Replies

Let's hope people around here will wait and see what actually happens before jerking their knees in response to speculation.

I suspect it's true since the Guardian probably has a good pipeline into 10 Downing St. This may be the price Blair's attaching to continued support of the U.S. in Iraq. But I'll wait and see. If true it's suicidal to traditional U.S. interests, but no more so than the Bush policy on illegal immigration. One will kill our economy; the other will kill the value of our citizenship and our sovereignty. Both together: stop the world, I want to get off.

I suspect it's true since the Guardian probably has a good pipeline into 10 Downing St.

The Guardian is generally in sympathy with the liberal to left-wing ends of the political spectrum. This is reflected in the paper's readership: a MORI Poll taken between April-June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters.

I think this may be wishful thinking on the part of the British Left.

"Until the foundation of the Independent, the Guardian was the only serious national daily newspaper in Britain that was not clearly conservative in its political affiliation. The term "Guardian reader" is therefore often used pejoratively by those who do not agree with the paper or self-deprecatingly by those who do. The stereotype of a Guardian reader is a person with leftist or liberal politics rooted in the 1960s, working in the public sector, regularly eating lentils and muesli, living in north London wearing sandals and believing in alternative medicine and natural medicine as evidenced by Labour MP Kevin Hughes' largely rhetorical question in the House of Commons on November 19, 2001:

"Does my right hon. Friend find it bizarre — as I do — that the yoghurt- and muesli-eating, Guardian-reading fraternity are only too happy to protect the human rights of people engaged in terrorist acts, but never once do they talk about the human rights of those who are affected by them?"