MNers get your heads out of the sand. Economist says Tories deserve to win.

[whifflegarden]

Here . On the basis of policies, according to the economist, Tories deserve to win. I agree with them, and if after the last 13 years of wasting public money, poor financial sector regulation, sell off of assets at the lowest price, you people are still buying the Labour line then god help you !!

We have a time bomb of a legacy according to the economist, and I agree. God help us if we wake up on May 7th to a Labour government. The markets will go into meltdown. Greece, now Spain debt now have junk status...will we follow them? You decide.

'would love to be a fly on the wall if Gordon Brown woke up on May 7th to the realisation that he had to get us out of this bloomin mess he had created, '

Except his capacity for self-deception is so great (judging by some of his answers last night) that he wouldn't see it that way.

The more I think about it, I refuse to believe that the tories won't get a clear majority. Labour is finished and all this talk about NC is just that - talk.

LOL

The Economist? No!

It's like saying

MNers get your heads out the sand. New Statesman says Labour deserve to win.

Good old Economist. I have champagne just in case all the doomy and gloomy people are wrong, and the Conservatives win hands down. [praying emoticon]

Well I've been canvassing again today and we are in a very marginal seat and the difference from after last weeks debate where people were wavering over voting NC/DC is a very positive 'we are going to vote conservative', DC seems to have nailed it on the economy and immigration last night.

As for GB, well people just couldn't stop trying to make that smiley face of his !

The Economist backs the Tories?

Isn't this like DC saying that big businesses support the tory 'Cuts NOW' policy - unlike the IMF here and the policies of the US and the other western European economies?

The Economist - the shouting piece for that brilliantly accurate social science, Economics. I would rather listen to my 94 year old gran's prediction than an egotistical, biased, self interested economist any day of the week.

Did anyone ever see some interesting research by Tetlock. Essentially experts, especially Economists, are horrific at predicting anything. Here is a link explaining a bit of it but findings below:

link

"Tetlock found that specialists are not significantly more reliable than non-specialists in guessing what is going to happen in the region they study. Knowing a little might make someone a more reliable forecaster, but Tetlock found that knowing a lot can actually make a person less reliable. ?We reach the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge disconcertingly quickly,? he reports. "

'The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism. Our bias towards greater political and economic freedom has often been tempered by other considerations: we plumped for Barack Obama over John McCain, Tony Blair over Michael Howard and a succession of Italian socialists over Silvio Berlusconi because we thought they were more inspiring, competent or honest than their opponents, even though the latter favoured a smaller state. But in this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out. It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable. Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland. For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying Leviathan has to be tackled. The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast our vote for them.'

from the article

ahundredtimes yes, the Economist, which (01 and 05)

The tories aren't saying cuts now, they're saying that waste in the public sector needs to be tackled. We're talking efficiency savings.

bloody hell

the economist which backed labour in the last two elections, 01 and 05

has the New Statesman ever backed the Conservatives then?

Economist....were they writing from hte angle of a family in poverty or reducing the country's debt?

I just wouldn't listen to them - weren't they wrong to back Labour whiffle?

The tories are saying cuts now.

Misleading to use one example of "70% in Northern Ireland." Public sector jobs have moved from the expensive SE to NE, N Ireland and Scotland as a result of Lyons so the proportions in particular areas may be large.

I'm also very at people believing Gordon Brown can get the UK out of this when he got the country into it. But I don't buy the Tory line either.

And it's the Tories saying the NHS should be ringfenced from cuts, the Lib Dems saying that NHS waste can't be exempted from cuts.

It's not a question of cuts, though, so much as a sea-change in the way we do things. Decentralising and getting rid of inbuilt Labour inefficiency.

-Love the economist, love the article and cannot wait to kick Gordon Brown's shiny suited arse out of the chair.

Mr Brown tells us that since Labour took power exports are up 40% - Good?

Household consumption is up 40% -Good?

This is the scary bit he neglected to tell us.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS UP 75%

Terrible article. Way too kind to Labour, and totally misrepresents Lib Dem policies.

Wow, seems as if DC's constant 'labour waste' chant has penetrated MN!!

"Wow, seems as if DC's constant 'labour waste' chant has penetrated MN!! "

Well come on Posie a massage room??

Best article of all written during the election campaign, imo. This is what the Lib Dems are about. The Economist doesn't understand.

Am being thick, and i don't get it.

[sticks out bottom lip in sulky fashion]

Don't get what??

Has any political party ever put out a manifesto that doesn't claim they can reduce taxes by cutting government waste?

And yet it never happens, does it?

eg Thatcher tried to cut the civil service, and ended up inventing quangos instead.
(Stuff I Have Learned This Week, no. 17)