'Guardian could support Lib Dems'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Many on the left feel that, as long as Blair is party leader, the choice between Labour and Tory is basically a choice between New Conservatives and Old Conservatives.

Only the well off suburban left. Which neatly reflects the Guardian's readership.
The Guardian's foolish endorsement of the LibDems in Hartlepool added about 500 votes to Labour's majority

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are MILES off the mark. Any party that wants to slash social spending, abolish the DTI, scrap the New Deal (when I found this out I was furious) and raise taxes purely to cut down the size of Government (which is plain weird) CANNOT be considered a Left Wing party.
They are certainly the only liberal party in British Politics but liberal does not equal left wing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3956893.stm

Just what we need, another Lib Dem paper. If the Observer went with them, I'd be stuck with the Murdoch press.

A columnist for the Guardian wrote an article along the lines of "Socialism is Dead, Long Live Liberalism" and proclaimed that LOCKE was the best thing since sliced bread.

I encourage said columnist to have a look at the reasons why Labour held Hartlepool*

*For those who don't know: Wright's campaign was based on "Hartlepool Pride" and made a lot of it's Socialist and Communitarian traditions (Wright campaign estimated that about 1000 Die Hard Labourites who didn't vote for Mandleson came home 'cos of that) while playing the illiberal card over drugs/ASBO's etc.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting table: http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e97/pastpaps.htm