In their article this morning “Gordon Brown follows Barack Obama’s lead with cut in Trident subs,” The Guardian referenced the exclusive YouGov poll for Left Foot Forward which we published on Monday.
In doing so, The Guardian erroneously referred to Left Foot Forward as a “New Labour website.” Left Foot Forward would like to reassure its readers that this is not the case. As we have clearly set out in our About section:
“Left Foot Forward is a political blog for progressives. We provide evidence-based analysis on British politics, news and policy developments.
“We are a non-partisan blog. Because we are progressive and because of the aims we’re committed to, we often find ourselves in agreement with left of centre policies and politicians. But we are focused purely on the quality of policies and furthering progressive goals, rather than on promoting individual politicians and parties.”
We have written to The Guardian to seek a clarification.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
9 Responses to “Clarification”
LondonStatto
Anything can be set out in an About section. Not everything set out need necessarily be the truth.
Rory
I have the impression that this website is much more likely to criticise the Lib Dem leadership than the government.
‘Lib Dem cuts weaken fight against corruption and fraud’
I cannot remember seeing such a hostile headline directed at the Labour leadership on this website.
willstraw
How about our coverage of Trident:
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/09/trident-costs-five-times-government-estimate/
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/09/trident-opposed-by-two-in-three/
Derrin Zikks
this is an interesting, evidence-based take:
http://asajew.blogspot.com/2009/09/non-partisan.html
Derrin Zikks
You haven’t defined “progressive”, and most of your boo-hooray stuff is vapid. What exactly is “public greed”? As opposed to private greed? Who is in favour of “administrative incompetence”, or against “safe communities”?
Your MO is quoting a viewpoint, then citing a New Labour-friendly think-tank report that disputes it, with the prefix “in fact”.