egafd.com

In the discussion on this forum about most liberal political party someone
said they were voting Labour because of the stable economy.

Well lets see what the Uk Economist magazine said in the March 19th issue
about Gordon Brown and his budget.

*********** Quote ****
In the past four years Britain's public finances have lurched from black to
red. In 2000-01 the government ran a surplus of 15.4 billion pounds, 1.6% of GDP.

In 2004-05 it chalked up an estimated deficit of 34.4 billion pounds, 2.9% of
GDP.

Among the G7 advanced countries only America has had a bigger
deterioration in its structural balance over the past four years, according
to OECD figures.

When Mr Brown becamse chancellor in 1997 he made much of his prudence.
Initially he held down spending in his first three years.

But in 2000-01 he gave up prudence and turned extravegant. This marked
the start of a spending spree that has carried on through the second term.

In the past 4 years public expenditure has risen by 4.4% a year in real
terms - nearly double the rate of economic growth over the period.
******

So if they win they have bought the election nd we will all have to pay for
it over the next 4 or 5 years.

But doesn't the Economist always put a right wing slant on everything?

Mart

That was who Nigel Lawson was talking about to when he referrred to "teenage scribblers". The Economist's writers are famous for being fresh out of University with their qualifications burning holes in their pockets.

The most notable feature of the Economist's style is the way they all write about economic theory as if there was only one right way to run the economy and any fool knows it. Their portentous judgements, made as if by some world-weary expert who has seen it all must be extremely annoying to real politicians like Gordon Brown who know who it is that is writing this stuff. They certainly got under Nigel Lawson's skin.

I stopped reading the Economist a long time ago because that kind of thing gets into your head after a while, by way of asides and assumptions, without having been put there by any kind of rational argument.

I liked the political writing, which was quite balanced, but there wasn't enough of it.