blockers or former men beating up naturally born women in a boxing ring (or outright think its a bad idea).

I myself am a socialist, and while I generally sympathize with those whom were often marginalized for their identity politics in past decades, in recent times they and their issues seem to have taken over the left. They?ve certainly taken over control of the parties that were traditionally left in the US, UK and Canada (the European continent as well). As such, many traditional stances that were the mainstay of the left have been dropped and replaced primarily with support for multicoloured flags, pink hair, nose rings, and ambiguous genders and pronouns. Personally, as much as I sympathize, I wish our side of the political divide would let someone else hold the microphone for a while. But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC. But lets all celebrate that the CEO who used to be called Harry looks great in a skirt.

As such, to me at least, the real left barely exists any more. And it certainly doesn?t exist in the MSM or Keri Starmers hollow Labour Party.

Some great points there, Andy. The left-right thing has become muddied in recent years, and when people say "left", they often mean liberal. As you say, even the so-called "left" rejects traditionally left-wing leaders like Corbyn or Sanders in the US. It's a shame, because it's much simpler to debate traditional left and right ideas about how to organise an economy and society without getting lost in all the liberal issues that take up so much column space these days.

These days, it seems like both main parties represent the same overall agenda. Both push the liberal "woke" stuff and high immigration. As such, the Labour Party now seems to represent liberals and middle-class champagne socialists who want to appear to be saying and doing the right thing, not the actual working class. The same goes for the Democrats in the US. Likewise, the Tories have pretty much abandoned traditional conservative values, alienating a lot of their natural voters. This, for me, is the main reason that fringe parties like Reform are becoming more popular. There are a lot of politically homeless people looking for shelter.

[drillerpie]

The term left is a big tent term that actually comprises at least two often distinct sub categories: liberal and socialists.

For the socialists, think labour unions, higher minimum wages, social housing, significantly increased funds for nationalized health care systems, nationalized energy, rail and telecommunications, etc.

This ideology ought not be confused with liberals, which instead tends to promote rights in the realm of identity politics, such as people who don?t identify as hetero***ual or cis-gendered, women?s rights (feminism), and non-whites, etc. Think rainbow flags, preferred pronouns, transgendered issues, affirmative action, DEI, and what sporting categories people should and shouldn?t participate in, etc.

While many news outlets in the UK have become much more liberal leaning in the past decade (or more), they have definitely not leaned more socialist. In that regard, they?re just as right wing as they?ve ever been.

Case in point, look at how they all slaughtered Jeremy Corbyn when he last stood for election as leader of the Labour Party. That includes the BBC and The Guardian. That even includes the Labour Party themselves, who sabotaged their own chances at victory in order to purge the party of its socialist leadership and elements.

These categories are often confused because in the context of modern politics the socialists and liberals are often allied with one another on most issues, but by no means are they necessarily so. For example, some who are liberal would love to see more women and openly gay or transgendered people as CEOs of major corporations, but they don?t give a monkeys arse about nationalizing the rail system (or think it?s an outright bad idea), while some socialists want more power to the unions and higher minimum wages but don?t give a toss about allowing 11 year olds taking puberty blockers or former men beating up naturally born women in a boxing ring (or outright think its a bad idea).

I myself am a socialist, and while I generally sympathize with those whom were often marginalized for their identity politics in past decades, in recent times they and their issues seem to have taken over the left. They?ve certainly taken over control of the parties that were traditionally left in the US, UK and Canada (the European continent as well). As such, many traditional stances that were the mainstay of the left have been dropped and replaced primarily with support for multicoloured flags, pink hair, nose rings, and ambiguous genders and pronouns. Personally, as much as I sympathize, I wish our side of the political divide would let someone else hold the microphone for a while. But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC. But lets all celebrate that the CEO who used to be called Harry looks great in a skirt.

As such, to me at least, the real left barely exists any more. And it certainly doesn?t exist in the MSM or Keri Starmers hollow Labour Party.

I don't recognise the categories you've described, personally. If we take Corbyn as the epitome of a true socialist, he was very active in both of the areas you mentioned.

I would agree with you that there are two camps on the left - one obsessed with identity politics and one much less interested in it, perhaps even against it - but I don't think we can somehow exempt socialists from the recent lunacy. Identifying and combating perceived or real discrimination and oppression is an integral part of being a socialist, so I think it's natural for many socialists to be front and centre on these kinds of issues.

I don't know exactly what I would call the two groups instead. Maybe intellectual left (using the word intellectual extremely lightly) and traditional left?

Falling back on clich?s, intellectual left would be the blue haired self-defined activist who is terminally online calling everyone a racist and proposing Maoism, abolishing borders, or defunding the police, all from a comfortable suburban bedroom.

Traditional left would be old school industrial heartland Labour /Democrat voters (red wall in UK / rust belt in US) who want their government to reopen their factory / mine.

Actually, maybe utopian left is a better description than intellectual left?

[slack_pie]

I don't recognise the categories you've described, personally. If we take Corbyn as the epitome of a true socialist, he was very active in both of the areas you mentioned.

I would agree with you that there are two camps on the left - one obsessed with identity politics and one much less interested in it, perhaps even against it - but I don't think we can somehow exempt socialists from the recent lunacy. Identifying and combating perceived or real discrimination and oppression is an integral part of being a socialist, so I think it's natural for many socialists to be front and centre on these kinds of issues.

I don't know exactly what I would call the two groups instead. Maybe intellectual left (using the word intellectual extremely lightly) and traditional left?

Falling back on clich?s, intellectual left would be the blue haired self-defined activist who is terminally online calling everyone a racist and proposing Maoism, abolishing borders, or defunding the police, all from a comfortable suburban bedroom.

Traditional left would be old school industrial heartland Labour /Democrat voters (red wall in UK / rust belt in US) who want their government to reopen their factory / mine.

Actually, maybe utopian left is a better description than intellectual left?

Nailed it with those descriptions, although if someone genuinely loves Mao, they are far left.

There also seems to be two equivalent but opposite groups on the right. One that believes that free market economies lead to greater prosperity overall, that individual responsibility and freedom is preferable to reliance on the state, that government should get out of your way as much as possible, etc. Then there are those that care little for economics but have nationalistic and racist tendencies - i.e. the far right. Obviously there is some overlap between the different groups, but often people who are traditionally right get lumped in with far-right lunatics.

In some ways, the traditional left and traditional right have more in common with each other than they do with the extreme liberals and far-right thugs, respectively.

[forwardmagpie]

Not even a guess?

No one has claimed anything about *non stop right wing bias* but it will come as no surprise to anyone that precisely none of the owners of the Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Times, GB News, Talk Tv, or X or Meta are bleeding heart liberals, quite the opposite in fact. And anyone who thinks BBC news is left leaning is either deaf or hasnt watched it in about 5 years.

And all thats before we get to the barrage of Russian misinformation persuading people to vote against their own interests that weve all been subject to since the referendum. Simply speaking, the idea that people receive similar levels of what is sometimes called left and right wing biased information is absolute nonsense.

To be fair to you BFP I have noticed that in most media outlets Rachael Reeves appears to be coming in for some criticism either for her personal life or her trashing the economy or both. I can?t understand why this is.

[Jampie]

Personally, as much as I sympathize, I wish our side of the political divide would let someone else hold the microphone for a while. But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC. But lets all celebrate that the CEO who used to be called Harry looks great in a skirt.

As such, to me at least, the real left barely exists any more. And it certainly doesn?t exist in the MSM or Keri Starmers hollow Labour Party.

Nailed it Andy, IMO.

The real "right" barely exists to me either. I personally know four trans people and I swear to god the typical "Right wing" person spends more time and effort on trans issues than my actual trans friends do.

AFAIK if you tell me you're a woman, you're a woman. Tell me you're a man? You're a man. My masculinity is not the slightest bit threatened by someone else's gender changing; what the hell is wrong with everyone? It doesn't affect you, focus on something that does.

And DEI... like holy crap this is almost exclusively a right wing talking point to my perception. Of my lefty friends I know exactly one (who I regard as either hard left or borderline hard left) who would advocate for any kind of affirmative action, the rest of them are very much against ever hiring anyone based on race or gender etc. Diversity is seen as a good thing, but never, EVER at the expense of hiring the right person for the job.

We spend so much time and energy yelling at each other about stuff that has zero impact on 99% of people, while almost everyone is suffering under a cost of living crisis that we should be hammering our supposed leaders about every damned day. But are we? No. We're debating who should pee in which toilet like idiots.

And why is that happening? Well, we seem to hold a cartoon-cutout idea of what each side is. I know plenty of left and right wing people, but I know very few lefties who think or act like the cartoon version, and very few right wing people who think Trump is going to be a great president. I live in Australia so your mileage will vary. Obviously in the US Trump is seen on average in a more positive light. Somehow. For some reason. Most people hold moderate views. This should not be a shock but apparently it is, because each "Side"'s social and corporate media (same thing now) only ever shows the opposite "side"'s most extreme examples.

Yeah, I think social media is a big part of the problem. It's all owned by corporations now who benefit from us ignoring their activities and debating this nonsense back and forth. And I also blame the press. I don't watch the BBC but I skim the news site every day and I do think it still carries a slight left lean (personal opinion) but in general when they choose to report on a fact they get it right. I stopped checking the Guardian about two years ago because they had lost sight of factual reporting in some key areas and had a pretty blatant left lean on everything.

I can't say the same about the murdoch press or its ilk, who operate as blatant propaganda masquerading as news. At times they should an alternate reality to the facts on the ground, so long as it suits the agenda.

[Jampie]

And this is I think why mainstream parties are losing support and minor parties are gaining it, I think. The major parties don't represent us anymore. They represent their corporate sponsors and pay lip service to the bare minimum of the ideals they used to. That and a generational shift where people don't identify as as "labor" or "liberal/tory" voter for life anymore.

Combine that with the recent inflation episode (now recovering) and you would expect incumbent governments to take a beating at the polls at the moment.

I don't fully understand why the media have gone so bonkers. I think part of it is that Trump stories get clicks like nobody's business. Part of it is that they can't get traditional advertising revenue like they used to, and it's ALL about getting clicks now. Extreme views get clicks. Stuff that makes people angry gets clicks. Rational news does not. Putting things in context does not. Sensible, meaningful headlines are out, clickbait, rage-inducing nonsense is in. And so their primary responsibility - to make sure we're informed of actually relevant facts and context - goes unfulfilled.

I don't see a big conspiracy. Like a cabal of wealthy/powerful people at the top who planned all this. Nobody planned this BS. The status quo evolved chaotically like everything else. But those in power (real power) now benefit from it, so they're happy to maintain it as is. Or even accentuate the parts that protect them. But I don't think this is wise. This is far from a stable model. Trump is far from the last "burn it all down" populist candidate. There will be more. People will vote for destruction and chaos over a status quo that's slowly strangling the life out of them.

Sorry for the barely-coherent rant.

[slack_pie]

Nailed it Andy, IMO.

The real "right" barely exists to me either. I personally know four trans people and I swear to god the typical "Right wing" person spends more time and effort on trans issues than my actual trans friends do.

AFAIK if you tell me you're a woman, you're a woman. Tell me you're a man? You're a man. My masculinity is not the slightest bit threatened by someone else's gender changing; what the hell is wrong with everyone? It doesn't affect you, focus on something that does.

And DEI... like holy crap this is almost exclusively a right wing talking point to my perception. Of my lefty friends I know exactly one (who I regard as either hard left or borderline hard left) who would advocate for any kind of affirmative action, the rest of them are very much against ever hiring anyone based on race or gender etc. Diversity is seen as a good thing, but never, EVER at the expense of hiring the right person for the job.

We spend so much time and energy yelling at each other about stuff that has zero impact on 99% of people, while almost everyone is suffering under a cost of living crisis that we should be hammering our supposed leaders about every damned day. But are we? No. We're debating who should pee in which toilet like idiots.

And why is that happening? Well, we seem to hold a cartoon-cutout idea of what each side is. I know plenty of left and right wing people, but I know very few lefties who think or act like the cartoon version, and very few right wing people who think Trump is going to be a great president. I live in Australia so your mileage will vary. Obviously in the US Trump is seen on average in a more positive light. Somehow. For some reason. Most people hold moderate views. This should not be a shock but apparently it is, because each "Side"'s social and corporate media (same thing now) only ever shows the opposite "side"'s most extreme examples.

Yeah, I think social media is a big part of the problem. It's all owned by corporations now who benefit from us ignoring their activities and debating this nonsense back and forth. And I also blame the press. I don't watch the BBC but I skim the news site every day and I do think it still carries a slight left lean (personal opinion) but in general when they choose to report on a fact they get it right. I stopped checking the Guardian about two years ago because they had lost sight of factual reporting in some key areas and had a pretty blatant left lean on everything.

I can't say the same about the murdoch press or its ilk, who operate as blatant propaganda masquerading as news. At times they should an alternate reality to the facts on the ground, so long as it suits the agenda.

Good points! Political conversations have become so tense in recent years because vocal people on both "sides" have moved beyond discussing economic policy and other practical matters relating to the running of a country and embraced an entire worldview that covers virtually every social issue.

So if you consider yourself traditionally left-wing, you get lumped in with the blue-haired student activists and the woke-obsessed middle-class intelligentsia - and people on the other side attack you for being that way. If you are traditionally right, you get lumped in with racist, nationalistic yobs - and people on the other side attack you for being that way. This makes it difficult to have grown-up conversations without getting called "woke" or "hippy" or "racist" or "far right".

[slack_pie]

I'd also add that all nuance has been lost from political conversations. People seem to jump to the worst conclusions and brand others as this or that, partly because it makes their opposition to certain ideas easier to maintain, but also because of this obsession with everything being about sides.

So if someone is concerned about the impact of high immigration on public services and societal cohesion, they are "racist" or "far right". Likewise, if someone thinks Trump is a pathological liar and deeply flawed human being but a better option overall than Kamala Harris, they are "far right" and "love Trump". No doubt the same happens to those left of centre too.

[Bohinen]

I'd also add that all nuance has been lost from political conversations. People seem to jump to the worst conclusions and brandish others as this or that, partly because it makes their opposition to certain ideas easier to maintain, but also because of this obsession with everything being about sides.

So if someone is concerned about the impact of high immigration on public services and societal cohesion, they are "racist" or "far right". Likewise, if someone thinks Trump is a pathological liar and deeply flawed human being but a better option overall than Kamala Harris, they are "far right" and "love Trump". No doubt the same happens to those left of centre too.

Left and right are economic policy positions and no more than that. Do you want resources to be shared amongst everybody and pay a fair wage to those who work, or do you want wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, who owe their position to luck rather than ability, and allow them to exploit everyone else? Yes, to the first one, so I'm left.

Does that mean I want positive discrimination, no laws to prevent abortions right up to the point of birth, people excused long prison sentences for murder and rape, and unlimited immigration into a country that already fails to look after its own people? No, I don't.

And I don't want to start wars with everything that moves either, unlike some people who imagine they are on the left. There is nothing left-wing about starting wars or continuing them when we could stop them whilst people already in relative poverty are expected to fund it, so no, we don't have to support Zelensky and fund his endless conflict with Russia.

And on that basis, I don't get how Trump is any more right-wing than Biden, who did nothing, absolutely nothing, for ordinary working people, and represented the USA's ultra-rich elite.