Luis – Absolutely – I agree. But the strident claims made about the The Economist’s perennial commitment to “free markets” – as I quoted @4 above – was written by Economist staffers to promote subscriptions!

So complain to the advertising standards authority about misrepresentation if you are saying (correctly) that the claim made by The Economist about its editorial line is untrue.

I believe we can reasonably conclude that Cameron is as much given to making facile and unsuported utterances as Blair was.

I’m reminded of this amusing spoof.

The free-market/lassais-faire philosophy that the Economist supports has taken a right kicking the past few months, the problem is the left has refused to fill the vacuum with any coherant alternatives. So we’re (probably) due to have a former PR-guru/Eton boy/Bullingdon club member [when is Labour going to capitalise on that?!] in charge for the next 5 years. Cue much soul-searching when clearing up the debris after the election.

even Economist staffers must surely have cause to question whether unregulated free markets necessarily produce optimal consequences.

Bob, even a passing acquaintance with the mag should tell you they’ve never held such a silly view, and have written numerous surveys on regulation

I don’t necessarily agree with editorial lines taken in The Economist and after the recent financial crisis even Economist staffers must surely have cause to question whether unregulated free markets necessarily produce optimal consequences.

The intelligent debate is about what form of macroprudential regulation is required to minimise the likelihood of another crisis downstream without gumming up the financial system and unduly curbing loans to business.

Be that as it may, The Economist argues its position and produces citations to the supporting evidence for its stance. There’s usually a case to reflect on.

I trust we will be treated to the courtesy of an argued rebuttal from the Conservative Central Office on the trashing of Cameron’s claims about a broken Britain otherwise I believe we can reasonably conclude that Cameron is as much given to making facile and unsuported utterances as Blair was.

They may be wrong on this (I honestly don’t feel clever enough to claim I know). But it seems to me that they take the stance they do for the right reasons. It’s not simply a matter of not giving a crap, in the way so many right-wing rags do.

“The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of
today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.”

and…

“What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?”

Daily Mail outrage? Tory blogger fuming at Broken Britain? Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells..?

Nope. The first is from Peter the Hermit (who, to be fair, sounds like a blogger..) preaching in 1274AD. The second is from Plato, writing c. 400BC.
The establishment has always bitched about “broken” societies. Plus ca change….

When ambulance staff are regularly attacked and have to wear stab proof vests then there is a problem with violence in the UK. If I wanted to check statistics , I suggest look at the injuries treated in hospitals. The idea that binge drinking leading to admission to hospital is not a problem in the UK is absurd. Hopsitals are thinking of charging people who are admitted due to alcohol.

Quite so:

“What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? ‘It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper’s historical position.’ That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage. . .

“Who owns The Economist? Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor’s independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed. . .

“The American circulation accounts for over half of the total. . .”
http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377

But then, I must also confess to being a regular reader of The Economist. After all, in the run up to the 1983 election it did say that that the Labour Party at the time was somewhat to the left of the Italian Communist Party

I’m not against bias in newspapers, I’m against hidden bias. The Economist is obviously quite right wing (economically), and they make no bones about that. However, it was only a few weeks ago that they were telling Obama to preference Human Rights over trade deals when talking to China. Can anyone point me to another right-winger who has taken such a straight-forwardly positive stance?

Funnily enough for a “broken” country most people seem to manage to get along. There are problems as have been pointed out, and a few very horrible places that need more help than any politician is brave anough to give them.

The bit that most frequently seems dysfunctional is Number 10 in particular, Westminster in general and the ignorant, raving press we all have to live with.

It’s both economically and socially liberal, and wears that on its sleeve. But it has in the past prove willing to examine the downsides of its own favoured policies.

Not really. It makes great play of looking at the facts, doing so through a single periscope which is riven with unstated & utterly ideological assumptions of a very specific background. Their pomposity derives from the complete lack of self-awareness they have of how ridiculous this makes them look to any outsider.

I don’t always agree with its political stance. But the fact it actually looks at the facts before drawing a conclusion is enough to put it way ahead of the crowd, to my mind.

if you think that about The Economist, you must really hate The Guardian

That said, they’re obviously not impressed by the Tories either.

I imagine we’ll get a leader that agonizes over an incredibly unappetizing choice, that plumps for Cameron with a complete lack of enthusiasm and a lot of caveats.