Advanced search

To think middle-class Guardian reading lefties, really are morally superior to their rabid Daily Mail/Telegraph reading counterparts?

(207 Posts)
ComposHat Sun 05-May-13 01:47:49

Posh lefty handwringers/Champagne Socialists/The Islington mafia call them what you like, but I think they are unfairly maligned.

Because in purely self economic terms it would be more beneficial to adopt a right wing stance and advocate less taxation, cuts in stamp duty and inheritance tax, yet they take an opposing view in the interests of fairness and justice.

By contrast, Middle/upper class Tories act largely in their own interest.

Springdiva Thu 09-May-13 03:12:26

This do-gooder attitude is a bit scary imo.

I mean the government debt is still rising, all these supposedly cruel cuts have not stopped the debt rising, they are only stopping the debt rising as fast, as it stands we are still landing our DCs with a horrendous burden which will destroy their quality of life, and Britain as we know it.

Yet, despite this, we have all these lefties berating the government and wanting more services and less cuts.

We need loads more cuts so that the debt is removed, then we can be benevolent lefties. But you all seem hell bent on destruction.

Mimishimi Thu 09-May-13 02:37:36

No, because the increased taxes they advocate don't actually go to help those in need ( or very little of it does) but to line the pockets of feckless social do-gooders who know nothing of business or the world outside the gilded 'leadership' ideals they've been brought up with in their tony private schools. The rest goes to military spending. The paper is ostensibly antiwar whilst skirting around and sometimes supportingthe central "big lies" that have brought us to that immoral 9/11 and 7/7. The Daily Mail is actually quite informative if you treat it as a "read between the lines" activity..I do think it's intellectually superior to gather information from a multitude of sources, regardless of their political bent. Moral superiority comes with what you do with that information, not the mere and dubious virtue of reading the 'naice' newspapers.

EmmyFlavs Thu 09-May-13 01:41:06

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters;[95] according to another MORI poll taken in 2005, 48% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 34% Liberal Democrat voters.[96] The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions has led to the use of the epithet "Guardian reader" as a label for middle-class people holding such views,[97][98] or sometimes as a negative stereotype of such people as middle class, earnest and politically correct.

A safe steretyping regarding Guarian readers I think.

Arisbottle Wed 08-May-13 22:57:10

I agree Lazey, I find intelligent journalism is all the papers I read, bar the DM,

Lazyjaney Wed 08-May-13 22:50:47

"Personally, I go to the Guardian so that I don't have to read hysterical nonsense. I like my journalism well thought out, accurate and with words that contain more than two syllables"

The option are not just the Grauniad or 1 syllable hysterical nonsense you know!

BTW that nice lefty Guardian has a nice righty tax avoiding capitalist ownership structure. Probably mirrors it's naice MC reader base, really...

Dawndonna Wed 08-May-13 22:19:05

No more amazed than some of us are at people who come onto a thread obviously designed for people other than them to have a pathetic pop.
Ah well, each to their own.
Personally, I go to the Guardian so that I don't have to read hysterical nonsense. I like my journalism well thought out, accurate and with words that contain more than two syllables.

EmmyFlavs Wed 08-May-13 19:39:04

The Body!!! LOL

thebody Wed 08-May-13 17:13:19

I am just so amazed that people still waste money on newspapers so they can obviously read ones own political views and agree.

What the fuck is the point of that?

What a waste of time.

EmmyFlavs Wed 08-May-13 17:07:18

The Guardian is a leftist Newspaper, end of!!!

FasterStronger Wed 08-May-13 08:39:47

to look at someone's politics and choice of newspaper is a way too simplistic way to look at who is morally superior.

I think you need to make a large personal sacrifice with life long effects for people outside your family to be morally superior - and voting and buying a paper comes nowhere near to doing that. and TBH if you make that sort of sacrifice you are probably more interested in helping others than deciding who is more morally superior.

Binkybix Wed 08-May-13 08:10:06

To be fair dedendum, the example I used was someone who actively tries to avoid his taxes whilst thinking he is morally superior, that's why I called him a hypocrite. I don't think they would be right wing if they had not grown up in a leafy north London suburb and had different parents, but I think it's hard to argue that how he acts vs how he talks is not hypocritical.

Likewise, I think he uses the Guardian to supply all his beliefs and opinions unquestioningly because they confirm what he already thinks - I don't think that's thinking, any more than someone who does the same with a different paper.

Obvs I don't think this applies to all left wing people, but just shared my first hand experience - I may have vented a little because I was on the receiving end of a lot of his lectures a week or so ago! I am prob centre left btw so not rabid right wing!

Toadinthehole Wed 08-May-13 07:37:34

I am a Guardian reader, and was brought up soft-left liberal, and probably still am on the whole.

The Guardian's - and for that matter the BBC's - mistake is to assume that everyone is inherently reasonable, and if you seek to engage any person in respectful dialogue, everything will come right. That is not a parody. It is the very essence of liberalism as a philosophy.

Those of us who (like me) have lived next door to neighbours who abuse animals, get drunk and fight, get drunk and piss in the front garden, abuse their position as council tenants by wrecking the house, dealing drugs from it and taking in sub-tenants, who listen to loud music both day and night, burgle the neighbours, and leer through the window at DW when she breastfed know perfectly well that such people are generally too wrecked or hungover and probably ill-brought up to be reasonable. We know that a respectful approach for grown-up dialogue with such people will be met at best with a sneer, and perhaps a fist. We do not wish to be told that these people need help and understanding and that we ourselves deserve none. Nor do we wish to be told they have rights when ours, ie, to live in peace and quiet aren't enforced by the authorities. We know that such people need a kick up the backside or perhaps a spell in prison or, at very least, removal to a street full of people just like them, because that sort of treatment is the only thing they respond to. Unlike the Guardian, papers like the Daily Mail at least pretend to know this perfectly well.

So while I have no love for the Mail, I do get enraged by the formulaic approach to social matters one finds in the Guardian, informed as it is purely by theory and absolutely no experience except perhaps second or third hand through treatises written by second-rate academics from lesser-known universities.

Dededum Tue 07-May-13 20:50:01

Ah yes and if we send our kids to private school (I don't but am thinking about it) earn lots of money, don't give it away, or live in a 'posh area' with good state schools we are called hypocrites who would be money grabbing, dislike immigration, begrudge receipents of welfare etc...if we didn't earn much money, lived in a poorer area and our kids had to go to sink schools.

Maybe.... But then my education has enabled me to question the stereotypes and misinformation peddled by the mainstream media. I read the guardian because I want to think.... Though I really don't like the family section it really gets my heckles up.

Francagoestohollywood Tue 07-May-13 17:28:58

Great post Dededum.
I've been missing the Guardian a lot, since we've moved back to Italy. We haven't got anything like the DM here, but even La Repubblica is not as authoritative or interesting as the Guardian.

And I am a bit fed up of this general portrayal of left wing people, either drinking champagne or not contributing to the wealth of a nation. Yawn.

PosyNarker Tue 07-May-13 17:01:53

YWNBU if those who might be considered 'champagne socialists' put their money where their mouth is. I am sure some do, but I've encountered many that don't.

I am also very wary of those who speak of higher earners paying yet more when they are so far into the upper earnings eschelons as to be completely removed from the lower end of that spectrum. (Yes, left wing popstars, actors etc. I'm looking at you.)

I'm fairly centrist, slightly left of social issues, slightly to the right on economic. I've actually ditched many of my grauniad reading 'old friends' because we can no-longer engage in civilised debate, by which I mean ad hominem, patronising guilt trips and attacks have become their go to tools for political discourse.

Of course the plural of anecdote is not data, but that's my experience.

Dededum Tue 07-May-13 16:56:01

Figures slightly wrong - guardian 204,000 daily mail 1.8 million.

Dededum Tue 07-May-13 16:38:59

Newspaper reading is on the decline, the circulation of the Guardian is under 200,000, whilst the Daily Mail is still over 2 million. Whether or not one reads the Guardian or not, the alternatives are dire. The Guardian provides left wing comment as part of its fare, but the actual news sections of the paper are not imbibed with ideological claptrap. As someone interested in facts and opinions I find any reading of the DM deeply depressing and the Torygraph and Times editorially skewed.

There aren't many of us Guardian readers left, so why do the right and a the stupid (not necessary the same) get their knickers in twist. Life is complicated, confusing and impossible predict. I find the Guardian a more accurate portrayal.

Chandon Tue 07-May-13 16:18:49

Benegits, now there is a Freudian slip....must have been reading the Mail again blush

Chandon Tue 07-May-13 16:17:46

The only problem with guardian reading middle class lefties is tat hey can be a bit smug, on the whole they are largely inoffensive, IMO!

As to the self seeking Tory voters, most tory voters I know ( almost all the Ils) actually have very strong ideological ideas about a " small state" and "personal liberty" and personal responsibility.

SIL for example has never claimed child benefit, as she does not want to use up "benegits" she does not need, so there is more for those who do.

To say all Tpries are heartless and selfish is a bit silly IMO, and it stops you from understanding how people think.

Saying that, I am not too keen on the Tories, or the Telegraph etc. myself!!

Moknicker Tue 07-May-13 16:15:43

OP, I read the Guardian, Telegraph and the Daily Mail - i guess that makes me a morally superior, rabid, self interested ... and any other adjective you want to throw in.


Hullygully Tue 07-May-13 16:11:26

I can feel a thread coming on...

motherinferior Tue 07-May-13 16:09:26

The thread is about 'Guardian reading middle-class lefties' according to its title. Of which I am one.

ComposHat Tue 07-May-13 16:03:52

I have a few pages ago. Realised I'd started a bun fight and hoped it would fizzle out.

EmmyFlavs Tue 07-May-13 15:43:00

Has the OP actually responded?

Binkybix Tue 07-May-13 15:32:18

I don't think people are implying that all those who are left wing are wealthy are they? They are addressing the thread which specifically talks about 'champagne socialist, Islington' mafia' that is certainly the 'group' that I've posted about, not everyone who is left wing.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: