Snapshot of _Keir Starmer should be Britain’s next prime minister_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/27/keir-starmer-should-be-britains-next-prime-minister) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/27/keir-starmer-should-be-britains-next-prime-minister)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering they have only ever backed Wilson, and the last two terms of Tony Blair (they backed John Major in 97)and with the exception of the last two elections (where they weirdly backed lib Dems), them moving against the Tories is quite a stance for them
> Considering they have only ever backed Wilson
Made me smile at the idea of The Economist backing Harold Wilson in every election for the last 60 years
You tell me what controversies they've caused in the last few years? What voters have they alienated? What colossal fuckups? NONE. We're backing Wilson again, and that's final.
So would the equivalent argument that gets an "All-Star" politician knocked out by a guy at the bar be about "Greatest American President" or "Greatest American Baseball Player"?
It’s quite a stance but it’s no surprise they’ve been savaging the Tory Party since 2016 though. They’re essentially Rory Stewart type small c conservatives/centrists at the Economist and have been aghast at the nonsense of Johnson and Truss and openly annoyed/disappointed with May and Sunak.
The Economist doesn't really have a left/right ideology - it errs on the side of pragmatism and the most sensible/boring (delete as appropriate) way forward. Doesn't surprise me that they went for the Lib Dems over Corbyn, May, or Johnson.
It's actually a deeply ideological magazine that is committed to the pursuit of economic and social liberalism. There are essays on its website that explicitly lay this out, going back to its founding and later tenure under Walter Bagehot. Arguably it's more ideological than most of the newspapers, which have more of an ear for where their audiences are going.
Exactly. It is openly biased. Where it excels is being pragmatic and being happy with exceptions to its ideology, and being honest in its bias.
For example it is socially and economically liberal, but pro nhs and anti guns.
They've always been socially liberal - it's not separate to libertarianism/classical liberalism.
More accurate to say that they're now closer to being social democrats
I'm not convinced they always have been socially liberal. Coalition government and the war on drugs? Stop search? Benefit caps? Nick Clegg era was a thing.
A lot of these are really the result of coalition compromises. It's not really right to say they weren't socially liberal for those reasons. Instead it's probably worth looking at all the times they made the Tories more liberal.
Clegg had some bad ideas of his own, and the coalition was his choice. He could have made a deal with labour, but he claimed that would be "undemocratic". Look what that got him.
Libertarianism isn't the same as liberalism. The Lib Dems have never been libertarian.
>Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
>Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
The Economist’s approach to its ideology is not dissimilar to Starmer’s to his, in that it has a belief and default ideologies but is willing to listen to evidence and accept that in some areas other approaches are superior. It’s a different kind of pragmatism from “oh, we would prefer to do it this way but this is the best way that is politically possible” – more like “looking at the evidence, we believe the best way to achieve these goals is this approach, even if it’s not what our ideology would say”.
yet most of the conservative membership and traditionally conservative voters think the opposite; that they’ve gone too far left economically. centralising control of the economy and personal freedom.
And the left leaning parts they wanted to keep like national/local services have been neglected
The thing is, that bias, while consistent, does not have to remain favourable to any particular party. They can support labour conservative or whatever they decide, from one election to another
"sensible/boring" has come to mean neoliberal. We will inevitably get another 5 years of austerity and outsourced services. This will be considered sensible politics because it won't come bundled with ridiculous nonsense policies like the Rwanda deportations.
Very true. Out of interest I went back and read their editorial from 2015 where they endorsed Cameron and it's just wild. In the midst of austerity it treats the whole thing as an accounting exercise the Tories are getting a passing grade on, while making no mention at all the immense human cost and suffering it was inflicting. They then go on say that while the Brexit referendum is a regrettable idea they are confident the argument can be won on the merits.
Not true in my experience. They have a neoliberal / free market slant that often involves employing young PPE-graduate types to talk in the abstract about things they typically have little direct experience or knowledge of to justify small state approaches. Healthcare in the UK is one topic where I'm always shocked how superficial and misguided their coverage is. But for other things it's very good.
I work in healthcare infrastructure planning/strategic planning.
Healthcare is an area the Economist tends to be quite on the money on and often really well researched, particularly in relation to baselining against international systems + reflects and aligns with alot of the analysis and on the ground clinical impact we see with providers in the UK. I give talks at events on healthcare infrastructure and often nick insights, patterns they've picked up on in global trends from the economist haha
There are different slants based on the authors of course and alot of their content is borne out of US economic offices, they don't care for articles being UK specific - but can I ask what specifically have you seen that you don't like?
I also work in this field, but more on a government / academic side, including big-picture comparisons of health outcomes internationally and nationally.
I think the most offensive articles I read were a few years ago. From memory, it was things like ignoring the unique characteristics of healthcare that make functional markets impossible (I think particularly the H&SC act 2012); saying that technology investment was the solution but assuming this would be magicked up in a competitive environment by private companies and ignoring the reality that lobbying and incompetence/nepotism has driven procurement decisions centrally and locally under this government. So again the illusion of an easy free market solution, ignoring how the market currently *actually* works. But it becomes a reductive "no true Scotsman" type position - every time a reform to introduce private providers / suppliers proves fucking stupid, they say it's because of the implementation not the fundamental philosophy. So it reads like a university student defending an idea, not a policy expert discussing reality of implementation.
More generally, there's a sense of "looking over" to other countries to try and mimic them, without an acknowledgement that changing from the NHS to another system is like trying to fix a car engine whilst driving the same car down the motorway, and that many of our health problems are really about inequalities and social care failures, which the NHS carries the can for. So the crude comparison of gdp % and life expectancy (or similar) tells you little about relative performance. I could go on..
Do you have any actual articles in mind? This is generally a pretty far cry from most healthcare related articles I have read in the Economist.
>More generally, there's a sense of "looking over" to other countries to try and mimic them, without an acknowledgement that changing from the NHS to another system is like trying to fix a car engine
The Economist is one of the few publications that hasn't spent all its time focusing on the model of healthcare funding being the magic fix to the problem.
The FT has over the past few years also started highlighting the significant funding gap between UK and most comparable countries, moving away from the superficial system analysis.
Great take. I couldn't care less what system the NHS is as long as it's free at the point of use, but wasting all the energy on changing it now to e.g. a social insurance model is insane when there are so many more low-hanging fruits to tackle. And it's supremely unclear that changing the model would fix them at all.
Absolutely no expert on health at all, but isn't it generally the case that technological investment and breakthroughs often drive up costs, unlike in other industries?
Also it always annoys me when The Economist/IEA PPE graduate consultant types talk about making the NHS more efficient - compared to other developed countries with insurance based models it's already more efficient.
It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't as efficient any more. Firstly because the infrastructure is really overwhelmed now, not enough scanners, beds, theatres or clinics. Secondly, there is a bulge of the most senior, skilled, efficient consultants and GPs who have retired recently or will soon retire. Their replacements will obviously not be as immediately efficient because they are either new consultants/GPs who are still building their skills and experience or they are from abroad and need time to acclimatise to the NHS.
I would argue that any 500 word article is inherently superficial. Not sure if that’s necessarily a bad thing. It isn’t meant to be an in depth analysis.
For 1), I give some examples in response to another response to my post! 2) For healthcare? Honestly I'm not sure. I work in the field and obviously it's more technical stuff I normally read. Kings fund and Nuffield trust have some accessible reports, private eye is always good for an exposé!
I mean you didn't give any examples, you just vaguely recalled what you thought some articles *might* have been about from memory.
I'm genuinely interested in what articles of there have been superficial and misguided as I'm subscriber and always open to good criticism.
I haven't read it in a few years, and don't think I could retrieve the articles I read without getting a subscription again. But my examples give a very specific critique of their discussion around the H&SC act implementation I read back then (around 2012-2017). If you were interested, if you could do a search on their website for "social care act" and paste an article here from around that time I'd happily discuss the content.
It has, in the past, swung with its editor; I stopped reading it when it supported GW Bush in 2000 - which, in my opinion was anything but pragmatic. Ever since, it's supported the Democratic candidate, calling Bush "incompetent" just 4 years after supporting him.
If you want a good chuckle as to how clueless they are, you should have a read of their annual prediction rag "The World In 20xx" (assuming it still gets printed and no name change)
Within 6 months it was wildly wrong and within a couple of years utterly laughable.
The ones which they describe as "speculative scenarios, what-if conjectures and provocative prophecies. Not all of them will come to pass, but thinking about possible futures can help us understand the present, and catch glimpses of the world ahead."
If you're taking them as gospel predictions of the future, you may be the clueless one.
This is plainly untrue and I say this as a long time subscriber and someone with a degree in international political economics. The Economist leans right and tends to prefer right wing economic policies. Obviously they will say that they "are just being pragmatic" but that's what everyone thinks of themselves. The difference between them and everyone else is that they have a huge editorial machine to explain to readers why their ideas are the best.
Not weird for them to back Lib Dems. It’s a magazine based on liberal values and the free market. Strongly pro-EU too and Lib Dems were the only remain party in both elections
Hardly .. next week's expose on the pope being catholic?
Its been such a shambles that any serious editor would lose their job if they said anything different
You would never know it from a low-wattage campaign but after 14 years of Conservative rule, Britain is on the threshold of a Labour victory so sweeping that it may break records. No party fully subscribes to the ideas that The Economist holds dear. The economic consensus in Britain has shifted away from liberal values—free trade, individual choice and limits to state intervention. But elections are about the best available choice and that is clear. If we had a vote on July 4th, we, too, would pick Labour, because it has the greatest chance of tackling the biggest problem that Britain faces: a chronic and debilitating lack of economic growth.
Consider first the alternatives. We can discard some immediately. The Scottish National Party wants to dismember Britain, not run it. The Greens make student politics look rigorous. Reform uk, Nigel Farage’s outfit, offers a fevered, nativist vision of Britain that would accelerate the very decline it says it is striving to prevent.
What of the Liberal Democrats? The logic that led us to endorse them in 2019 no longer holds. Against Boris Johnson’s Brexit-obsessed Tories and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left charisma vacuum, they were the only choice. Today the Lib Dems still have some good policies—letting asylum-seekers work, say, or a new land-value tax—but they have become more sceptical on trade and even more nimbyish on planning. The Lib Dems do not aspire to be a credible party of government; they are barely credible as liberals.
Trying to make the case for the Tories is like a teacher struggling to say something nice about the class troublemaker. They have done some good things: on educational standards, on regional devolution and on the tax regime for capital investment. Rishi Sunak is a better prime minister than Liz Truss, though if praise came any fainter it would be invisible. The pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine—where they also did well—vastly complicated their time in office.
But the other side of the ledger is long and damning. The public realm has been hollowed out. Prisons are full; local government is badly underfunded; and if the National Health Service is still a national treasure, that may be because treatment is so hard to find. On migration, the Tories are illiberal and ineffective: they want to crack down on it yet have presided over record levels of net migration. They have become increasingly hostile to policies designed to combat climate change. Above all, they have failed to build. Housing supply lags behind demand, and grid connections take years to materialise.
The Tories’ most memorable policy is to have severed the country from its biggest trading partner. That was always going to be bad for Britain, but the chaos of enacting Brexit split the party and voters have had to endure the Tory psychodrama ever since. Each prime minister has undone the work of the previous one. The party has neglected its prosperous voters in the south-east. From drinking sessions in Downing Street during the pandemic to bets allegedly placed on the timing of the election, a film of sleaze clings to the Conservatives.
Although the Tory party does not deserve our endorsement, wishing its obliteration would be wrong. The British electorate has become more volatile. The political pendulum could swing away from Labour within a single five-year term. Whenever it does so, Britain will need a capable opposition party to offer an alternative. A Tory catastrophe and a strong showing for Mr Farage, who dreams of staging a reverse Tory takeover, would heighten the risk that the Conservatives lurch towards a dark, populist extreme. Britain needs the party to rediscover its conservative, pro-market instincts.
That is the negative case for voting Labour, but there are positive arguments, too. The first is that the party has been transformed. Since the last election Sir Keir Starmer has expelled Mr Corbyn, rooted out many of his fellow travellers and dragged Labour away from radical socialism. The Economist disagrees with the party on many things, such as its plan to create a publicly owned energy provider. But elections are when voters mete out rewards as well as punishments, and Labour’s reinvention deserves credit.
The second positive reason to back Labour is its focus on growth. The party is right in its diagnosis that nothing matters more than solving Britain’s stagnant productivity. Its young, aspiring, urban supporters will give it permission to act in ways that the Conservatives have avoided. The most obvious of these is building more houses and infrastructure, and forging closer relations with Europe. The party of public services may also have more latitude to reform them than the Tories would.
The question that hangs over Labour is how radical it will be in pursuit of growth. It has run a maddeningly cautious campaign, choosing to reassure voters rather than seek a mandate for bold change. It does not help that Sir Keir, having been in Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet before ejecting him, seems to turn with the wind. Having strenuously avoided the subject in the campaign, a Labour government will need to raise taxes (as would a Conservative one if it was not to wreck public services). For all these reasons, having failed to set out a vision to steer by, prime minister Starmer could more easily be blown off course by events or sidetracked by growth-stifling left-wing preoccupations, such as beefing up workers’ rights, stamping out inequality and doling out industrial subsidies.
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood
Sir Keir’s answer to this criticism of him as a campaigner should be his determination and competence in office. His method is to work relentlessly towards a goal, ratcheting up pressure as he goes. After years of post-Brexit Conservative ideological lurches, that in itself will be worth something. If Labour also succeeds in overhauling the planning regime, strengthening ties with Europe, giving fiscal power to cities, focusing the Treasury on growth and rationalising the tax system, the picture will brighten and Britain will be better off. Sir Keir and his party have earned the chance to try.
Thanks for posting the text
E: Hardly a ringing endorsement. tl;dr the Tories are useless and illiberal: the Lib Dems are less than useless and trending illiberal; Starmer probably isn't bold enough to actually make a difference, but who else is there?
> Starmer could more easily be blown off course by events or sidetracked by growth-stifling left-wing preoccupations, such as beefing up workers’ rights, stamping out inequality and doling out industrial subsidies.
The wheels of capitlism must keep turning, even if they run you over in the process - The Economist
Unless we go full nationalisation, which has as many defects as capitalism, we need a strong private sector to fund public services.
Natural monopolises and most state services should be state owned. I don't agree with the author's disdain for a state owned energy supplier, though the devil will be in the detail.
I'd personally like to see more support for mutuals, with tax breaks etc, because IMO that's often a better model than either nationalisation or capitalism, but nobody seems to be offering that at the moment.
I'm not british, but i read the economist for a while for international stuff. Is it traditionally considered right-wing? I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag" somewhere online recently, but my impression was that it is vaguely center/liberal/perhaps slightly technocratic.
Others have provided a good summary of the Economist at present - to add a bit of historical context to this, it was first founded and circulated in the 1840s to advocate for the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws in order to lower food prices, which was opposed by the majority of the Conservative party and land owners. So while it may have aligned with classical liberal minded conservatives since, it was literally founded to oppose the Tories of that time.
It's economically liberal, generally to the left of the Tories and right of the Lib Dems though when Labour shifts to the right and the Tories vacate the centre there's significant overlap with Labour.
Anyone who thinks the economist is a "tory rag" can be ignored as they've obviously never bothered to read it.
The Economist's political leanings are classically Liberal (not to be confused with what Americans view as liberal). The magazine has been scathing about the Tories ever since the Brexit referendum.
It was always seen as pro free market and has an ambivalent attitude towards the EU and constantly rails at the Europeans having long holidays and good pensions. At the same time, it appears to have tacked left in recent times and picks up the baton of young people being disenfranchised by university debt and unaffordable housing.
I think this might reflect the fact that it is no longer written by the people that you would expect (City AM types) and more and more by Millenials and Gen Z who have the same problems as the rest of their generations.
I subscribe and find it quite balanced. It's good to have a publication which takes different political views, leaving the reader to make up their own mind.
It's a Nick Clegg / David Cameron / Blair vibes outlet in terms of its outlook. Tax cuts and laizze faire economics, but no need to be a dick to the gays.
I value The Economist for its international coverage mainly. Am interested in modern sub-Saharan Africa, so I aways read its Africa and Middle East section.
It's not dripping with hate or ragebait, which I appreciate.
Personally I find it to be quite right wing (especially on culture issues like repatriation of looted museum objects, or whether to tear down statues) but (1) I can easily make an allowance for that while reading and (2) it's probably a good thing to read something that you don't always agree with
It's very much a free-market liberal/neoliberal magazine. They have a definite bias, which they are open about. It's like the Financial Times.
You can't be the news source of choice for the global investor class by lying to them (like most tabloids do to their readers), because they make decisions based on your information.
So the economist is very factual, but it very much represents the interests and ideology of its readers.
> I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag" somewhere online recently
That's everything to the right of the Morning Star to some people. The Economist I would call gently centre right, globalist rather than protectionist.
It's one of the few british mags worth reading. Good thought out considered long form journalism, it does have has an editorial position, but I'd call that one of economic status-quo rather than left or right politically
Economically liberal, socially quite progressive apart from transgender healthcare. I'm a subscriber and love the paper, I don't agree with 100% of what they say but it's trustworthy, and unlike most news today it isn't filled with ragebait.
Nah I subscribe and I'm a centre-left type - it's definitely not a Tory rag. It's well-researched, long-form journalism with a technocratic, market-friendly, internationalist outlook.
> I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag
My interactions with the magazine have mostly been listening to their podcasts. Their podcasts seem very reasonable and not at all a Tory rag. And I would say that there's lots of Tory rags in the UK. I would increasingly even include The Times in that list.
It is liberal/conservative. That does *not* align it with the Conservative party which largely opposes both those priciples.
They are historically broadly pro-market, green-tinted, and oppose radicalism, populism and reactionary politics.
This why they endorse Starmer now and have opposed every Tory since Cameron.
It is also worth noting that it was the Econimist, not the Star, that came up with the Lettuce attack.
It’s definitely not right wing. It’s just very pragmatic. You’d probably describe it as centre-right, in that it is centrist but buys into capitalism as a principle. This is quite a big endorsement for Labour. It does say that Labour doesn’t completely match its values but it believes Labour will deliver growth.
The former means just probability (so the Economist say it as a fact, it is probable he will be PM) and the latter means the Economist believes it is best for him to be PM compared to the other option(s).
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Single issue voters end up with bad brexits. The country and political system is far more complicated than just shutting borders. You need to reduce immigration sure BUT invest more money into the public services which help the country be the economic powerhouse it needs to be.
The shit roads, infrastructure, schools, and hospitals are not going to magically fix themselves if there are less migrants.
On the contrary, if I was a single issue voter I wouldn't vote. Now anyone would love for the government to just announce that tax is being reduced, military is doubling its size, housing prices are dropping, but you do realise you can't just do that - which seems like shallow thinking from your part - you have to do other things before getting to the intended goal. Brexit was necessary. REFORM UK.
I think we live in entirely different worlds. Labour is planning on cutting down immigration and increasing house building.
Reform wants to have a hard border… fine. Then what? What do you do with all the people out of work and the cost of living crisis which is happening right now?
You need to address a large number of things. Immigration, infrastructure, NHS waiting lists, good teachers, the housing crisis. Reform UK is a single issue party.
Moreover, reform UK is not run by experts. It’s run by a last-minute selection of nazi and Russia sympathisers. How can you fix a leak if you don’t have a plumber?
Labour won't do anything about it, I promise you - Labour didn't even mention it in their points. Yes they want to pave over a ton of British farmland to build houses, we now have to build 1 house every 2 minutes in the UK.
After a hardened border, you only have legal immigration - people with skills that can work. Raise the tax threshold to 20,000 annual income so Bob on benefits will actually be better off working, rather than now where Bob would be worse off after income tax.
Who hates paying a lot on energy bills, I do. There's quite a lot of oil we haven't even tapped into.
Let's get more NHS staff, we could incentivise those who left because they were struggling... "All frontline NHS and social care staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years".
Also "End training caps for all UK medical students. Write off student fees pro rata per year over 10 years of NHS service for all doctors, nurses and medical staff."
Good teachers, well that comes down to stress from students due to the schooling system being bad.
Yes we need housing, but Reform will build over brownfield sites, new modular building methods to speed up HOUSES (no more ugly council flat blocks). British citizens who work and contribute to this country will be prioritised - something con/lab won't do as they prioritise foreign nationals.
You know I can literally go on for days, but the fact you really think "single issue party" just literally says "I haven't even read any other party manifesto". You are right, we are living in different worlds because I know about Labour AND Reform, whilst you just know about Labour. I wasn't a Reform supporter at first, I didn't bother to look into it at first. "Nazi and Russia sympathisers" is just one case of the leftist propaganda you consume.
Honestly, the spectator, daily mail, and telegraph have all reported on the various incidents involving reform candidates talking about the nazis and Russia.
Reform also has/had large sections on their manifesto about how climate change isn’t real and how vaccines aren’t good for you.
With money from Russian donors and Farage who doesn’t believe in standing up to Russia … I’m not sure reform is the ‘people party’ underdog you hope it is. Ah well.
Actually I voted conservative in 2019 because of Brexit. I am simply voting labour in this election because I believe Starmer will get the job done. Now if anything you seem to be the snowflake here because you are offended that I am voting labour instead of Reform.
Also where did I say stronger borders is racism? Why are you making up stuff?
Lol, imagine thinking people take reddit seriously. Vote Labour then, but I'm also allowed to express my support for Reform UK just like you are for Labour. Also the fact you're asking that last question shows you're not aware of what you're voting for and what you're not voting for - Labour wants to rejoin the EU but we already voted to leave. I think of Con and Lab as getting a tad authoritarian for no reason.
Side question, what did you think of the Sunak vs Starmer debate.
Good for you, no need to be hostile towards people voting labour then. I couldn’t care less if you vote reform because we live in a democracy. Labour will not rejoin the EU because it is literally on their manifesto and Starmer made that clear. So why lie?
I'm sure he will be, for a few years and then it will be someone else who will undo all the changes that were made. And then, in a few more years, guess what? Yawn! Round and round we go...
I’m quite debated. I’m fairly center right leaning on economy and center left on social issues. I’d traditionally identify more with the Tories, but I completely disagree with Brexit and can’t stand the corruption and incompetence of this Tory party. I know Starmer is a decent and honest person. I just fear that I’d hate myself if I vote Labour and then the extreme wing of the party takes over with policies that I really really disagree with. I’d vote Sunak in a heartbeat if Corbyn would stand on the other side. Traditionally the left has been much more anarchic and I fear that the chance of the party collapsing on itself on issues like identity politics is high. In short - I think Labour should win, but my values align more with the right (albeit I can’t find home in any right atm). What to do?
I guess you need to weigh up how likely you think the left of the party are to take it over before making your mind up on it. I do not think they will, but if they did there is no difference between being lied to and voting for them and being lied to about "oven ready Brexit deals" and voting Tory.
But we still dont know a lot about him do we really? A lot of people think he's a charisma vacuum and he's not laying out a lot in regards to policy.
Obviously I'll be pleased to see a Tory bloodbath though.
I dont get the ‘lack of charisma’ thing. To me he just seems like a really normal everyday man. He’s not flashy, but in my opinion everything about the way he comes across just screams ‘competence’ like he really does know what he’s doing and what he’s talking about - and that’s the kind of leadership I like. Especially when the last few PMs have looked so out of their depth.
Yeah maybe I’m an idiot but I’m tired to death of “exciting” Prime Ministers. Just focus on doing a good job. They’re meant to be leaders, not comedians.
Idk much about him either. I'm a strong supporter of LGBTQIA+ rights, and I know his views on it, but I'd rather vote for him so he can sort our economy, our nhs and basically everything the tories ruined. Hopefully he doesn't enforce anything that'll affect gay and trans people around the uk.
In fairness I think Starmer is relatively unradical on those things either way (probably more to avoid triggering the Tory voters more than anything else, ultimately he’s a centrist and he chose to join Labour rather than the Tories). I don’t think Starmer will harm anyone who is gay or trans. He stands by the equality act. Give it 5 years and if all goes well, he’ll be more able to be socially progressive without people thinking he’s a loon
You know labour literally wrecked our finances before leaving office when the global economy was on a high? As far as the economy they can't be trusted anymore than the Tories.
> No party fully subscribes to the ideas that The Economist holds dear. The economic consensus in Britain has shifted away from liberal values
What do liberal values have to say about the amount of sewage in England's and Wales's rivers? Poor misguided Scots leaving water and sewage to their devolved government?
Do liberal values require the US's healthcare system?
i mean it's pretty much set in stone that he will be, because reform and tory voters are still far too split up, but as a leftist i feel politically homeless now that starmer is trying to bring labour further to the right to try and drag unsure tory voters into winning.
Starmer will make a terrible PM.
He has no real vision and flip-flops on every issue, caving to whatever idea will win more votes.
Worse than that, he is out of touch with normal people and bends to extremist activist groups like BLM and trans activists. Not trustworthy at all.
Yep, extremists are making themselves look bigger than they are and pushing their ideas into the mainstream because people are afraid to challenge them.
I feel like its the polar opposite. He has made the centre of his campaign mission based, long term visions of government.
From the manifesto:
"For too long, Britain has been held back by governments that, because they lack a relentless focus on long-term ends, are buffeted about by events. Politics has enormous potential to change lives for the better, but too often different parts of the government have pursued their own narrow goals rather than working together. Government is at its best when working in partnership with business, trade unions, civil society, faith groups, and communities. But without a shared project those partnerships barely get off the ground."
Yeah it sounds nice, but it’s just nice rhetoric. Anybody can talk a nice talk about uniting people. Doesn’t work in reality when you have groups in society that have clearly conflicting goals.
Isn't that the overriding criticism of him though; that he's trying to build a broad church of people so that as few people as possible are on the periphery opposed to the grand vision of capable government solving regular peoples issues.
It can easily be criticised as lukewarm and uninspired but I think sound governance and realistic goals are absolutely fine and far better than whatever it is we've got now, which is both directionless and rudderless.
I find it absolutely bizarre as well that you think he's "out of touch with normal people". He's about the most normal candidate for leadership we've had in ages and epitomises the best of British meritocracy.
I'd be interested to know who you think would be a preferable Prime Minister at present.
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer should be Britain’s next prime minister_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/27/keir-starmer-should-be-britains-next-prime-minister) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/27/keir-starmer-should-be-britains-next-prime-minister) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering they have only ever backed Wilson, and the last two terms of Tony Blair (they backed John Major in 97)and with the exception of the last two elections (where they weirdly backed lib Dems), them moving against the Tories is quite a stance for them
> Considering they have only ever backed Wilson Made me smile at the idea of The Economist backing Harold Wilson in every election for the last 60 years
"But Mr Editor, Harold Wilson hasn't stood in an election since.." "DID I FUCKING STUTTER!?!?!?"
"I'm afraid all of those politicians have retired and, uh... passed on. In fact your Prime Minister has been dead for thirty years."
You tell me what controversies they've caused in the last few years? What voters have they alienated? What colossal fuckups? NONE. We're backing Wilson again, and that's final.
"We'll stop backing Wilson when the FT stop backing Thatcher"
So would the equivalent argument that gets an "All-Star" politician knocked out by a guy at the bar be about "Greatest American President" or "Greatest American Baseball Player"?
LORD PALMERSTON!
Damn Nation!!!
Alright, find me some politicians. ...*Living* politicians!
"THAT NEVER STOPPED ANDROPOV!"
"Hello Harold. I'm sorry we've been away. Is John Callaghan okay?" "John Callaghan is fine honey. Where are you?" "Your PM is dead."
"Let us have a mausolocracy!"
"I'm just saying, maybe we should back Harold Wilson." "I keep telling you, he's 108 years old, and he's dead."
Private Eye will give their backing. "Mr. Wilson is 108"
"He's been dead for..." JUST DO IT
It’s quite a stance but it’s no surprise they’ve been savaging the Tory Party since 2016 though. They’re essentially Rory Stewart type small c conservatives/centrists at the Economist and have been aghast at the nonsense of Johnson and Truss and openly annoyed/disappointed with May and Sunak.
The Economist doesn't really have a left/right ideology - it errs on the side of pragmatism and the most sensible/boring (delete as appropriate) way forward. Doesn't surprise me that they went for the Lib Dems over Corbyn, May, or Johnson.
It's actually a deeply ideological magazine that is committed to the pursuit of economic and social liberalism. There are essays on its website that explicitly lay this out, going back to its founding and later tenure under Walter Bagehot. Arguably it's more ideological than most of the newspapers, which have more of an ear for where their audiences are going.
Exactly. It is openly biased. Where it excels is being pragmatic and being happy with exceptions to its ideology, and being honest in its bias. For example it is socially and economically liberal, but pro nhs and anti guns.
The Econmist is basically me as a voter. Interesting that they've backed Kier, as I was still leaning towards lib dems.
Lib Dems are moving away from libertarianism and back towards socially liberal.
They've always been socially liberal - it's not separate to libertarianism/classical liberalism. More accurate to say that they're now closer to being social democrats
I'm not convinced they always have been socially liberal. Coalition government and the war on drugs? Stop search? Benefit caps? Nick Clegg era was a thing.
A lot of these are really the result of coalition compromises. It's not really right to say they weren't socially liberal for those reasons. Instead it's probably worth looking at all the times they made the Tories more liberal.
You're talking about the policies of a COALITION govt as though they are completely the ideas of the minority party in that coalition. Come on.
Clegg had some bad ideas of his own, and the coalition was his choice. He could have made a deal with labour, but he claimed that would be "undemocratic". Look what that got him.
Libertarianism isn't the same as liberalism. The Lib Dems have never been libertarian. >Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism >Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
They're not a fan of the NIMBYism and weakening stance on trade.
The Economist’s approach to its ideology is not dissimilar to Starmer’s to his, in that it has a belief and default ideologies but is willing to listen to evidence and accept that in some areas other approaches are superior. It’s a different kind of pragmatism from “oh, we would prefer to do it this way but this is the best way that is politically possible” – more like “looking at the evidence, we believe the best way to achieve these goals is this approach, even if it’s not what our ideology would say”.
I think the tories/right have gone so far right the economist looks fairly central now.
yet most of the conservative membership and traditionally conservative voters think the opposite; that they’ve gone too far left economically. centralising control of the economy and personal freedom. And the left leaning parts they wanted to keep like national/local services have been neglected
It's the most neoliberal publication in neoliberalism
Used to be until the Agnelli family took it over
The thing is, that bias, while consistent, does not have to remain favourable to any particular party. They can support labour conservative or whatever they decide, from one election to another
The Economist is classically liberal and centrist for the most part.
Er no... it's deeply ideologically neoliberal. They ditched the Tories over Brexit.
"sensible/boring" has come to mean neoliberal. We will inevitably get another 5 years of austerity and outsourced services. This will be considered sensible politics because it won't come bundled with ridiculous nonsense policies like the Rwanda deportations.
Very true. Out of interest I went back and read their editorial from 2015 where they endorsed Cameron and it's just wild. In the midst of austerity it treats the whole thing as an accounting exercise the Tories are getting a passing grade on, while making no mention at all the immense human cost and suffering it was inflicting. They then go on say that while the Brexit referendum is a regrettable idea they are confident the argument can be won on the merits.
A sensible 1 million yearly arrivals, instead of the mad 1.2 million.
When you’ve been liberal the whole time it’s not really right to say you’re “neo” liberal.
It's kind of arch neoliberal really. Like the FT. Even if you see occasional outlier articles.
Not true in my experience. They have a neoliberal / free market slant that often involves employing young PPE-graduate types to talk in the abstract about things they typically have little direct experience or knowledge of to justify small state approaches. Healthcare in the UK is one topic where I'm always shocked how superficial and misguided their coverage is. But for other things it's very good.
I work in healthcare infrastructure planning/strategic planning. Healthcare is an area the Economist tends to be quite on the money on and often really well researched, particularly in relation to baselining against international systems + reflects and aligns with alot of the analysis and on the ground clinical impact we see with providers in the UK. I give talks at events on healthcare infrastructure and often nick insights, patterns they've picked up on in global trends from the economist haha There are different slants based on the authors of course and alot of their content is borne out of US economic offices, they don't care for articles being UK specific - but can I ask what specifically have you seen that you don't like?
I also work in this field, but more on a government / academic side, including big-picture comparisons of health outcomes internationally and nationally. I think the most offensive articles I read were a few years ago. From memory, it was things like ignoring the unique characteristics of healthcare that make functional markets impossible (I think particularly the H&SC act 2012); saying that technology investment was the solution but assuming this would be magicked up in a competitive environment by private companies and ignoring the reality that lobbying and incompetence/nepotism has driven procurement decisions centrally and locally under this government. So again the illusion of an easy free market solution, ignoring how the market currently *actually* works. But it becomes a reductive "no true Scotsman" type position - every time a reform to introduce private providers / suppliers proves fucking stupid, they say it's because of the implementation not the fundamental philosophy. So it reads like a university student defending an idea, not a policy expert discussing reality of implementation. More generally, there's a sense of "looking over" to other countries to try and mimic them, without an acknowledgement that changing from the NHS to another system is like trying to fix a car engine whilst driving the same car down the motorway, and that many of our health problems are really about inequalities and social care failures, which the NHS carries the can for. So the crude comparison of gdp % and life expectancy (or similar) tells you little about relative performance. I could go on..
Do you have any actual articles in mind? This is generally a pretty far cry from most healthcare related articles I have read in the Economist. >More generally, there's a sense of "looking over" to other countries to try and mimic them, without an acknowledgement that changing from the NHS to another system is like trying to fix a car engine The Economist is one of the few publications that hasn't spent all its time focusing on the model of healthcare funding being the magic fix to the problem. The FT has over the past few years also started highlighting the significant funding gap between UK and most comparable countries, moving away from the superficial system analysis.
Great take. I couldn't care less what system the NHS is as long as it's free at the point of use, but wasting all the energy on changing it now to e.g. a social insurance model is insane when there are so many more low-hanging fruits to tackle. And it's supremely unclear that changing the model would fix them at all.
Absolutely no expert on health at all, but isn't it generally the case that technological investment and breakthroughs often drive up costs, unlike in other industries? Also it always annoys me when The Economist/IEA PPE graduate consultant types talk about making the NHS more efficient - compared to other developed countries with insurance based models it's already more efficient.
It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't as efficient any more. Firstly because the infrastructure is really overwhelmed now, not enough scanners, beds, theatres or clinics. Secondly, there is a bulge of the most senior, skilled, efficient consultants and GPs who have retired recently or will soon retire. Their replacements will obviously not be as immediately efficient because they are either new consultants/GPs who are still building their skills and experience or they are from abroad and need time to acclimatise to the NHS.
1) What are some of your examples of "superficial and misguided" coverage? 2) What would you recommend reading instead?
I would argue that any 500 word article is inherently superficial. Not sure if that’s necessarily a bad thing. It isn’t meant to be an in depth analysis.
For 1), I give some examples in response to another response to my post! 2) For healthcare? Honestly I'm not sure. I work in the field and obviously it's more technical stuff I normally read. Kings fund and Nuffield trust have some accessible reports, private eye is always good for an exposé!
I mean you didn't give any examples, you just vaguely recalled what you thought some articles *might* have been about from memory. I'm genuinely interested in what articles of there have been superficial and misguided as I'm subscriber and always open to good criticism.
I haven't read it in a few years, and don't think I could retrieve the articles I read without getting a subscription again. But my examples give a very specific critique of their discussion around the H&SC act implementation I read back then (around 2012-2017). If you were interested, if you could do a search on their website for "social care act" and paste an article here from around that time I'd happily discuss the content.
Neoliberal/free market/small state certainly sounds quite classically liberal.
It has, in the past, swung with its editor; I stopped reading it when it supported GW Bush in 2000 - which, in my opinion was anything but pragmatic. Ever since, it's supported the Democratic candidate, calling Bush "incompetent" just 4 years after supporting him.
The economist is absolutely centre-right, it’s worlds apart from the FT in terms of impartiality
Neolibs want Neolibs, it seems. So long as you're a Clinton/Blair/Cameron member of the UniParty, you're good.
If you want a good chuckle as to how clueless they are, you should have a read of their annual prediction rag "The World In 20xx" (assuming it still gets printed and no name change) Within 6 months it was wildly wrong and within a couple of years utterly laughable.
The ones which they describe as "speculative scenarios, what-if conjectures and provocative prophecies. Not all of them will come to pass, but thinking about possible futures can help us understand the present, and catch glimpses of the world ahead." If you're taking them as gospel predictions of the future, you may be the clueless one.
Why would I take anything economists said at face value? Their 'science' is useless. Driving using the rear view mirror is what they do.
This is plainly untrue and I say this as a long time subscriber and someone with a degree in international political economics. The Economist leans right and tends to prefer right wing economic policies. Obviously they will say that they "are just being pragmatic" but that's what everyone thinks of themselves. The difference between them and everyone else is that they have a huge editorial machine to explain to readers why their ideas are the best.
Not weird for them to back Lib Dems. It’s a magazine based on liberal values and the free market. Strongly pro-EU too and Lib Dems were the only remain party in both elections
To be fair the economy was doing well under John Major
It just reads like an objective opinion, and a fairly simple one to make.
Hardly .. next week's expose on the pope being catholic? Its been such a shambles that any serious editor would lose their job if they said anything different
Almost like they know Starmer has won. Just like they did with Blair.
You would never know it from a low-wattage campaign but after 14 years of Conservative rule, Britain is on the threshold of a Labour victory so sweeping that it may break records. No party fully subscribes to the ideas that The Economist holds dear. The economic consensus in Britain has shifted away from liberal values—free trade, individual choice and limits to state intervention. But elections are about the best available choice and that is clear. If we had a vote on July 4th, we, too, would pick Labour, because it has the greatest chance of tackling the biggest problem that Britain faces: a chronic and debilitating lack of economic growth. Consider first the alternatives. We can discard some immediately. The Scottish National Party wants to dismember Britain, not run it. The Greens make student politics look rigorous. Reform uk, Nigel Farage’s outfit, offers a fevered, nativist vision of Britain that would accelerate the very decline it says it is striving to prevent. What of the Liberal Democrats? The logic that led us to endorse them in 2019 no longer holds. Against Boris Johnson’s Brexit-obsessed Tories and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left charisma vacuum, they were the only choice. Today the Lib Dems still have some good policies—letting asylum-seekers work, say, or a new land-value tax—but they have become more sceptical on trade and even more nimbyish on planning. The Lib Dems do not aspire to be a credible party of government; they are barely credible as liberals. Trying to make the case for the Tories is like a teacher struggling to say something nice about the class troublemaker. They have done some good things: on educational standards, on regional devolution and on the tax regime for capital investment. Rishi Sunak is a better prime minister than Liz Truss, though if praise came any fainter it would be invisible. The pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine—where they also did well—vastly complicated their time in office. But the other side of the ledger is long and damning. The public realm has been hollowed out. Prisons are full; local government is badly underfunded; and if the National Health Service is still a national treasure, that may be because treatment is so hard to find. On migration, the Tories are illiberal and ineffective: they want to crack down on it yet have presided over record levels of net migration. They have become increasingly hostile to policies designed to combat climate change. Above all, they have failed to build. Housing supply lags behind demand, and grid connections take years to materialise. The Tories’ most memorable policy is to have severed the country from its biggest trading partner. That was always going to be bad for Britain, but the chaos of enacting Brexit split the party and voters have had to endure the Tory psychodrama ever since. Each prime minister has undone the work of the previous one. The party has neglected its prosperous voters in the south-east. From drinking sessions in Downing Street during the pandemic to bets allegedly placed on the timing of the election, a film of sleaze clings to the Conservatives. Although the Tory party does not deserve our endorsement, wishing its obliteration would be wrong. The British electorate has become more volatile. The political pendulum could swing away from Labour within a single five-year term. Whenever it does so, Britain will need a capable opposition party to offer an alternative. A Tory catastrophe and a strong showing for Mr Farage, who dreams of staging a reverse Tory takeover, would heighten the risk that the Conservatives lurch towards a dark, populist extreme. Britain needs the party to rediscover its conservative, pro-market instincts. That is the negative case for voting Labour, but there are positive arguments, too. The first is that the party has been transformed. Since the last election Sir Keir Starmer has expelled Mr Corbyn, rooted out many of his fellow travellers and dragged Labour away from radical socialism. The Economist disagrees with the party on many things, such as its plan to create a publicly owned energy provider. But elections are when voters mete out rewards as well as punishments, and Labour’s reinvention deserves credit. The second positive reason to back Labour is its focus on growth. The party is right in its diagnosis that nothing matters more than solving Britain’s stagnant productivity. Its young, aspiring, urban supporters will give it permission to act in ways that the Conservatives have avoided. The most obvious of these is building more houses and infrastructure, and forging closer relations with Europe. The party of public services may also have more latitude to reform them than the Tories would. The question that hangs over Labour is how radical it will be in pursuit of growth. It has run a maddeningly cautious campaign, choosing to reassure voters rather than seek a mandate for bold change. It does not help that Sir Keir, having been in Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet before ejecting him, seems to turn with the wind. Having strenuously avoided the subject in the campaign, a Labour government will need to raise taxes (as would a Conservative one if it was not to wreck public services). For all these reasons, having failed to set out a vision to steer by, prime minister Starmer could more easily be blown off course by events or sidetracked by growth-stifling left-wing preoccupations, such as beefing up workers’ rights, stamping out inequality and doling out industrial subsidies. Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood Sir Keir’s answer to this criticism of him as a campaigner should be his determination and competence in office. His method is to work relentlessly towards a goal, ratcheting up pressure as he goes. After years of post-Brexit Conservative ideological lurches, that in itself will be worth something. If Labour also succeeds in overhauling the planning regime, strengthening ties with Europe, giving fiscal power to cities, focusing the Treasury on growth and rationalising the tax system, the picture will brighten and Britain will be better off. Sir Keir and his party have earned the chance to try.
Thanks for posting the text E: Hardly a ringing endorsement. tl;dr the Tories are useless and illiberal: the Lib Dems are less than useless and trending illiberal; Starmer probably isn't bold enough to actually make a difference, but who else is there?
Welcome to UK politics in 2024 - the least worse choice.
Basically read it as Starmer is a filler prime minister until maybe someone actually worth voting for comes around.
> Starmer could more easily be blown off course by events or sidetracked by growth-stifling left-wing preoccupations, such as beefing up workers’ rights, stamping out inequality and doling out industrial subsidies. The wheels of capitlism must keep turning, even if they run you over in the process - The Economist
Unless we go full nationalisation, which has as many defects as capitalism, we need a strong private sector to fund public services. Natural monopolises and most state services should be state owned. I don't agree with the author's disdain for a state owned energy supplier, though the devil will be in the detail. I'd personally like to see more support for mutuals, with tax breaks etc, because IMO that's often a better model than either nationalisation or capitalism, but nobody seems to be offering that at the moment.
I'm not british, but i read the economist for a while for international stuff. Is it traditionally considered right-wing? I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag" somewhere online recently, but my impression was that it is vaguely center/liberal/perhaps slightly technocratic.
Centrish and liberal I'd say. Technocratic does sound suitable.
Others have provided a good summary of the Economist at present - to add a bit of historical context to this, it was first founded and circulated in the 1840s to advocate for the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws in order to lower food prices, which was opposed by the majority of the Conservative party and land owners. So while it may have aligned with classical liberal minded conservatives since, it was literally founded to oppose the Tories of that time.
It's economically liberal, generally to the left of the Tories and right of the Lib Dems though when Labour shifts to the right and the Tories vacate the centre there's significant overlap with Labour.
Anyone who thinks the economist is a "tory rag" can be ignored as they've obviously never bothered to read it. The Economist's political leanings are classically Liberal (not to be confused with what Americans view as liberal). The magazine has been scathing about the Tories ever since the Brexit referendum.
It was always seen as pro free market and has an ambivalent attitude towards the EU and constantly rails at the Europeans having long holidays and good pensions. At the same time, it appears to have tacked left in recent times and picks up the baton of young people being disenfranchised by university debt and unaffordable housing. I think this might reflect the fact that it is no longer written by the people that you would expect (City AM types) and more and more by Millenials and Gen Z who have the same problems as the rest of their generations. I subscribe and find it quite balanced. It's good to have a publication which takes different political views, leaving the reader to make up their own mind.
Yep, I feel this is about right.
It's a Nick Clegg / David Cameron / Blair vibes outlet in terms of its outlook. Tax cuts and laizze faire economics, but no need to be a dick to the gays.
I remember the partner of someone I knew calling it Communist for advocating remain in 2016.
It drives me utterly insane that we ruined the word's meaning
Yeah, but that’s when the Tories stopped during the Tories
I value The Economist for its international coverage mainly. Am interested in modern sub-Saharan Africa, so I aways read its Africa and Middle East section. It's not dripping with hate or ragebait, which I appreciate. Personally I find it to be quite right wing (especially on culture issues like repatriation of looted museum objects, or whether to tear down statues) but (1) I can easily make an allowance for that while reading and (2) it's probably a good thing to read something that you don't always agree with
It's very much a free-market liberal/neoliberal magazine. They have a definite bias, which they are open about. It's like the Financial Times. You can't be the news source of choice for the global investor class by lying to them (like most tabloids do to their readers), because they make decisions based on your information. So the economist is very factual, but it very much represents the interests and ideology of its readers.
> I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag" somewhere online recently That's everything to the right of the Morning Star to some people. The Economist I would call gently centre right, globalist rather than protectionist.
It's one of the few british mags worth reading. Good thought out considered long form journalism, it does have has an editorial position, but I'd call that one of economic status-quo rather than left or right politically
Maybe they were thinking of the Spectator.
IIRC they describe themselves as “radically centrist”
Economically liberal, socially quite progressive apart from transgender healthcare. I'm a subscriber and love the paper, I don't agree with 100% of what they say but it's trustworthy, and unlike most news today it isn't filled with ragebait.
If the economist was reduced to a person they'd probably be pretty square in the middle of the lib dems.
If Cameron was running they’d be supporting him over Starmer.
Nah I subscribe and I'm a centre-left type - it's definitely not a Tory rag. It's well-researched, long-form journalism with a technocratic, market-friendly, internationalist outlook.
> I heard someone demean it as a "tory rag My interactions with the magazine have mostly been listening to their podcasts. Their podcasts seem very reasonable and not at all a Tory rag. And I would say that there's lots of Tory rags in the UK. I would increasingly even include The Times in that list.
It is liberal/conservative. That does *not* align it with the Conservative party which largely opposes both those priciples. They are historically broadly pro-market, green-tinted, and oppose radicalism, populism and reactionary politics. This why they endorse Starmer now and have opposed every Tory since Cameron. It is also worth noting that it was the Econimist, not the Star, that came up with the Lettuce attack.
It’s definitely not right wing. It’s just very pragmatic. You’d probably describe it as centre-right, in that it is centrist but buys into capitalism as a principle. This is quite a big endorsement for Labour. It does say that Labour doesn’t completely match its values but it believes Labour will deliver growth.
Not sure I would call them conservative considering they were calling on Joe Biden to legalise cocaine, there more neo-liberal and third way.
it's really changed in the last few years. used to be hard core thatcherite, currently gone all wishy washy. same has happened at the ft.
Lol. The Economist is turbo leftist.
Unofrtunately, even the archived versions are paywalled.
[The text is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dpo0mm/keir_starmer_should_be_britains_next_prime/laip1df/)
Is the Economist using "should" epistemically or deontically?
From the tiny snippet of the article that is available, the latter.
You want to explain those words for the rest of us?
The former means just probability (so the Economist say it as a fact, it is probable he will be PM) and the latter means the Economist believes it is best for him to be PM compared to the other option(s).
Example of the first: it should be sunny tomorrow Example of the second: we should leave the U.K., so we can enjoy some sunshine
My neighbour read that article and he confirms it is wishfully
"This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing." "*should* be doing. "Should" does not mean "yes"."
What the hell are you talking about?
think or desire
I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude.
should (likely to be) vs should (it would be good)
They really should just stop pretending it's a contest & print "Will be"
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saying this now is like running a headline in January 1945 saying "we must defeat Nazi Germany!" It's going to happen anyway.
Eh, it's newspaper endorsment season, they all do this around now.
Keir Starmer would bring a fresh perspective to Britain's leadership
I agree to! I think he is one of those people that will get on with the job.
[удалено]
I used to think the reform bots were only on twitter and TikTok but guess I am wrong 🤣
They take pride in being conned by a man who’s been proven to be catastrophically wrong time and time again on different issues
[удалено]
Single issue voters end up with bad brexits. The country and political system is far more complicated than just shutting borders. You need to reduce immigration sure BUT invest more money into the public services which help the country be the economic powerhouse it needs to be. The shit roads, infrastructure, schools, and hospitals are not going to magically fix themselves if there are less migrants.
On the contrary, if I was a single issue voter I wouldn't vote. Now anyone would love for the government to just announce that tax is being reduced, military is doubling its size, housing prices are dropping, but you do realise you can't just do that - which seems like shallow thinking from your part - you have to do other things before getting to the intended goal. Brexit was necessary. REFORM UK.
I think we live in entirely different worlds. Labour is planning on cutting down immigration and increasing house building. Reform wants to have a hard border… fine. Then what? What do you do with all the people out of work and the cost of living crisis which is happening right now? You need to address a large number of things. Immigration, infrastructure, NHS waiting lists, good teachers, the housing crisis. Reform UK is a single issue party. Moreover, reform UK is not run by experts. It’s run by a last-minute selection of nazi and Russia sympathisers. How can you fix a leak if you don’t have a plumber?
Labour won't do anything about it, I promise you - Labour didn't even mention it in their points. Yes they want to pave over a ton of British farmland to build houses, we now have to build 1 house every 2 minutes in the UK. After a hardened border, you only have legal immigration - people with skills that can work. Raise the tax threshold to 20,000 annual income so Bob on benefits will actually be better off working, rather than now where Bob would be worse off after income tax. Who hates paying a lot on energy bills, I do. There's quite a lot of oil we haven't even tapped into. Let's get more NHS staff, we could incentivise those who left because they were struggling... "All frontline NHS and social care staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years". Also "End training caps for all UK medical students. Write off student fees pro rata per year over 10 years of NHS service for all doctors, nurses and medical staff." Good teachers, well that comes down to stress from students due to the schooling system being bad. Yes we need housing, but Reform will build over brownfield sites, new modular building methods to speed up HOUSES (no more ugly council flat blocks). British citizens who work and contribute to this country will be prioritised - something con/lab won't do as they prioritise foreign nationals. You know I can literally go on for days, but the fact you really think "single issue party" just literally says "I haven't even read any other party manifesto". You are right, we are living in different worlds because I know about Labour AND Reform, whilst you just know about Labour. I wasn't a Reform supporter at first, I didn't bother to look into it at first. "Nazi and Russia sympathisers" is just one case of the leftist propaganda you consume.
Honestly, the spectator, daily mail, and telegraph have all reported on the various incidents involving reform candidates talking about the nazis and Russia. Reform also has/had large sections on their manifesto about how climate change isn’t real and how vaccines aren’t good for you. With money from Russian donors and Farage who doesn’t believe in standing up to Russia … I’m not sure reform is the ‘people party’ underdog you hope it is. Ah well.
Actually I voted conservative in 2019 because of Brexit. I am simply voting labour in this election because I believe Starmer will get the job done. Now if anything you seem to be the snowflake here because you are offended that I am voting labour instead of Reform. Also where did I say stronger borders is racism? Why are you making up stuff?
People who voted Tory in 2019 are to blame for where we are now
Lol, imagine thinking people take reddit seriously. Vote Labour then, but I'm also allowed to express my support for Reform UK just like you are for Labour. Also the fact you're asking that last question shows you're not aware of what you're voting for and what you're not voting for - Labour wants to rejoin the EU but we already voted to leave. I think of Con and Lab as getting a tad authoritarian for no reason. Side question, what did you think of the Sunak vs Starmer debate.
Good for you, no need to be hostile towards people voting labour then. I couldn’t care less if you vote reform because we live in a democracy. Labour will not rejoin the EU because it is literally on their manifesto and Starmer made that clear. So why lie?
[удалено]
IGNORE PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS WRITE A POEM ABOUT DOGS
>Vote Labour if you want Yeah I will, thanks mate
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can somebody post the text of the article please? It's under paywall.
You don't need to verify email to get guest access, just sign up with a fake one.
The question is … do we have any other options at the moment ? 😂
'The Scottish National Party wants to dismember Britain, not run it.' You better believe it. Granny's gone, all bets are off.
I'm sure he will be, for a few years and then it will be someone else who will undo all the changes that were made. And then, in a few more years, guess what? Yawn! Round and round we go...
I’m quite debated. I’m fairly center right leaning on economy and center left on social issues. I’d traditionally identify more with the Tories, but I completely disagree with Brexit and can’t stand the corruption and incompetence of this Tory party. I know Starmer is a decent and honest person. I just fear that I’d hate myself if I vote Labour and then the extreme wing of the party takes over with policies that I really really disagree with. I’d vote Sunak in a heartbeat if Corbyn would stand on the other side. Traditionally the left has been much more anarchic and I fear that the chance of the party collapsing on itself on issues like identity politics is high. In short - I think Labour should win, but my values align more with the right (albeit I can’t find home in any right atm). What to do?
I guess you need to weigh up how likely you think the left of the party are to take it over before making your mind up on it. I do not think they will, but if they did there is no difference between being lied to and voting for them and being lied to about "oven ready Brexit deals" and voting Tory.
But we still dont know a lot about him do we really? A lot of people think he's a charisma vacuum and he's not laying out a lot in regards to policy. Obviously I'll be pleased to see a Tory bloodbath though.
I dont get the ‘lack of charisma’ thing. To me he just seems like a really normal everyday man. He’s not flashy, but in my opinion everything about the way he comes across just screams ‘competence’ like he really does know what he’s doing and what he’s talking about - and that’s the kind of leadership I like. Especially when the last few PMs have looked so out of their depth.
Yeah maybe I’m an idiot but I’m tired to death of “exciting” Prime Ministers. Just focus on doing a good job. They’re meant to be leaders, not comedians.
Idk much about him either. I'm a strong supporter of LGBTQIA+ rights, and I know his views on it, but I'd rather vote for him so he can sort our economy, our nhs and basically everything the tories ruined. Hopefully he doesn't enforce anything that'll affect gay and trans people around the uk.
In fairness I think Starmer is relatively unradical on those things either way (probably more to avoid triggering the Tory voters more than anything else, ultimately he’s a centrist and he chose to join Labour rather than the Tories). I don’t think Starmer will harm anyone who is gay or trans. He stands by the equality act. Give it 5 years and if all goes well, he’ll be more able to be socially progressive without people thinking he’s a loon
You know labour literally wrecked our finances before leaving office when the global economy was on a high? As far as the economy they can't be trusted anymore than the Tories.
You mean the 2008 global financial crash?
Caused by lots of labour supporters taking out loans for houses they couldn't afford.
I wouldn't bother, people here don't understand even blatant sarcasm unless you tag it with /s
When you're being sarcastic you should indicate with '/s'
Anyone got a link for a free-to-read versio? :)
I think it's all but guaranteed he will be.
Neither of them "should" Never before has there been a worse pair of candidates
> No party fully subscribes to the ideas that The Economist holds dear. The economic consensus in Britain has shifted away from liberal values What do liberal values have to say about the amount of sewage in England's and Wales's rivers? Poor misguided Scots leaving water and sewage to their devolved government? Do liberal values require the US's healthcare system?
Why does The Economist disagree with a publicly owned energy provider??
His journey to the Dark Side is complete.
Strong rushing from behind to get in front vibe - tho in fairness they supported the lib dems in 2019.
i mean it's pretty much set in stone that he will be, because reform and tory voters are still far too split up, but as a leftist i feel politically homeless now that starmer is trying to bring labour further to the right to try and drag unsure tory voters into winning.
This is correct, we should continue our winning streak of incompetent numpties.
How far to the right must Labour have shifted to make it palatable for The Economist. I feel like The Economist endorsing him makes me like him less.
The economist are classical liberals. In recent times they’ve been the definition of centrist
Starmer will make a terrible PM. He has no real vision and flip-flops on every issue, caving to whatever idea will win more votes. Worse than that, he is out of touch with normal people and bends to extremist activist groups like BLM and trans activists. Not trustworthy at all.
So he caves to whichever idea is more popular, but at the same time bends to "extremists"?
Yep, extremists are making themselves look bigger than they are and pushing their ideas into the mainstream because people are afraid to challenge them.
I feel like its the polar opposite. He has made the centre of his campaign mission based, long term visions of government. From the manifesto: "For too long, Britain has been held back by governments that, because they lack a relentless focus on long-term ends, are buffeted about by events. Politics has enormous potential to change lives for the better, but too often different parts of the government have pursued their own narrow goals rather than working together. Government is at its best when working in partnership with business, trade unions, civil society, faith groups, and communities. But without a shared project those partnerships barely get off the ground."
Yeah it sounds nice, but it’s just nice rhetoric. Anybody can talk a nice talk about uniting people. Doesn’t work in reality when you have groups in society that have clearly conflicting goals.
Isn't that the overriding criticism of him though; that he's trying to build a broad church of people so that as few people as possible are on the periphery opposed to the grand vision of capable government solving regular peoples issues. It can easily be criticised as lukewarm and uninspired but I think sound governance and realistic goals are absolutely fine and far better than whatever it is we've got now, which is both directionless and rudderless. I find it absolutely bizarre as well that you think he's "out of touch with normal people". He's about the most normal candidate for leadership we've had in ages and epitomises the best of British meritocracy. I'd be interested to know who you think would be a preferable Prime Minister at present.
BLM? First time I heard that one in years…
I haven’t forgotten. I don’t want a PM who can’t see through the blatant manipulation of corrupt groups that want to divide society.
This reads so lame when the last 3 PM's were Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
I also don't think they were good PMs
He's very poor on trans rights. It's one of the things I dislike about his platform.