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.

Vesela - it is a leader rather than a feature though - there is probably a longer article elsewhere in the newspaper (I've not read my copy yet)

'It makes me angry that a lot of times all families on benefits are lumped together as freeloaders, all immigrants/migrants as a drain on the nation etc and there are no distinctions' thank you; and clearly I agree or I wouldnt feel guilt that gets me embroiled in such things

My background is charity sector; I would be crap at my job were I not a dyed in the wool leftie tbh. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the fiannces of the UK, but society needs my ilk too, to pick up the pieces with a smile and no jusgement as it were

We all have a role to play

SethStarkaddersMum
'ernie - am not too young to remember the 90s, am old enough to remember the 70s!'

Ahhhh well all I can really recall of the 70's are lovely weather in the summer holidays and the Bay City Rollers!
I know what you're getting at - but having the experience through the last 13 years of a labour government I don't feel it's really necessary to look back further, whereas with the tories it's all I have to go by as their economic policies don't seem much changed. I have to say during the last 13 years there seems to have generally been more prosperity for more of the population, so although I can't agree with much of their management in other areas I think from a personal viewpoint, having had fairly stable interest rates throughout that period has made life alot easier for families like ours, with a mortgage taking up the biggest chunk of our household budget, to manage our finances effectively.
Anyway I hope you are all right, as a tory victory looks inevitable, and then all I'll have to worry about is the reintroduction of rote learning for my dyslexic son, just as the education system finally seems to have got to grips with the fact that not all children learn in the same way, but that's another matter!!

ernie under labour the gap between rich and poor got wider

I hope that your son will continue to get the education he needs though.

The Economist has always been a right wing paper. They have been idolising the Tories for months now. I am a subscriber though, I just say no surprises there.

"I think from a personal viewpoint, having had fairly stable interest rates throughout that period has made life alot easier for families like ours, with a mortgage taking up the biggest chunk of our household budget, to manage our finances effectively."

but that's just it Ernie - if we keep spending we end up borrowing at higher and higher interest rates, hence the interest rates everyone is paying go up.
We have to be strict and have austerity now even though it will be horrible because otherwise we will end up like Greece and have a crappy credit rating internationally.

Labour have been spending loads of money while there has been a lot of money around (because of the worldwide boom) to spend, which is great and I am glad it has been them in power, not the Tories who would have pissed it all away in tax cuts for millionaires. But I don't trust them to restructure effectively.

Hope Gove's promises of parental choice via free schools mean that your ds will still get the right kind of education for him and they won't all be desks in rows and rote learning....

Whifflegarden
'ernie under labour the gap between rich and poor got wider'

I didn't say that it hadn't, I said that there had been been more prosperity for more of the population, that's not the same thing. What I meant was that the majority of us 'in the middle' have had more disposable income and a better standard of living. But if the tories make it their priority to also tackle the huge gap between rich and poor then I'll be thrilled - But I think I'll also be a Monkey's Uncle! I think probably the libdems have the most ambition on that score.
Can you tell I'm still a bit undecided!! I think I'd like a balanced parliament to force them to pick the best policies from all three parties ( Yes I'm an idealist!!)

'But if the tories make it their priority to also tackle the huge gap between rich and poor then I'll be thrilled - But I think I'll also be a Monkey's Uncle!'

unfortunately Ernie I think you are spot on on that one....

SethStarkaddersMum

I agree with you about not having total confidence in labour to restructure effectively. I abhore the waste created by all the quango's and overmanagement in all our services and think it's awful that Gordon Brown has made no recognition of the fact it's been so excessive, but the problem is my fear of the tories handling of the economy is greater.
I'm no ecconomic expert but from what I've understood, the debt we've taken on to try to minimise the severity of the recession, has been taken on over very long repayment periods at very low rates, because of our credit rating and that with the resulting (fingers crossed!) growth and targeted cuts in spending we should be able to sustain repayments and retain our credit rating ( in theory!!)

I agree there is uncertainty - we are buying a pig in a poke with Osborne, for a start.
I think the Tories are serious about the economy in a way that Labour aren't and there is lots of experience in the party but whether Osborne has a clue we have yet to discover.

I agree with SethStarkadder as well about not having confidence in Labour to restructure. At all. Targeted cuts just aren't going to do it - a lot of pain for no gain.

Enjoy, SanctiMoany!

I am just reading our copy of The Economist.

This is the weakest endorsement they have ever made. Even Tony got more enthusiasm 5 years ago, and that was a rather half-hearted affair.

Do you think they did not put Cameron's picture on the cover for commercial reasons? Not wanting to lose 2/3 of their readers?

gingercat, I'm not sure that the average economist reader is so easily swayed. Anyone who reads it, knows exactly what they stand for (economic and social liberalism) and they very rarely step away from that line.

Oh dear, everyone has got short memories or are too young to remember life under cons. govt. High inflation, VAT rises, people losing their homes, having to wait 3 years for a hip replacement, waiting months to see a hospital consultant. They got rid of the coal industry, shipbuilding, steel industry, railways, etc. etc. You want to live in a place where everyone depended on these industries, we have never recovered. The conservatives will say anything to get your vote but will not keep to their promises. I can tell you now what he will say in his first budget - Oh dear the books are worse than we thought and we will have to put up VAT and taxes but it's not our fault it's the labour party to blame. Seen it and heard it all before.

If you look beyond their policies you will discover most of it will never be achieved because it is simply unrealistic.

Oh well, if The Economist says we should...

happysmiley You are obviously right, but in the past they put their candidate's picture on the cover (i.e. Obama, Tony Blair, etc.)

Janos I like your nickname

nickeydee Hold on to your hat luv, no matter who gets in this time, a lot of people are going to lose their houses... as for the rest, you 'avin' a larf luv?

ginger, obviously can't speak for anyone other than myself but I've subscribed for 15 years now and was much more likely to give up my subcription when they came out in support of the Iraq war than because of any political candidate they've endorsed.

Well thank you gingercat! I like yours too.

Also, agree with happysmiley's post @ 11.54

Obviously I count myself into the non-swaying readership , so you are probably absolutely right. Just thinking out loud. Must stop that.

Who will cut spending most to pay off the debt? There are 3 ways to cut the debt: tax rises, spending cuts and growth. Growth helps because it creates jobs which means we spend less on benefits and the treasury gets more tax revenue which can pay off debt.

The Tories are actually proposing tax cuts so their spending cuts have to be doubly big, plus they want to cut now. So it is true there will be cuts under all parties but they will be bigger under the Tories.

It is not true that inequality widened under labour. It is true on some measures, but on most measures it has fallen. See the LSE report by John Hills last year, which was a proper review of all the evidence. It is true that it widened on all measures under the Tories and that under Thatcher and Major we had the highest rate of child poverty in Europe. True no longer. What would the Tories do to bring down child poverty?

That's very interesting Happikidz, do you happen to know if that report is available online?

The economist used to be a huge supporter of Ronald Reagan and Margeret Thatcher...

happikidz - That is mentioned here along with an anlalysis of some of the things that went well/didn't go well under Labour:-
www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16004271