The FT is still the Brown 'un

General Zod

This is why most people ignore the FT's leader page. It is still a valuable paper with some great columnists, but there is a Keynesian and corporatist editorial cadre that Pearson should clear out.

Richard

This is nuts, the FT has criticised Brown and praised Cameron on numerous occassions, and would almost certainly have endorsed him by now except that the FT would sacrifice its credibility as the 'paper of record' in Brussels by supporting such an extreme eurosceptic

old fogey

I remember my father, a banker, telling me back in the seventies, and still at school, that the FT was well known for being a leftist paper; indeed he used to refer to it as "that communist rag".

Short the UK

The FT are so intellectually interwoven with the New Labour project that the editoral board do not have the cojones to cut loose from this sinking, putrid, political philosophy.

The FT are intellectually bankrupt and a disgrace to the "sound" balance sheet businessmen of Britain.

FT = F****** Terrible

P. Collinson

I was surprised when the FT came out for Kinnock back in 1992. I hadn't realised its history of leftish leanings.

Tiberius

I would repeat to the FT/Mirror pair the words that Geoffrey Boycott said to the Ricky Ponting/Michael Clarke pair when they were run out: YOU CLOWNS!

Alex

Not bad loo paper, the FT

chris

I read the FT most days and agree with Richard. However,it is true to say that the editorial political writers baffle most readers.

The columnists, blogs, and website are all excellent, not Labour biased. I can't believe they will go into the next election supporting Labour, let alone Brown, unless they are happy to see off many of their UK readers who are, like me, fed up.

Lance Grundy

"…it is unsurprising that the FT is still generally supportive of Brown and Labour, they both share a fairly corporatist worldview.

Yes. A sort of corporatist internationalism where members of 'the group' act in solidarity on the basis of their common globalised big government and big business interests, rather than in the interests of the populations of their respective nations.

And the FT is quite clear about the kind of policies it wants governments to implement to serve those interests - "…governments of historically frugal nations – particularly Germany and Japan – will need to encourage their citizens to save less and to spend more…"

Meaning big government and big business are going to beggar the Germans and the Japanese like they have already beggared the British and Americans so they can achieve their mutually beneficial aim of keeping corporate profits - and the taxes on the profits, rolling into their coffers.

Hysteria

Richard - "FT has criticised Brown and praised Cameron on numerous occassions, and would almost certainly have endorsed him by now except that the FT would sacrifice its credibility as the 'paper of record' in Brussels by supporting such an extreme eurosceptic"

since when was Cameron an extreme eurosceptic? evidence please

THX1138

If you think the FT is nuts supporting Brown well it's main rival The WSJ just ran an Op-ed suggesting Cheney should run for President in 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384723887160470.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Hard to say which paper is the the most crazy.

But The WSJ edges it for me

Chris

The FT's the only decent paper Britain produces. It's the only one I'd bother paying for.

Fred

Sir David Bell (Chairman, Financial Times Group) is chair of the Media Standards Trust and closely linked to Common Purpose. Communitarians the lot.

Gypsum Fantastic

You clearly never actually read the pink 'un, James. If you'd bothered to browse through their leaders for 2 minutes, you'd realise this is absolute garbage.

http://search.ft.com/search?commentAndAnalysisFilter=%2Bgaarticlebrand:^"Editorial"$&page=1&queryText=gordon+brown&y=0&activeTab=ftComment&aje=true&x=0

TGF UKIP

The FT was my daily paper for over twenty years up to 2006 when I switched to the Telegraph (though I still get both on Saturday.)

By 2006 I don't think my blood pressure could have any longer withstood the FT's skin crawling europhilia and its coverage of not only UK but also US politics.

It would certainly seem that the editorial rooms of the FT, Guardian and the BBC are entirely interchangeable so melded are the views of the world they present. (And I'm still convinced that Philip Stephens is a pseudonym for Alastair Campbell.)

Short sums it up brilliantly.

Josh

The FT is nowhere near as insightful as it loves to think it is. It preaches a failed economic ideology that has never worked (Keynesianism) and it is a corporatist steaming pile of horse turd. Samuel Brittan is a fantastic columnist, even though I disagree with some of his views, and Martin Wolf makes the paper worth reading sometimes, but most of the time it is a pretentious pile of pooh.

Oh, it is a jaw droppingly slaveringly Europhile newspaper. It resorts to the usual attack against Eurosceptics. Because we disagree with the institutions and structure of the European Union, the Europhiles dub is xenophobic racists who want to be isolated from Europe. To any Financial Times writers and columnists reading this page... the European Union and the European Continent are two completely different things. I have some advice for you... get your collective heads out of your collective arses and start again with some proper investigative and financial journalism which the paper could rightly be proud off.

hadrian

Never read the dreadful thing- socialist clap trap, the lot of it.

Derek

Many points made above are just; but the FT has at least today begun a debate of Great Britain's defence requirements with more than ten articles on the theme linked to readers' comments. The paper's defence and diplomatic editor is arguing that more should be spent.

I would hope that the Spectator would also turn its attention in this way to that topic and to the major concerns of people as we approach, we hope, a general election. These would include defence, but also an honourable and effective parliament, reasonable immigration, a coherent foreign policy,the EU, access to resources and how to establish a prosperous economy with a quality education system. Underpinning all this, it would be helpful to debate the "philosophical" underpinnings of the society we would like to see.

In other words, after 12 years of Labour government, we are at year zero - again... What is to be done?

J H Holloway

Before the 'net got into its stride, I used to read the FT everyday. It was so stridently New Labour I stopped reading it. I couldn't stand the smug, middle-class, big-sweeping-solution attitude.

However, the FT still reflects the social shift that fired the New Labour project into power. That confluence of a generation of middle class university-educated liberals all arriving in position of influence at the same time.

It was these 40-somethings taking over the broadsheets, national broadcast media and the Labour party that provided the unrelenting attacks on the Tories from 92-97 and the simultaneous boost for the New Labour project.

These people - such as the FT staffers - were driven by sheer hate. The hate they had developed for the Tories they met at university. Where Dave's county set encountered the suburban liberals.

Those Student Union stand-offs are still being fought - see the Crewe by-election and Boris in London.

But isn't it also funny to see the liberal great and good barely able to believe that the Left has so comprehensively buggered the country up.

These liberal warriors have no alternative but to slip straight back to the student union politics of 'inequalities' (see Harman recently). But perhaps the most classic case is Adair Turner of the useless FSA.

Having seen his reputation - and that of Brown's - smashed by the tripartite disaster, what does he do?

Reaches for the Tobin Tax, the ultimate student union solution. Like the FT editorials, they're sure the World could be a better place if we could just come up with a few really big solutions.

Richard

'xenophobic racists who want to be isolated from Europe' Oh, you mean what Simon Kelner called us during his dreadful editorship of the Indy?

No, Philip Stephens is a real person, I've seen him interviewed on TV. Whatever happened to Joe Rogaly, though?

Stanley

I never realised the FT was left leaning....but I have never read it - surely finance is quantitative and should be relatively apolitical. I also thought the Guardian was SPECTRE's flagship - having Rosa Kleb (aka Toynbee) directing it. The Telegraph seems to have gone Papist recently.
I was listening to Vera Lynn (which is remarkably topping the charts despite Tony Blair having abolished stuffy old England) and almost had to check myself for being jingoistic, and non-progressive, but then I realised it was only Vera singing, and Big Brother hasn't won yet.

Aaron Mycock

Champagne for the brain? Every day is Browned Hog Day at the Speccie. A tedious and seemingly endless cycle of pap! Stand firm lads. When Dave set us free there'll be no need for Fraser's charts, no need for scrutiny or critical analysis. There will only be change you can believe in, prozac and cholinesterase inhibitors all round....

KB

I don't think the New York Daily News could be accused of being a Brown 'un.

Percy

Luckily the FT comes in two part, the business and finance section and the front section written in the past by people like Ed Balls, I just throw the front bit bit away.

patrickinken

At the risk of appearing swivel-eyed, I think that the FT's problem is Europe. Commercially, since the 1970s or so, it has sought to develop its sales on the Continent. It therefore needs to adopt an editorial policy which appeals there. Backing Conservatives would not work.

Oscar

Both Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper worked for the FT. Enuff said.

Raised Eyebrows

What a load of rubbish James.

You need to step outside your blinkered UK domestic headspace for a second.

When it comes to a lot of what Brown does the FT is very criticial. This editorial is dealing with the specific issue of the G20, and all it's saying is "don't ignore Brown's ideas just because he's a muppet in most ways"

To in any way lump the FT and Mirror together gets close to absurdist satire. Suggesting the FT backs Labour is just ignorant.

Richard

@Hysteria... Are you arguing Cameron is in the European mainstream? So he is the moderate and its just everyone else who is extreme? hmmm

Geoff M

The FT makes the Guardian look Eurosceptic.
Now that their beloved Soviet Union has collapsed, they are intent on supporting the attempt to foist the anti-democratic EUSSR upon us.
Does anyone still take them seriously?
Outside CCHQ that is.

Augustus Eldridge

Completely bizarre.

The financial markets are getting cold feet by Brown's borrowing and these traitors are backing him.

It's a disgrace!

THX1138

Augustus Eldridge

"The financial markets are getting cold feet"

You're obviously looking at different charts than the rest of us:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/stockmarket/3/three_month.stm

FTSE 100 Index 3 mth chart.

Hysteria

THX - I think you are confusing the financial markets with the stock market - not the same thing surely?

But there are other sites that cover this in more detail - I may be wrong.

THX1138

Hysteria what are these "financial markets" that are not the stock market?

And which ones have "cold feet"?

Not the bond market or the GBP.

I think you are wrong but your always polite.

Derek

I don't understand the attitude of one or two CoffeeHousers above who say they don't read the FT because, in effect, they don't share its views. What kind of a reason is that?

@ KB 9:32am I am not fully cyberliterate. How do you manage to type in red (or perhaps it's pink) and provide that link to the NYDN?

Kirsty

Well, the Tories haven't done much to convince pundits they're better than Brown in economic matters. However, come election time, FT will endorse DC, the "respectable" broadsheets usually back winners.