The Economist's take on the election
There are some newspapers and magazines for whom any endorsement they make in an election is as predictable as that the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.
The Economist is not one of them - they have backed the Conservatives and Labour in various British elections in the past, while in the US at various times they have backed the Republicans or Democrats or refused to back either.
The magazine has not yet said who they back in the forthcoming British general election, and indeed the articles they have so far published about it are not entirely aligned, with one here describing the view taken by the markets and by subsequent articles in the same magazine as one which, quote,
"may turn out to be right but it is quite a bold call."
Bold call, perhaps, but certainly an interesting one.
I do not endorse every word in the articles "Back into battle" which argues that a bigger majority would improve the government's position at home and especially abroad, or "Why an election offers the chance of a better Brexit."
Nevertheless, both represent far more intelligent contributions to debate than have come from those who have spent a year accusing the Prime Minister of being unelected and having no mandate to govern and then complained bitterly when she asked the electorate for that mandate, or those opposition MPs who accused Mrs May of putting party before country by proposing an election and then themselves voted for the motion to call it.
The Economist is not one of them - they have backed the Conservatives and Labour in various British elections in the past, while in the US at various times they have backed the Republicans or Democrats or refused to back either.
The magazine has not yet said who they back in the forthcoming British general election, and indeed the articles they have so far published about it are not entirely aligned, with one here describing the view taken by the markets and by subsequent articles in the same magazine as one which, quote,
"may turn out to be right but it is quite a bold call."
Bold call, perhaps, but certainly an interesting one.
I do not endorse every word in the articles "Back into battle" which argues that a bigger majority would improve the government's position at home and especially abroad, or "Why an election offers the chance of a better Brexit."
Nevertheless, both represent far more intelligent contributions to debate than have come from those who have spent a year accusing the Prime Minister of being unelected and having no mandate to govern and then complained bitterly when she asked the electorate for that mandate, or those opposition MPs who accused Mrs May of putting party before country by proposing an election and then themselves voted for the motion to call it.
Comments