to the real world

You make a valid point with the fact that the debate missed the point (main question) why we were faced with a 'catch-22' scenario. i.e. morality/legality or jobs.

In favour of the Guardian one can argue that they were simply bringing the subject to debate without going into the innards of political or beuracratic finger-pointing. However, I agree it would be fruitful for everyone if the debate leaves us with clear reasoning on the 'spark that caused the fire' so to speak.

The Guardian and similar papers are as much a front for capitalism and the current 'democracy' we are told we enjoy as the rightwing garbage of the Daily Mail and their ilk. Just as the 'struggle' between New Labour and the Tory parties, or the Republicans and Democrats, are tools to hide the fact that it is the underlying system which is at fault, then so the Guardian and the Independent obscure the real issues. By proclaiming to be 'right-on' or 'left-leaning' they are leading their readers into a fantasy where issues of environmental destruction, freedom and civil rights appear to actually matter to those in power. They lead people down ineffective routes, so serving more those in power and abusing it rather than the 'people' they claim to represent.

It amazes me continually how many activists read papers such as the Guardian and the Independent and believe what they say. Even when these papers are critical of their particular work and moan about it, they still follow uncritically the rest of the stories. It amazes me that activists hold the mutterings of well off journos such as George Monbiot and John Pilger in such high esteem. At the end of the day they are simply commentators, and do those in Government really pay that much attention to them?

Papers such as the Guardian give the illusion of voices being heard, but they are the PR companies of New Labour, just as The Times and Telegraph are fronts for the Tories. Stop believing their own propaganda and look at them more critically. How is it that the Guardian will run a full page advert for an oil company next to a big spread on eco-vandalism by another corporation? While we are distracted by one argument, they are turning the knife in the back of our freedoms with other arguments, often put forward by the Government themselves.

The great journalist heroes of such papers are not so open about the companies that actually pay their wages – the advertisers. The money you dish out to buy the bundle of paper only goes to cover the cost of production and transport.

At the end of the day, these left leaning papers are there for assuaging the conscious of the guilt ridden classes; they are not there to tell us how to make changes for the better. As with the red-tops, and all other dailys, they depend on the revenue of advertising to stay alive. That is they way the system works for better or worse, but before we sing their praises over the other papers, we need to accept that anything depend on the capitalist system to survive is never going to able to truly criticise it, not even with the occasional 'radical' article to reinforce their credentials among the impressionable centre left who never like to question matters too deeply.

Personally I tend to read the Financial Times as they are unabashedly open about who they are so you are not reading through acres of dubious comment and opinion to get an idea of what is actually going on. It does not mean I agree with their premise, but at least they do not try to pretend they are caring and sharing when they are not.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about the way the Guardian, Independent and indeed their readership view themselves and the world.
They (and indeed we) lay no claim to revolutionary credentials. Like the vast (and growing) majority of British people, we'd see the present capitalist system as the only show in town, at least for a massively-populated country whose people want more than just subsistence..

The flaws in the current system will continue to be remedied by debate and reform. Boring I'd agree if you're an angry and impatient radical but hey at least you've got enough to eat.

Shouty revolutionary points of view are aired in the liberal press, along with more right-wing opinions, muslims, pagans, nudists, etc. etc. The left / anarchists express hostility to the workings of developed countries, but there's no great injustice in their taking their place amongst the many other points of view (after all only a microscopic number of people think like you).
Merry Christmas!

Brilliantly put Max, although I'd disagree with one thing you said :"At the end of the day, these left leaning papers are there for assuaging the conscious of the guilt ridden classes; they are not there to tell us how to make changes for the better."

I'd say you were being too kind to them. Their function is actually to stop us making changes for the better by framing all arguments in establishment terms. Read them too much and you brainwash yourself into self-censoring your everyday thoughts between these acceptable limits. In this way 'acceptable' ideas lie somewhere between the Times and the Guardian world-views and anything outside that narrow band is classed as extremist or ridiculous.

Also, I think you a bit unfair on individual journalists who can make important contributions once they become famous enough. You are right about the FT being 'business shall speak truth unto business', they can't afford to lie to themselves. Too bad their website requires subscription for all the juiciest articles.