The FT verdict on why Remain finally lost. A textbook example of the editorial slant we're discussing (just happens to be Remain as first to jump out and hit me).
So where's the editorial bias:
www.ft.com/content/f5734204-232d-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96
"Their agony is understandable. Britain at the end of 2019 is a majority Remain country. At the general election, 53 per cent of people voted for parties that are committed to a second referendum on Brexit.Less than half of people— 47 per cent — voted for the Conservatives and Brexit party."
The first statement is not supportable fact. The European election in March tends to point to the opposite conclusion.
The second statement implies that everyone who voted other than Tory / Brexit Party wants a 2nd Ref. This is not true. A sizeable proportion of both Labour and SNP voters are pro-Brexit but took a gamble because they chose Party / other priorities over Brexit. Even LibDem voters contained tactical anti-SNP / Tory and those who are not Remain nor in favour of a 2nd Ref. They thought Revoke was a way to reset and detoxify the debate.
Lumping the Tory vote in with the Brexit Party in the 47% is highly disingenuous. It is guilt by association plus seeking to underplay the size of the Tory mandate. The Tory Party vote share of 43.6% is higher than Tony Blair's in 1997 of 43.2% (he was an unknown quantity so his "mandate" is even less impressive as much of it was a vote against "the other lot").
In contrast I have lost count of the number of times the SNP "overwhelming mandate" for Indyref2 has been left unchallenged by the media. Their vote share was 45%, exactly the same as the Yes vote in 2014 Indyref - difference being the actual number of SNP voters in the GE was much smaller due to differential turn out.
"The wisest strategy for those advocating a second referendum would have been to deny Mr Johnson an election and to keep him twisting in the wind. His deal would have unravelled in the Commons as its flaws became clearer. That would have paved the way for a confirmatory referendum as the only solution to the impasse.
However, the SNP and Lib Dems preferred an early election. In the SNP’s case that paid off in extra seats. The Lib Dems’ motives are incomprehensible."
The first para of this section is pure fantasy. The HoC proved completely incapable of dissecting TM's Deal or Boris Deal or of deciding what sort of Deal would be optimal for any 2nd Ref. The Labour Party couldn't even begin to come up with a workable compromise in a month's worth of private talks with TM's team.
The FT gives itself away in the next para. It is a Right Wing Financier Remain Rag. Little wonder its Dream Outcome would have been for the Gaukward squad to be able to use the Lab/LibDem and SNP to hold the rest of the Tory Party hostage to get its desired outcome.
The LibDems and HeadGirl Jo made lots of mistakes during the GE but at least they stopped short of going down the Clegg route.
There's actually loads more to analyse in the piece but probably more than enough of me pontificating to catch the drift.