Cycling in the UK being left behind?

Gimpl wrote:

'A good piece in the Grauniad....'

Just like saying - 'A good piece in the Heil....'

Not when it comes to cycling it isn't. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

'A good piece in the Grauniad....'

Just like saying - 'A good piece in the Heil....'

Not when it comes to cycling it isn't. 

Of course it is! They may be more 'pro cycling' v the Heil 'anti cycling' but they are still putting their political leaning on it.

The main difference being that the Mail is extreme right wing and full of lies. Gaurdian is indeed left wing but generally factual. Of course they're putting their political leaning on it. What an absurd statement.

The Guardian is generally factual but it also deliberately omits stories which don't fit their narrative and they present some stories in an entirely misleading way.

The Telegraph (which does exactly the same) is essentially its polar opposite politically and reading both papers coverage of certain subjects you would struggle to recognise they were actually covering the same thing.

Unfortunately the Guardian is free to read (thanks, ironically, to its offshore bank accounts) so receives far more attention compared to its paywalled right wing equivalents and this tends to distort debate somewhat.

Rich_cb wrote:

Unfortunately the Guardian is free to read (thanks, ironically, to its offshore bank accounts) so receives far more attention compared to its paywalled right wing equivalents and this tends to distort debate somewhat.

Unlike the Telegraph, there isn't much wealth behind the Guardian and I would argue that any chance to compare the two is hindered by the fact that the Telegraph's choice to be paywalled. The debate is not really distorted, it's just that we can't easily compare those 2 media outlets.

I also think that you're overstating the Guardian's left wing leanings; it is broadly supportive of the rights of workers, ethnic minorities and immigrants (for example) and has recently made environmental issues and Climate Change more prominent.

But it is still widely considered to be fairly centrist* in its overall position, it's not bursting with militant left-wing propaganda. The term "Guardian reader" has for a long time been a bit of a put-down, a byword for middle-class / aspirational people with comfortable lives who didn't want to be seen with a tabloid paper (or a Tory one, for that matter).

The fact that the Guardian omits stories that don't fit its agenda is not really worth a mention, since every publication does that!

"The Guardian is owned by The Scott Trust, whose core purpose is to ensure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity ... we don’t have a wealthy owner pulling the strings, and any profits are reinvested into our journalism rather than into shareholders’ pockets." [source]

According to Wikipedia the Scott Trust Limited is governed according to the articles of association, set up in 2008 and filed at Companies House.

"Guardian Media Group has business operations in the UK, US and Australia. The Group’s assets are held entirely by companies in these countries and are fully subject to prevailing tax laws and regulations." [source]

* at least, what we used to think of centrist politics before the more extreme right-wingers took over the Conservative party.

And it's got a Bike Blog.

Is institutionally pro cycling.

And some excellent writers...

their bike blog exists only in their environmental section coverage, the people, well Pete has I dont know what Lauras take is, that write the blogs have stated a number of times, its not a pro cycling blog position the paper are taking.

well your starting position is the "extreme right wingers took over the conservative party" so of course you are going to think the Guardian is merely "centrist".

frankly Im surprised you didnt think the Morning Star was far more "centrist" than the Guardian at this point who were clearly leaning to the "right wing".

social media appears to have destroyed peoples ability to understand politics IMO and take a neutral, bi-partisan stance on a number of issues, its all about taking the stance that gets the most likes.

Awavey wrote:

well your starting position is the "extreme right wingers took over the conservative party" so of course you are going to think the Guardian is merely "centrist".

So the right-wingers haven't taken over the Conservative party? Was John Major's government as hardline as this lot? I think not.

The idea that the Guardian is centrist is not my own opinion but something I've seen mentioned frequently over the last 20-30 years. Perhaps I should have read the Telegraph more for balance (though from what I've seen it's more likely to make me angry).

Awavey wrote:

social media appears to have destroyed peoples ability to understand politics IMO and take a neutral, bi-partisan stance on a number of issues, its all about taking the stance that gets the most likes.

Or is it that the way social media algorithms function means people see more of one polarised set of opinions which are then amplified by a large number of followers. Without going into targeted advertising, Cambridge Analytica and so on, how did the 'influencers' build these followers in the first place?

But did many people have a neutral stance before social media? I doubt it. Most people used to choose a newspaper because of its stance, even if they pretend that it's somehow neutral or objective. And every country has had leaders and voices that seem to be able to manipulate and mislead a large chunk of the population so that is nothing new.

well I read an article today that said that Liz Truss was the first Conservative PM in the last 30 years who actually was conservative, so opinions may differ on how "hardline as this lot" actually are or have been or as an old saying said its all true, from a certain point of view. Johnsons period in government fwiw was considered left of true centre politics by those who actually follow these things properly.

on social media platforms, people surround themselves in a bubble with others who only agree with them, they only follow positive reinforcement of ideals they agree with, therefore are shocked to discover there are people outside of their bubble who follow the negative and dont agree with them

Awavey wrote:

well I read an article today that said that Liz Truss was the first Conservative PM in the last 30 years who actually was conservative, so opinions may differ on how "hardline as this lot" actually are or have been or as an old saying said its all true, from a certain point of view. Johnsons period in government fwiw was considered left of true centre politics by those who actually follow these things properly.

on social media platforms, people surround themselves in a bubble with others who only agree with them, they only follow positive reinforcement of ideals they agree with, therefore are shocked to discover there are people outside of their bubble who follow the negative and dont agree with them

I tend to think that the left-centre-right categories aren't all that useful except for a very sky-high view of matters. I'd agree that Johnson was unusually centre/left for the Tories and if only he had some integrity he may have introduced some reasonable policies.

The problem with using left/right is that the dividing line tends to shift. e.g. The U.S. has Democrats on the left, but they'd be considered hard right anywhere else. Similarly, we have Starmer's Labour supposedly on the left, but not supporting strikers.

Let's get multidimensional!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

chrisonatrike wrote:

Let's get multidimensional! https://www.politicalcompass.org/

That's a lot of questions - I ended up in the bottom left (-9, -7.79)

Good Lord - I'm more of an "extreme left whinger" than I thought. Maybe everyone's axes have shifted? Did this before and don't remember so many questions too.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Good Lord - I'm more of an "extreme left whinger" than I thought. Maybe everyone's axes have shifted? Did this before and don't remember so many questions too.

Well, if enough of us score left-extremist, then maybe we can finally get round to eating the rich

I'm not sure he's worried.

I think the questions must be toned down a bit. There weren't any questions about seizing the means of production, peasant revolts, putting debtors into work-houses or shipping immigrants to Rwanda, so they're just focussing on centrism. Nothing about Universal Basic Income or NHS apart from that question about whether rich people should get better health treatments.

Should I be worried? It was confusing and I didn't really understand the questions!

NOtotheEU wrote:

Should I be worried? It was confusing and I didn't really understand the questions!

I think it's everybody else that needs to be worried

hawkinspeter wrote:

NOtotheEU wrote:

Should I be worried? It was confusing and I didn't really understand the questions!

I think it's everybody else that needs to be worried

Right, you're the first name on my list! When I'm in charge . . . . . .

NOtotheEU wrote:

Right, you're the first name on my list! When I'm in charge . . . . . .

Okay, then you'll be the first name on my list for ensuring that your basic human needs are satisfied without infringing your human rights or suffering indignity*.

*there may be some seizure of capital though

hawkinspeter wrote:

NOtotheEU wrote:

Right, you're the first name on my list! When I'm in charge . . . . . .

Okay, then you'll be the first name on my list for ensuring that your basic human needs are satisfied without infringing your human rights or suffering indignity*.

*there may be some seizure of capital though

Oh dear, I feel you may have slightly more appealing policies than my "I'm in charge now, like it or lump it!". I'll just have to rely on the voting public being stupid and doing whatever they are told. Now, where can I buy a media company?. 

Only if you find yourself itching to burn the survey and shoot the authors.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Only if you find yourself itching to burn the survey and shoot the authors.

My megalomania hasn't quite gone that far yet but since doing the test I am feeling oddly drawn to a nice Hugo Boss uniform.

Hippy.

Whoa man! No need to get, like, all bald about it...

For a while now I have been proposing the definition of rightwing as  someone who favours economical or financial interests over the safekeeping of the basis for life on earth.

marmotte27 wrote:

For a while now I have been proposing the definition of rightwing as  someone who favours economical or financial interests over the safekeeping of the basis for life on earth.

That's just capitalism, though, not necessarily right-wing although they usually go together. Of course, the far left is typically anti-capitalist.

As I understand it, the right-wing traditionally promotes having different classes amongst society, often with different rules applied to those classes (e.g. a punishment that is fine-based effectively doesn't exist for the monied classes).

You might want to look at the environmental costs of communism.

Under your system the USSR would have been very right wing.