Far left - US/UK definition

On another thread http://EvC Forum: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans -->EvC Forum: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicansit is suggested that the Guardian and the BBC are (very) far left media outlets. Rather than me imploding with fury, I would like to ask the members here two questions. What is far left as defined in the US? And what sources/evidence do you have that the BBC and Guardian are far left?Further question re the assertion that non-profit organisations are far more left than others, answers/explanations welcome.

Just spent six hours on the motorway (M5/M6 for anyone who knows UK - nightmare around Birmingham!), and I come home to this!In another thread I said I was glad that this thread had not taken off (3 days ago). I get home to this!I come home, 3 year old little boy sick, wife a little knackered after driving for six hours, me a little cranky after sitting in the passenger seat for six hours, and I am greeted with this!I am called a woman by Ringo, complained about because I am not contributing (by a person who replies to a message stating that I would be absent without computer for the weekend) and the central point of the topic is not really answered. Good points though made by Faith regarding subjectivism and by Mick for highlighting my point about the Guardian and the BBC.I am still reading through the thread but a couple of points. First up, I think that CanadianSteve and me are talking at cross-purposes. I meant the Guardian in the UK, published in Manchester and London. Not the Cuban Guardian or the North Korean Guardian. Affirmative action! A topic not really up for discussion in the UK, and definitely not called that (quotas in local govt parlance, and not actionable other than to appeal politically in the local area). Pacificism. When? Being against YOUR wars is not pacifism. Pro-intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Rawanda and other disputes around the world. Socialist economics. No. Absolutely not. As an economics student in the late 80's I remember the editorial slant of the Guardian with regard to the economy. Collectivisation, common ownership, nationalisation were not mentioned. Free universal health care, a low individual tax regime, private enterprise and private home ownership were. And deregulation. Talk about socialist! Over the years many editors and commentators have joined the Guardian from right-wing papers and have editorialised in the same manner unchallenged.Second, the topic veers this way and that, mentioning single issues and the opposing views that posters have on those issues. That was not the point of the topic. The labelling of myself, or individuals as leftist or far left because of a perspective on a single issue is pointless. As is the same with right wing/conservative perspectives. What I was trying to get at is the knee-jerk labelling that goes on (and I am as guilty as many others), and the gulf between definitions on each side of the Atlantic. Not just what, but why?Will carry on reading and may post again.

First sourch - relatively left of centre does not make it far left - make it's stance leftISH not leftist and I might agree. From the same source I read a quote by the founders - "it will zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty it will warmly advocate the cause of Reform; it will endeavour to assist in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy; and to support, without reference to the party from which they emanate, all servicable measures". Does that sound far left?Second source - clearly not conservative - Faith made a point about about indiscriminate labelling of opposition - anything not conservative is by (your) definition far left.Third source. Well I could ignore it based on my point from the second source but I will not. The Guardian started a campaign to encourage readers to write to voters in Clarke County asking them to consider the wider implications of their vote (ie world-wide not just American issues). While the Guardian empasised a non-partisan approach, the vast majority of Guardian readers declared a pro-Democrat bias. The experiment was flawed from the outset. As seen from the American responses, UK ideas were ignored or positively derided. Insults from America ranged from the 'fuck you' to 'bad teeth' and the quotes in your source. Many Guardian readers were embarassed by the experiment as evidenced by the letters section in the paper. Again though I would suggest you read the actual newspaper not selected quotes and opinions from conservative sources.

Sorry Steve, but in post 115 you refer to American Jews as Elftists. Do Elrond and Legolas know of their support?On a more serious note, you refer in post 85 to a Russian Oligopoly. Oligopoly refers to a market condition where there are relative few suppliers, a condition not unknown in capitalism, and in no way could be referred to as separate or opposed to capitalism. What you are referring to is an oligarchy.

The Political CompassJust answered the questions and my position was almost off the graph - left/ libertarian.Well thats me told.An interesting point although not in any way definitive, is that the right-wingers all veer to the more authoritarian on the graph. Definition of authoritarian - favouring obediance to authority as opposed to individual liberty. This does not seem to tie up with the general right-wing/conservative viewpoint of themselves. Again not saying this is definitive just pointing out an interesting divergence of view.

The tendency is to be anti current government. Throughout the late seventies, eighties and early nineties support was for Labour (party in opposition). New labour was supported in 1997 and tentatively in 2001, and liberal democrats in 2005 (more as a protest than a real hankering for change of government). However due to its nature the paper does not explicitly support any one party (it has no proprietor - it being run by the Scott Trust), and its readership would desert it if support was limited to a single side. As you have seen if you are a regular reader the current stance would be (largely) neutral, having little support for New Labour's curtailing of civil liberties, war in Iraq, euro-fudging, little support for Conservative's anti-european stance, war in iraq, social and economic plans, little support for Lib Dems because of their unelectability. Support for New Labour regarding running of the economy and support for Lib Dems' social policies is also evident.The Guardian is very much the paper of 'having your cake and eating it'!