The Guardian is left leaning but it doesn't strongly support any party.
And as a matter of fact this plan was initially proposed by a Lib Dem MP[0] (he was also a Guardian columist after that). That reference also notes that nuclear expansion was favoured by most Labour MPs at the time.
I didn't say "slightly" and they are nowhere near the extreme left so your Hitler comparison is bizarre. Editorially they are closer to the centre left although some of their columnists are more leftwing.
And just because both the Labour party and the Guardian are to the left, it doesn't mean they will blindly support each other.
You're right you didn't say slightly, I apologise. And the Hitler thing was an extreme example but you understand what I was trying to say.
Personally, I do perceive a strong anti conservitive and pro labour bias in that paper, even in simple ways like using flattering pictures of Corbyn and unflattering ones of May. So when i see an article on a complex subject that leads with an anti government headline I'm automatically reading it with the fact that these people hate the conservitives in mind and I thought that should be pointed out to others who might not be aware of that.
There wasn’t a hint of party political bias in this article. The financial facts of the funding of this power station speak for themselves, no matter what colour your tie.
The headline of the article is '...how could the government strike such a bad deal'.
I actually don't agree that facts always speak for themselves. I think it's very easy to pick naked facts to lead the reader where you want them to go without explanation of the decision making process or what the alternatives were.
