By European and UK standards, it's a centre-left liberal (as in classical liberalism) paper. In Europe, liberalism is firmly centrist. The Guardian was firmly far to the right of Labour under Corbyn, for example, when Labour was mildly social-democratic, and somewhat more aligned with Labour now when Labour is at its most right wing since Blair - arguably more so. Often to the great frustration of the UK left, where The Guardian is a haven of last resort due to the lack of any major left-wing UK newspapers.
I don't think you can be classically liberal and also not be in favour of free speech.
Which aspects of free speech is it you consider The Guardian to oppose and classical liberal thinkers to support?
I would say one area of vulnerability would be the request that mis/disinformation (broadly defined as stuff they disagree with) be suppressed.
Where have they argued for suppression of "disinformation" "broadly defined as stuff they disagree with" should "be suppressed"?
That further is actually published as the view of the paper as opposed to opinion pieces, that often are "stuff they disagree with" yet still are happy to publish.
The closest I've come to seeing an official statement arguing for some degree of regulation have been mild and vague. Even one stating that the cost of fake campaign videos is real, and pointing out genuine concern over implications to democracy, only called for "paying attention" and "developing suitable responses".
My impression is that The Guardian is about as firm as a wet blanket when it comes to taking a stance against movements leveraging misinformation.
The classical liberals support regulating speech on the basis of the harm principle. The quibbling comes down to what you count as "harm".
> Labour under Corbyn, for example, when Labour was mildly social-democratic
Corbyn and McDonnell were hardcore socialists and Marxists so if that's what you call "mildly social-democratic" then The Guardian might be Conservative...
It seems that younger people have no references and understanding of political concepts. Corbyn had full-on socialist policies in the Labour manifesto of the time but simply because he used terms like "coop" they seem to have been missed by some...
Blair was centre-left. He didn't try to destroy private schools so that still makes Starmer's government more on the left.
> It seems that younger people have no references and understanding of political concepts. Corbyn had full-on socialist policies in the Labour manifesto of the time but simply because he used terms like "coop" they seem to have been missed by some...
Social democratic and labour parties are, at least were openly socialist at least until the 1990s. UK Labour party is part of the Party of European Socialists and an observing member of Socialist International. Most social democratic parties were "Bernsteinian" with the explicit goal of democratic transition into socialism. Coops have been promoted by both left and right.
At least with a bit longer reference span democratic socialism is not radical or far-left in the European context.
Yes back to the socialist roots, indeed.
> Coops have been promoted by both left and right.
The "coop" in Corbyn's Labour manifesto were effectively "soviets" as the proposal was to nationalise companies and hand control to the workers by turning them into "coops". This was not "mildly social-democratic"...
The proposal was to (re)nationalize some infrastructure sectors like energy grid, water, rail and mail. Nationalizing these is a very popular policy. There was also proposals for multiple stakeholder boards in these companies, including some worker representation. Worker representation in company boards, including large private companies, is mandatory in e.g. Germany. Calling this as establishing effectively soviets is quite a take.
The separate "right to own" proposal was an option for workers to buy the company in case of it being sold or dissolved. Similar laws exist in e.g. Italy and in some US states. There was also a proposal for public financing for worker coops, which is also in place in many countries.
He argued for some national control of some infrastructure, going nowhere as far as the most successful social democratic parties in Europe, and even not as far as some conservative parties.
E.g in Norway, the conservatives, about 4 parties to the right of the Norwegian Labour Party, not that many years ago argued a blocking minority stake of over 1/3 of the largest bank was a strategic goal for the state.
I that light, the Corbyn labour manifestos were only mildly left wing.
State ownership of some key infrastructure is popular even by a majority conservative voters.
Someone is annoyed their school fees went up. Maybe try harder and get a raise?
Their manifesto promises were to the right of the main social democratic parties in Europe, and even to the right of conservatives in places like Norway. Their personal preferences might well be further left, but their manifestos were not remotely radical by European standards.
I'm happy that turning 50 this month I'm still lumped in with "younger people", but I find this rather comical.
Disagree. The Guardian has employed identity politics that are very in line with current left-wing politics, but quite at odds with classical liberalism.
One of the key critiques of The Guardian from the UK left is that they are seen as enabling or allowing quite regressive views on some social issues. It's the area where the left is perhaps most negative to them, with it not being unusual to criticise them for allowing e.g. transphobic views, so it's an odd thing to say. They are very much not in line with UK left-wing politics.
Classical liberalism (Bentham, Mill etc.) is (in today's terms) a center-right philosophy.