The Times newspaper is left wing

@LostittoBostik it would help if you quoted the posts, or at least the relevant bits, that you are responding to.

Well said @Catza

I'm glad you contributed

I agree. Do you mean Hague is further right? Or are you referring to a different post?
If Hague, yes, he’s further right than Stewart but still in that One Nation, more centre right tradition. Not left wing. Not extreme right.
Edit - do you mean Rifkind? He’s also centre right. It covers a fair spread of views.

@Thepeopleversuswork Yes. Similarly I am centre left, socially liberal, fan of mixed economies (private ownership but state ownership where it makes sense) and pro personal responibility. There are many on the left now who see me as a massive Tory 😬

@cardibach i don't think so at all. Centre right is, say, Rory Stewart.

The OP is not posting in good faith.

I wonder whether the OP is slowly realising it is them that has shifted politically - not The Times.

If you think Hague is left wing you are quite extremely on the right.

@Thatsenoughcoffee

"William Hague is a massive leftie"

That's ridiculous. He holds centre right views.
OP, I think you are the Overton window in action and have moved a long way across the dial and would probably quite enjoy the new telegraph (which is no longer a paper of record as a result of being pitched so far right in the last decade)

Re: Trump. There are good reasons for right wing Brits to be concerned even they're pro the culture side. One in every £11 of our exports go to the US and he's whacking on trade tariffs. And of course we chose to leave the EU so we've shrunk our market there.

A member of my family writes for the Times and has done since the early 80s. They say the current editor and slants they have been asked to put on their leaders is the most right wing it has been in the last 40 years.

Rifkind is centre right.

I read a spectrum of papers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, and occasionally the FT). All have elements of good quality and poorly-researched journalism, all will originate key stories that show the power of journalism to shine a light in dark places, and all have certain biases.

It’s worth understanding all these biases and seeing how journalism both records (captures the Zeitgeist) and engineers the news (whips up public feeling, for good - exposing abuse and malpractice - and ill, eg Brexit).

If you read a spectrum of papers you’ll get a better understanding of a story, not only from the POV of completeness (one slant vs another) but also piece together more of what might be allusive (what they can’t tell you because of legislation or the need to protect sources - it really allows you to read between the lines, quite literally).

You’re much better informed doing this and I’d recommend also regularly reading the foreign press for a wider picture on both world and domestic events, especially as they’re more inclined to write in-depth long-form articles, a particular strength of the FT. I regard the NY Times highly, and if you speak French or German, as I do both languages, read the papers in those or any other language of your choice/heritage. I’ve learned a great deal about current events from not having an Anglocentric bias.

Again, Hague isn’t a ‘massive leftie’. He’s a classic One Nation Tory. It’s your massive rightie perspective that makes you think so.

Like all the members of Trump’s last cabinet who endorsed her you mean? No. That doesn’t make you left wing. It makes you able to see that Trump isn’t suitable for public office whatever his political persuasion.

"Surely someone who dreamed of a Kamala victory can be described as left-wing?"

Why?

That's a genuine question. Her politics are fairly one nation Tory, if you're comparing with the UK

Actually I'm wondering if maybe what OP is doing is comparing with the Telegraph - which has lurched so far to the right it's become irrelevant (as the guardian once used to be)

@Ginmonkeyagain

You seem to be using left wing when you mean "centrist, socially liberal, metropolitan professionals"

For a lot of people these days these things are seen as interchangeable. If you’re not hard right, Brexit supporting, Trump supporting, anti immigration a lot of people will perceive you as a “wokey” or a member of the metropolitan elite. It’s a sign of how far to the right the political centre of gravity has shifted.

I consider myself pretty much straight down the middle politically, very slightly left shading but a million miles from the Corbyn wing of Labour. But my colleagues all consider me to be “hard left” because I have voted Labour and I don’t consider the small boats problem and trans wars to be the most pressing issues of the day.

See also the rhetoric around the word “progressive”: it used to mean a person with socially liberal views. It’s now morphed into an insult for anyone who hasn’t been captured by the Farage flank.

That's a good point, although I haven't perceived the shift in the way some apparently have

The times has always carried a range of columnists. I would say the columns pitch mostly right these days - there's only Hugo rifkind and tom peck that are centre left?

As for the editorials, they're very right. The one after the budget didn't bear much relationship to reality.

Also the Times is very gender critical, which tends to be associated more with right than left albeit perhaps it should not be politicised like that.

Also not left wing, never mind ‘very left wing’. They just look it from your very right wing perspective.
Stewart is still very much a One Nation Tory.