Shock! Horror!

[Don Corleone]

Uhm, not that I don't enjoy poking at sacred lefty cows, but the article is using the term 'liberal' in the American sense, not the European sense, which strikes me as odd. To a Brit, Liberal means free market entrepreneurship, not left-wing. I'm not certain what the British/European term would be that equates to our use of the term liberal, but it's being misused in this article. As the article was written in a British newspaper, this strikes me as odd.

[BigTex]

Now I always assumed that everyone knew the BBC was yellow journalism in it's finest. I've always wondered why they would deny it, it was becoming more and more obvious. Will they continue to mention their anti-American bias whenever they report on major news stories concerning the USA?
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Banquo's Ghost]

Uhm, not that I don't enjoy poking at sacred lefty cows, but the article is using the term 'liberal' in the American sense, not the European sense, which strikes me as odd. To a Brit, Liberal means free market entrepreneurship, not left-wing. I'm not certain what the British/European term would be that equates to our use of the term liberal, but it's being misused in this article. As the article was written in a British newspaper, this strikes me as odd.

In many things, the UK takes its lead from the US and this includes language. So many TV programmes are US centric, it's inevitable. Reporting from the US often requires the 'translation' of political terms. Therefore 'liberal' is increasingly taking on the US meaning - especially since the Liberal Democrat party is the only one left with 'leftist' or 'socialist' style policies.

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.

[Vladimir]

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.

Ooo, is that a subtle slight towards conservatives?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ooo, is that a subtle slight towards conservatives?

Not that I was aware of. I just didn't think to list all the simplified terms like conservative, fascist, communist etc that people use to demonise their opponents in tabloids.

Honestly Vlad, when I want to slight conservatives I try to use blunter instruments because they're so paranoid and dull of intellect.

[Dâriûsh]

Ghastly! Next thing they’ll claim that Aljazeera is biased.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The Daily Mail is biased against good sense. I don't know what that thing is, but it sure as hell isn't a newspaper. Or journalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Mail isn't even printed, it's copied out by cackling demonic elves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A bit harsh, methinks BKS.

Anyways, is anyone really surprised?

Thought not.

Crazed Rabbit

[Mikeus Caesar]

The Daily Mail is biased against good sense. I don't know what that thing is, but it sure as hell isn't a newspaper. Or journalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Mail isn't even printed, it's copied out by cackling demonic elves.

ZING!

[Pannonian]

In many things, the UK takes its lead from the US and this includes language. So many TV programmes are US centric, it's inevitable. Reporting from the US often requires the 'translation' of political terms. Therefore 'liberal' is increasingly taking on the US meaning - especially since the Liberal Democrat party is the only one left with 'leftist' or 'socialist' style policies.

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.

Old school socialism is out of vogue now, and what remains is the kind of liberalism that is actually thel English mainstream (think One Nation Conservatism, or the tussles between Disraeli and Gladstone for middle class and working class votes). Greenism has also entered the political mainstream with the now overwhelming acceptance of the existence of global warming.

There is an agreement across all sections of the mainstream on what government responsibilities should be. The only argument is whether or not people trust the government to get it right. Labour has been seen to muck things up regularly, but they have also been known to put their efforts in the right direction. Blair and Brown have been trying to reduce the former and increase the latter. The Conservatives have a healthy scepticism about the ability of government, but they have also been known to cut back in areas which the British people regard as sacrosanct. Cameron has been trying to move the Tories to recognise the latter while retaining the essence of the former.

The basic choice is whether one believes Labour will eventually get it right one day, or whether the Tories will refrain from cutting down essential social infrastructure that benefits their opponents' electorate. Neither is particularly believable, hence the increasing apathy of (non-)voters. The third party, the Liberal Democrats, believes an infusion of government money solves all ills, an attitude even the Labour left regards as outdated. Certainly voters aren't willing to entrust any government with yet more tax money in the belief they will do something useful with it. Hence Blair and Brown's continued campaigns to inundate the civil services with bureaucracy to check that the money they are allocated is spent wisely, even as the voters who wouldn't have it any other way criticise the government for increasing red tape. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - such is politics.