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.