The old aphorism had it that the Daily Express is read by those who think the country should be run like it used to be run; the Daily Telegraph by those who think the country still is run like it used to be run; the Times by those who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail by the wives of those who run the country; the Guardian by those who think that they should run the country and the Financial Times by those who own the country.

Unfair and ruder things were said, respectively, about the Morning Star and the Sun.

But the truth about the Financial Times endures, although those who rule the country on behalf of its owners read that paper every day as well. They are not interested in reading the crude, lying propaganda that is fed to the masses by the gutter press. They want facts — about the economy, business, trade, commerce, finance, energy, the environment, markets, politics and power — and well-informed, perceptive analysis and comment.

Of course, the FT and most of its readers — except me — support what they like to call the “free market,” “private enterprise” and “entrepreneurship.” They need and want capitalism to continue. The more intelligent and far-sighted among them recognise that their system’s survival is best based on the consent of most of the people, most of the time.

While more right-wing FT readers see no need for extensive concessions to working-class people in terms of wages, pensions, benefits, public services and the like, others understand the need to maintain economic demand and limit capitalism’s gross inequalities.

The FT tends to be in the latter, more “liberal” camp. It believes the state must curb the “excesses” of monopoly capitalism and unfettered markets, while at the same time defending and promoting the fundamental interests of capital.

The paper’s view is that “rogue” businesses and dysfunctional markets can sometimes be capitalism’s own worst enemy and are better reformed rather than be allowed to bring the system into disrepute.

It has been instructive, therefore, to follow the FT’s coverage of last week’s Labour Party conference.

Like all other national daily papers except the Morning Star, the daily voice of big business reported Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership election victories with a mixture of incredulity and disdain. Of course, the FT pretended to have the interests of both the country and the Labour Party at heart when favouring more business-friendly candidates on both occasions.

In the past, it had backed the Blair-Brown capture of the Labour Party and their policies of privatisation, “independence” for the Bank of England, lower rates of corporation tax, bailouts for the bankers and austerity for the rest of us.

More recently, the paper has reverted to support for the Tories in general elections, while having kind words for the Lib Dems.

But since Labour’s advance in the general election last June, the FT has been compelled to take that party under its Corbyn-McDonnell leadership much more seriously.

Its conference coverage began with a report on the decision by delegates not to prioritise motions on retaining the free movement of people between Britain and the EU.

“Corbyn’s team comes under fire for stifling vote on immigration,” ran last Monday’s FT headline.

Like the CBI, the Institute of Directors, most City financial institutions and big business generally, the FT is unreservedly pro-EU. It enthusiastically supports the European Single Market and its four business freedoms, including the free movement of labour so that it can be exploited to undercut wages, terms, conditions and trade unionism.

The paper welcomed Labour’s embrace of a “transitional” period during which Britain would remain subject to EU rules and institutions (including the anti-trade union EU Court of Justice). Lord Mandelson had an approving feature in the paper the morning after shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer’s announcement.

Last Tuesday’s FT gave front-page coverage to shadow chancellor McDonnell’s pledge to end private finance initiative (PFI) contracts.

On page two, it was reported that Labour’s policy to “nationalise” PFI would cost £50bn in the NHS alone, while taking the railways, water, energy and Royal Mail back into public ownership would — according to the CBI — “send investors running for the hills.”

Yet Wednesday’s paper published damning details of how PFI will saddle British governments with huge charges to the private sector over the next 40 years. In fact, according to the Treasury, taxpayers will end up paying £222bn in total for the construction and maintenance of public-sector schools, hospitals, roads, etc with a combined capital value of just £56bn.

Previously, the FT had shown how the Macquarie Bank in Australia borrowed money to take control of Thames Water, extracted £1.6bn in dividends, loaded Thames with £10.6bn of debt through secretive dealings in the Cayman Islands, ran up a £260m pension deficit and paid no UK corporation tax.    

The “pink one” recognises extortion when it sees it, much though it appreciates the profits accruing to the companies involved. It finds some relief in the small print of Labour’s policy documents which indicates that not all PFI contracts would be bought out.

Wednesday’s issue played up the alleged problem of anti-semitism in the party. It also reported McDonnell’s fringe speech on the possible threats facing a future Labour government, such as an investment strike, capital flight and a run on the pound.

But that day’s editorial took comfort in the hope that Labour “delivers big talk and scarce detail.” It played down the shadow chancellor’s war-gaming scenarios, on the grounds that the party’s policies are not so radical on closer inspection. A Corbyn administration “may turn out to be even less revolutionary.”

Some of the speechifying in favour of public ownership is “no doubt bluster for a party audience.” Nationalisation is a “blunt tool to address a complex and delicate situation” to which better regulation is the best response.

Interestingly, the FT does not believe that EU rules prohibit public ownership. Instead, the paper relies upon economics and politics to frustrate attempts by a Corbyn-led government to implement its programme.

Nevertheless, Labour is “putting business and investors on notice that they need to defend the record of a swathe of privatisations that in some cases delivered less than they promised.”

The content, competence and power of the Labour leader’s conference address clearly shook Britain’s monopoly mass media.

The FT headlines on Thursday blared out: “Corbyn plans on tax and rent put business and landlords on alert.”

Inside, a full page of reports warned that rent controls would hit tenants hardest — much as we once were warned that a statutory minimum wage would hit the low-paid. Disconnects between “middle-class” Labour activists and “the white working class and elderly” featured large and the “Corbyn cult” was warned against pride before a fall.

Momentum activists had previously been portrayed as devious plotters and starry-eyed idealists.  

But the FT acknowledges that the Labour leadership has consolidated its position in the party. The prospect of it forming the next government with such a “left-wing prospectus” causes business to shudder.

At the same time, another report insists that little could be done to counter capital flight or an attack on sterling without plunging the economy into recession, bankruptcy or both. Unlike the left-wing prime minister Harry Perkins in A Very British Coup, Corbyn and McDonnell would have no Soviet Union to turn to for a life-saving loan.

Continuing alignment with the EU single market and its rules on state borrowing and debt and the free movement of capital would restrict a Labour government still further.

But author Chris Mullin left two vital factors out of his “British Coup” scenario.

He allowed no role for a militant, popular anti-capitalist movement led by the organised working class and no role for a Communist Party and its unfolding programme, Britain’s Road to Socialism.

Rob Griffiths is general secretary of the Communist Party of Britain.