The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why are so many people left-wing?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Not prepared to rise to the obvious. The Guardian is a prime example of free press - it isn't even owned by a tax-sheltered oligarch, unlike the Sun, the Times, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail and the London Evening Standard. It's run by an independent Trust designed to protect it.

Righties always claim the BBC is leftie, but when you are a leftie and you watch it/listen to it regularly, it doesn't come across that way.


Not that there is anything wrong with tax-avoidance, but before you parade the Guardian for not avoiding tax, you might want to take a read at this....

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-guardians-rank-hypocrisy-on-tax-avoidance/
Reply 61
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Lets be honest, the USA has thrived by accumulating debt.

Debt which it has borrowed from countries where the state plays a large role in directing the economy like China.


Historically yes however i watching an interview with Charlie Rose this week on Bloomberg and one of the people interviewed stated that whilst that was the case upto 30 years ago, the acceleration of debt over the past 30 years has actually being met with slower growth.
Well I'm left footed and have a pretty good cross on me, plus I like to cut inside and make a few runs in from the left wing. That's why I'm Left Wing.
Original post by Scots King
Not that there is anything wrong with tax-avoidance, but before you parade the Guardian for not avoiding tax, you might want to take a read at this....

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-guardians-rank-hypocrisy-on-tax-avoidance/


I was referring to individuals, like the Murdochs, Dacre and the Barclays, who are all tax avoiders on an industrial scale. The Guardian have done what they can to take advantage of these schemes on a corporate level - I agree that it's then hypocritical of them to castigate corporate tax avoiding schemes. However, it's less hypocritical than the tub-thumping about it you see in the tabloids, where they seek to cash in on the stink raised by UK Uncut and the fact that their readers share the views of UK Uncut - whilst many of those press barons and their families personally engage in massive tax avoidance.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Lets be honest, the USA has thrived by accumulating debt.

Debt which it has borrowed from countries where the state plays a large role in directing the economy like China.


Original post by Rakas21
Historically yes however i watching an interview with Charlie Rose this week on Bloomberg and one of the people interviewed stated that whilst that was the case upto 30 years ago, the acceleration of debt over the past 30 years has actually being met with slower growth.


The natural and desirable consequence of a high Chinese savings rate and a low American savings rate is a large American trade deficit, financed by borrowing money from the Chinese.

Similarly, the natural and desirable consequence of a high Chinese savings rate and a low UK savings rate is a large British trade deficit, financed by borrowing from the Chinese, and selling central London property to the superrich Chinese and Russian oligarchs.

If you want to do something about external debt and the trade deficit, you have to raise the British savings rate, which is easier said than done - although the government can and should play a role.

If, on the other hand, you're quite happy with us consuming lots of imports without having to produce any exports in exchange, yaaay!

The debt explosion you guys are talking about, though, is a rise in the debt owed by Americans to other Americans, and by British people to other British people. That's a quite different - though related - phenomenon. It's not clear that it was as disastrous as most people seem to think, nor is it clear that it necessitated the current economic Charlie Foxtrot.
Reply 65
Avatar for Pedd
Pedd
10
I'm a bit of a social lefty, but I'm an fiscal right-winger.
Because most people who use this forum are young.



[h="1"]'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'[/h]



This says it all to me really. If you're right wing when you're young, you've not actually done much in your life to deserve your position. But when you're old, and you've made it in the world, you're naturally going to defend what you've made for yourself.
Yes OP you are correct! The left wing people on here are blind and ignorant. They refuse to accept that their system has failed mutliple times.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hal.E.Lujah
Because most people who use this forum are young.





This says it all to me really. If you're right wing when you're young, you've not actually done much in your life to deserve your position. But when you're old, and you've made it in the world, you're naturally going to defend what you've made for yourself.


What a load of rubbish! You can pull a quote out of the air but it doesn't mean anything.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I was referring to individuals, like the Murdochs, Dacre and the Barclays, who are all tax avoiders on an industrial scale. The Guardian have done what they can to take advantage of these schemes on a corporate level - I agree that it's then hypocritical of them to castigate corporate tax avoiding schemes. However, it's less hypocritical than the tub-thumping about it you see in the tabloids, where they seek to cash in on the stink raised by UK Uncut and the fact that their readers share the views of UK Uncut - whilst many of those press barons and their families personally engage in massive tax avoidance.


GMG is also owned by individuals, all of whom make substantial amounts of money. How is it any different? The Guardian have been on their high horse about tax avoidance more than anybody else.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I was referring to individuals, like the Murdochs, Dacre and the Barclays, who are all tax avoiders on an industrial scale. The Guardian have done what they can to take advantage of these schemes on a corporate level - I agree that it's then hypocritical of them to castigate corporate tax avoiding schemes. However, it's less hypocritical than the tub-thumping about it you see in the tabloids, where they seek to cash in on the stink raised by UK Uncut and the fact that their readers share the views of UK Uncut - whilst many of those press barons and their families personally engage in massive tax avoidance.


Oh come on! It's absolutely rank hypocrisy for Guardian journalists to investigate other companies' finances and how they manage their tax affairs and deride them in public whilst conveniently ignoring their own employer's dubious tax arrangments.

It is a basic issue of credibility
Reply 71
Avatar for nicatre
nicatre
13
Tedious, repetitive, and over-done threads are...
Original post by venenecinema
GMG is also owned by individuals, all of whom make substantial amounts of money. How is it any different? The Guardian have been on their high horse about tax avoidance more than anybody else.


No, the Guardian Media Group is wholly owned by the Scott Trust, which is non-profit making. Are you thinking of the board of directors of GMG? There have been attacks on individual directors bonus schemes, etc, in the Tory press, but they are peanuts compared to the lavish packages secured by the tabloid boards for themselves.

http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/
Original post by nebelbon
What a load of rubbish! You can pull a quote out of the air but it doesn't mean anything.

Posted from TSR Mobile




I just said it expressed my views, and I then elaborated on them beneath.... :rolleyes:
I think a lot of English people have left wing opinions.

Especially those who are politically uninformed or politically apathetic.

If you were to take a survey on peoples political opinions, on average you would be likely to hear more left wing opinions than right wing opinions.

This is especially true at universities. Left wing opinions are vastly more widespread than right wing opinions in academia.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
No, the Guardian Media Group is wholly owned by the Scott Trust, which is non-profit making. Are you thinking of the board of directors of GMG? There have been attacks on individual directors bonus schemes, etc, in the Tory press, but they are peanuts compared to the lavish packages secured by the tabloid boards for themselves.

http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/


The fact that they're not for profit doesn't excuse them, they're doing exactly the same thing as the people you're criticising except they're somewhat more subtle about their greed. It doesn't make a difference, it's morally bankrupt either way.
Original post by venenecinema
The fact that they're not for profit doesn't excuse them, they're doing exactly the same thing as the people you're criticising except they're somewhat more subtle about their greed. It doesn't make a difference, it's morally bankrupt either way.


Hang on - you just said above that it's owned by people - you were wrong about that - why have you shifted back to the hypocrisy argument? I already said that I agree that it's hypocritical, but the key point is that they are trying to rescue a not-for-profit and very important truly independent media voice in the UK whatever way they can, whereas the rich oligarchs who own the rest of the media are totally driven by selfishness. I pointed that out and you made up a story.

Puh-lease.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Hang on - you just said above that it's owned by people - you were wrong about that - why have you shifted back to the hypocrisy argument? I already said that I agree that it's hypocritical, but the key point is that they are trying to rescue a not-for-profit and very important truly independent media voice in the UK whatever way they can, whereas the rich oligarchs who own the rest of the media are totally driven by selfishness. I pointed that out and you made up a story.

Puh-lease.


I made an honest mistake, it really doesn't matter as much as you think it does though. The fact is that they're using the same loopholes and making board members filthy rich. Claiming that they are 'truly independent' is moronic to say the least, it's funny how you've somehow been deluded into thinking that they're a selfless charity free of ulterior motives.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by venenecinema
I made an honest mistake, it really doesn't matter as much as you think it does though. The fact is that they're using the same loopholes and making board members filthy rich. Claiming that they are 'truly independent' is moronic to say the least.


Oh come of it, it was crucial to your argument. They are not making board members filthy rich compared to other media groups.

Basically all these attacks on the Guardian are driven by a ruthless tycoon mentality - the aim of Murdoch and his allies is to destroy all voices of opposition and create a flat desert of right-wing-only voices.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Oh come of it, it was crucial to your argument. They are not making board members filthy rich compared to other media groups.

Basically all these attacks on the Guardian are driven by a ruthless tycoon mentality - the aim of Murdoch and his allies is to destroy all voices of opposition and create a flat desert of right-wing-only voices.


It wasn't. It's only different in an incredibly superficial way.
Meh, I don't support Murdoch or the majority of the right-wing press but I think it's seriously hypocritical to side with people who are in essence doing the same thing. I'm not really interested in talking in relatives, 500k a year is filthy rich in my (and most peoples') books.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you