Most interesting UK election ever?

[Hibbyradge]

I had lost my usual enthusiasm for this election but the emergence of the liberals as a major force has rekindled the old political juices. Two months ago I had resigned myself to at least 5 years me tory mayhem but now I'm wondering if we have seen the last of 2 party politics and what that would mean. Its quite exciting. For a change.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

damn phone. ill edit tomorrow

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

damn phone. someone edit for me please.

[CropleyWasGod]

Call me an old cynic, but I cannot see any major inroads being made by the Liberals.

Sure, they may pick up more of the vote share, but in terms of seats? Would like to see it happen, but people revert to type when it comes to Polling Day...

The only way, IMO, to break the 2 party system is to have PR. That, for me, is one of the successes of the Scottish Parliament. A balance of voices that represents actual public opinion, rather than something based on arbitrary (random? artificial?) geography.

[hibsdaft]

tonights polls seem to agree that Labour are running 3rd on 27-28% just behind the Lib Dems on 28-30% with the Tories on about 33-34%.

according to the BBC swingometer, this result could still see Labour finish with the most seats won, and therefore able to form government.

imo this scenario would make PR inevitable - FPTP would look ridiculous, and the Lib Dems would be in a position to demand such change in exchange for propping up government - without Lib Dem support the country would imo, probably be ungovernable. the only thing is, Clegg today seems to be bargaining for the role of PM in such a scenario, rather than constitutional reform. if i was a Lib Dem member i'd being going ballistic at him for that.

they've wanted PR for decades.

[CropleyWasGod]

imo this scenario would make PR inevitable - FPTP would look ridiculous, and the Lib Dems would be in a position to demand such change. the only thing is, that Clegg today seems to be bargaining for the role of PM is such a scenario, rather than constitutional reform. if i was a Lib Dem member i'd being going ballistic at him for that.

they've wanted PR for decades.

The Liberals have previous for this. In the (2nd?) Scottish Parliamentary elections, their flagship policy was free higher education/ no tuition fees ( I forget exactly what). It won them a lot of votes. When the results came in and Labour needed their support to form a coalition, the one stipulation Labour had was "ditch that policy". The scent of power was too much for the Liberals, and they duly did so.

As a Liberal at the time, having convinced my student son (who was voting for the first time) to follow my lead, I have never forgiven them for that.

[hibsdaft]

The Liberals have previous for this. In the (2nd?) Scottish Parliamentary elections, their flagship policy was free higher education/ no tuition fees ( I forget exactly what). It won them a lot of votes. When the results came in and Labour needed their support to form a coalition, the one stipulation Labour had was "ditch that policy". The scent of power was too much for the Liberals, and they duly did so.

As a Liberal at the time, having convinced my student son (who was voting for the first time) to follow my lead, I have never forgiven them for that.

i remember that very well CWG as a first time voter at the time (must of been '99?)

it was the speed with which they rolled over that was shocking for me, i was genuinely (if in hindsight possibly naively) amazed at their gall.

the thing with them ditching PR for PM job though, is that its totally against their l/t (or even s/t) interests, and only in the interests of that tosser Cleggs ego (which is clearly enormous and needs regular feeding)

[steakbake]

If neither the Tories or Labour get a majority, one scenario that could happen is a Lib/Lab coalition with Gordon Brown replaced either as part of the bargain or for legitimacy. No idea who would take over but the Lab side of the bargain is to serve up a new leader whether or not the LibDems take second in the popular vote. If the Libs come second in the popular vote, it could legitimise a LibDem PM who would then go on to bring in PR. Brown's the poster boy for Labour, but unless he wins the election outright, he'll be in no position to stay on as leader.

There'll be discussions going on all over the place in order to get the foundations of a deal sorted out which can be finalised after the results come in.

So, yes - it's interesting.

[Beefster]

If neither the Tories or Labour get a majority, one scenario that could happen is a Lib/Lab coalition with Gordon Brown replaced either as part of the bargain or for legitimacy. No idea who would take over but the Lab side of the bargain is to serve up a new leader whether or not the LibDems take second in the popular vote. If the Libs come second in the popular vote, it could legitimise a LibDem PM who would then go on to bring in PR. Brown's the poster boy for Labour, but unless he wins the election outright, he'll be in no position to stay on as leader.

There'll be discussions going on all over the place in order to get the foundations of a deal sorted out which can be finalised after the results come in.

So, yes - it's interesting.

Until we have a proportional system, there's no way that a Lib Dem leader could be installed in No. 10 with a substantially lower number of seats that either other party. He'd be a fop for the bigger partner, as he couldn't run a minority government if events dictated. People keep talking about the popular vote but, at the moment, it's as irrelevant here as it is in the US Presidential elections.

I'm not convinced that the electorate will stand another Labour PM who hasn't been directly elected as such either. To ditch Brown immediately after winning an election would show complete contempt for the electorate.

[PeeJay]

I'm not convinced that the electorate will stand another Labour PM who hasn't been directly elected as such either.

Since when were PMs directly elected in the UK? "He is the sixth post-war prime minister, of a total of 12, to assume the role without having won a general election" cf. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1960948.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1960948.htm) -

So why would the UK electorate not stand for it?:confused:

[Beefster]

Since when were PMs directly elected in the UK? "He is the sixth post-war prime minister, of a total of 12, to assume the role without having won a general election" cf. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1960948.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1960948.htm) -

So why would the UK electorate not stand for it?:confused:

How many of those went on to win the next election before being deposed days later? I think people realise that PMs can change mid-Parliament but it's different to one being removed 2 weeks after the election.

I'm fully aware of how parliament works though. However, if we weren't moving towards a more presidential style of government, we wouldn't have had the debates. More and more people are voting for the leader of the party rather than the party as is proven by the surge in Lib Dem support after 90 minutes of Clegg and the fact that every other member of the parties' front benches have been pretty much sidelined in this campaign.

I think for a sitting PM to contest an election, his party to win that election (on seats) and then for him to be deposed immediately would be viewed as deceitful by the main bulk of the electorate, especially considering the repeated, failed attempts to remove him in the last two years. I could be wrong but I'd be surprised.

[PeeJay]

More and more people are voting for the leader of the party rather than the party as is proven by the surge in Lib Dem support after 90 minutes of Clegg ...
Smacks of X-Idol or PopIdol or whatever it is called to me .. maybe Cowell had the right idea after all?? Don't like the move at al to presidential-style politics - bad road to go down!


I think for a sitting PM to contest an election, his party to win that election (on seats) and then for him to be deposed immediately would be viewed as deceitful by the main bulk of the electorate,

I wonder - maybe, e.g. the electorate likes the Labour Party BUT not Brown so Brown's LP fails to get enough votes for an outright majority and the party has to enter a coalition (with Libs or Tories?), it would then be a matter of negotiation as to whether Brown was asked to relinquish his claim to PM, surely?
Something similar happened here in Germany - Chancellor Schröder called an election, failed to secure enough seats to reclaim the Chancellor's seat and although his party ultimately entered a coalition, he was not its leader (Merkel took the post) Germany accepted it ... but it's early days yet for coalition talk in the UK, I guess, maybe the UK electorate would not appreciate the situation as you say.

[Twa Cairpets]

More and more people are voting for the leader of the party rather than the party as is proven by the surge in Lib Dem support after 90 minutes of Clegg ...
Smacks of X-Idol or PopIdol or whatever it is called to me .. maybe Cowell had the right idea after all?? Don't like the move at al to presidential-style politics - bad road to go down!


I think for a sitting PM to contest an election, his party to win that election (on seats) and then for him to be deposed immediately would be viewed as deceitful by the main bulk of the electorate,

I wonder - maybe, e.g. the electorate likes the Labour Party BUT not Brown so Brown's LP fails to get enough votes for an outright majority and the party has to enter a coalition (with Libs or Tories?), it would then be a matter of negotiation as to whether Brown was asked to relinquish his claim to PM, surely?
Something similar happened here in Germany - Chancellor Schröder called an election, failed to secure enough seats to reclaim the Chancellor's seat and although his party ultimately entered a coalition, he was not its leader (Merkel took the post) Germany accepted it ... but it's early days yet for coalition talk in the UK, I guess, maybe the UK electorate would not appreciate the situation as you say.

I think its an inevitable, and - for me - not particularly worrying development as a result of the change of access to information and communication styles in society.

I'd prefer a partially informed and interested electorate voting for (at least in part) the credibility of a political leader rather than a disenfranchised or disengaged electorate either not voting or registering their disconent buy voting for the likes of BNP or UKIP.

[Beefster]

More and more people are voting for the leader of the party rather than the party as is proven by the surge in Lib Dem support after 90 minutes of Clegg ...
Smacks of X-Idol or PopIdol or whatever it is called to me .. maybe Cowell had the right idea after all?? Don't like the move at al to presidential-style politics - bad road to go down!


I think for a sitting PM to contest an election, his party to win that election (on seats) and then for him to be deposed immediately would be viewed as deceitful by the main bulk of the electorate,

I wonder - maybe, e.g. the electorate likes the Labour Party BUT not Brown so Brown's LP fails to get enough votes for an outright majority and the party has to enter a coalition (with Libs or Tories?), it would then be a matter of negotiation as to whether Brown was asked to relinquish his claim to PM, surely?
Something similar happened here in Germany - Chancellor Schröder called an election, failed to secure enough seats to reclaim the Chancellor's seat and although his party ultimately entered a coalition, he was not its leader (Merkel took the post) Germany accepted it ... but it's early days yet for coalition talk in the UK, I guess, maybe the UK electorate would not appreciate the situation as you say.

I agree entirely about the 'Pop Idol-isation' of politics. I've read / seen a few folk who have said 'I really liked Clegg in the first debate but then I looked at their policies....'. Unfortunately, most floating voters won't look into it that much.

I think Labour would be more acceptable without Brown and it's definitely a possibility that his removal is a pre-condition of a coalition with the Lib Dems.

[steakbake]

I think it's a carve up. What is or isn't logical is irrelevant. In the politics of today, it's all about justifying what you are doing and controlling the media narrative.

If Labour do anything other than win an outright majority, Brown is finished.

[heretoday]

Although the coverage so far has inevitably tended to focus on style rather than substance I would say that this election has been refreshing.

The TV debates, whatever their faults, have drawn attention to politics like nothing before and I'm sure will result in more young people voting, or at least thinking about the issues, this time.

And that has to be good.

[One Day Soon]

I think it's a carve up. What is or isn't logical is irrelevant. In the politics of today, it's all about justifying what you are doing and controlling the media narrative.

If Labour do anything other than win an outright majority, Brown is finished.

Well Mr Bake we agree for perhaps the first time. That is what its about these days and very depressing it is too.

Anyway why anyone should be surprised that the Lib Dems would be in the business of contesting the election and then seeking to trade after the result is beyond me. That is the very essence of what their sister parties thoughout Europe do under proportional systems. Small parties holding larger parties to ransom over policies and personnel in a bargaining process that takes place once the views of the electorate can safely be put to one side. We vote and then they make it up as they go along afterwards.

[RyeSloan]

Well Mr Bake we agree for perhaps the first time. That is what its about these days and very depressing it is too.

Anyway why anyone should be surprised that the Lib Dems would be in the business of contesting the election and then seeking to trade after the result is beyond me. That is the very essence of what their sister parties thoughout Europe do under proportional systems. Small parties holding larger parties to ransom over policies and personnel in a bargaining process that takes place once the views of the electorate can safely be put to one side. We vote and then they make it up as they go along afterwards.

What a strange way of looking at it.....surely what you are saying is that the significant minority actually get a voice and that simply because you are the bigger party you cannot ride roughshod over everybody elses views.

Any system that gives signnificant minorities a bit of a say in the running of a country is good I would say and that one of the main problems with Britain in the past be that with Labour or Tory governments is that they could simply force through whatever the hell they wanted..that's not really democracy is it, especially when you look at the flawed system of voting that put those parties there in the first place!!

[JimBHibees]

Well Mr Bake we agree for perhaps the first time. That is what its about these days and very depressing it is too.

Anyway why anyone should be surprised that the Lib Dems would be in the business of contesting the election and then seeking to trade after the result is beyond me. That is the very essence of what their sister parties thoughout Europe do under proportional systems. Small parties holding larger parties to ransom over policies and personnel in a bargaining process that takes place once the views of the electorate can safely be put to one side. We vote and then they make it up as they go along afterwards.

Are they really a small party when they are running at worst level with Labour and in most polls ahead of Labour. No doubt the ridiculous undemocratic voting system will frustrate them in terms of sests however if they poll at 30% of the vote there should be significant electoral reform in the next parliament.

[Beefster]

Labour won a big majority with 35.3% of the vote in 2005. Why no clamour for constitutional reform then?

If, as expected, someone mentions restoring trust in politics, how would PR have stopped the expenses scandal? Are the BNP, UKIP and the Greens less likely to be robbing barstewards?

[hibsbollah]

I had lost my usual enthusiasm for this election but the emergence of the liberals as a major force has rekindled the old political juices. Two months ago I had resigned myself to at least 5 years me tory mayhem but now I'm wondering if we have seen the last of 2 party politics and what that would mean. Its quite exciting. For a change.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

damn phone. ill edit tomorrow

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

damn phone. someone edit for me please.

If you were going to be a pedant you might say the 1945 election after the War was the most interesting and hard to call:nerd:....

But you've got a point.

[RyeSloan]

Labour won a big majority with 35.3% of the vote in 2005. Why no clamour for constitutional reform then?

If, as expected, someone mentions restoring trust in politics, how would PR have stopped the expenses scandal? Are the BNP, UKIP and the Greens less likely to be robbing barstewards?

There has been demands for vote reform for years...simple thing is though that it suits the 'big' two parties so any moves have been squashed at the first turn. And there was quite a bit of grumbling about the size of Labour majority in 2005 although I think (although I may be wrong) they did poll the largest amount of votes so the point was not quite as sharply brought into focus as the results of this election MAY do.

When you consider that in 2005 Labour received a seat for every 24,000 votes, Conservatives 1 for every 40 odd thousand and the Lib Dems one for every 90 odd thousand it is clear that we have a very unrepresentative system...exactly the reason it was changed for the Scottish Parliament elections and exactly the reason it should be changed for the UK elections.

As for the MP expenses, what does that have to do with a fairer voting system? Are you saying that because there is no obvious link between the two that we should just be happy with the status quo?

[Beefster]

There has been demands for vote reform for years...simple thing is though that it suits the 'big' two parties so any moves have been squashed at the first turn. And there was quite a bit of grumbling about the size of Labour majority in 2005 although I think (although I may be wrong) they did poll the largest amount of votes so the point was not quite as sharply brought into focus as the results of this election MAY do.

When you consider that in 2005 Labour received a seat for every 24,000 votes, Conservatives 1 for every 40 odd thousand and the Lib Dems one for every 90 odd thousand it is clear that we have a very unrepresentative system...exactly the reason it was changed for the Scottish Parliament elections and exactly the reason it should be changed for the UK elections.

As for the MP expenses, what does that have to do with a fairer voting system? Are you saying that because there is no obvious link between the two that we should just be happy with the status quo?

No, it's been suggested by many that the clamour for constitutional change is tied in to the scandal last year.

If Labour are the main party (in terms of seats), it's because more constituencies have decided that they want a Labour MP representing them. Despite being far from a Labour voter, I don't have a problem with that.

[Hibbyradge]

Mon the hung parliament with Labour as the biggest party. I'd pish myself. Having said that, with the cuts and tax increases that are inevitably on their way, it's a poisoned chalice for all the parties. I'm sure that the losers will have their disappointment mixed with relief. The liberals could be about to change UK politics for ever. Exciting stuff.

[RyeSloan]

No, it's been suggested by many that the clamour for constitutional change is tied in to the scandal last year.

If Labour are the main party (in terms of seats), it's because more constituencies have decided that they want a Labour MP representing them. Despite being far from a Labour voter, I don't have a problem with that.

Fair enough but a lot of people will and do have a problem with the disproportionate amount of seats that they may win compared to the number of actual votes received.....

[steakbake]

Well Mr Bake we agree for perhaps the first time. That is what its about these days and very depressing it is too.

Anyway why anyone should be surprised that the Lib Dems would be in the business of contesting the election and then seeking to trade after the result is beyond me. That is the very essence of what their sister parties thoughout Europe do under proportional systems. Small parties holding larger parties to ransom over policies and personnel in a bargaining process that takes place once the views of the electorate can safely be put to one side. We vote and then they make it up as they go along afterwards.

Exactly! :greengrin

Whatever the outcome it will be justified by spinners. The leading media will more or less to an editor, fall behind that line.

[Hainan Hibs]

It is more interesting than other election's especially with the rise of the Lib Dems but it's disappointing to see from many polls that the distribution of Scottish seats could end up exactly as it was in 2005 give or take 1 or 2 seats.

It seems Labours "vote for anyone else and you'll get Tories" and "remember Thatcher?" themes will have Labour votes up and down Scotland running out to put their vote in once again for Labour.

[Dashing Bob S]

It is more interesting than other election's especially with the rise of the Lib Dems but it's disappointing to see from many polls that the distribution of Scottish seats could end up exactly as it was in 2005 give or take 1 or 2 seats.

It seems Labours "vote for anyone else and you'll get Tories" and "remember Thatcher?" themes will have Labour votes up and down Scotland running out to put their vote in once again for Labour.

The problem that they might have whith that message is that people have had no option but to remember Thatcher, as Blair and Brown have basically continued, and in some cases, advanced, her hateful, selfish and destructive policies.

[IndieHibby]

It is more interesting than other election's especially with the rise of the Lib Dems but it's disappointing to see from many polls that the distribution of Scottish seats could end up exactly as it was in 2005 give or take 1 or 2 seats.

It seems Labours "vote for anyone else and you'll get Tories" and "remember Thatcher?" themes will have Labour votes up and down Scotland running out to put their vote in once again for Labour.

How depressing....

[steakbake]

It is more interesting than other election's especially with the rise of the Lib Dems but it's disappointing to see from many polls that the distribution of Scottish seats could end up exactly as it was in 2005 give or take 1 or 2 seats.

It seems Labours "vote for anyone else and you'll get Tories" and "remember Thatcher?" themes will have Labour votes up and down Scotland running out to put their vote in once again for Labour.

Not only are we Thatcher's children, but we're also Pavlov's dogs.

[New Corrie]

They are now suggesting on Five Live that this would be a good election to lose. They reckon whoever wins it will become the most despised government ever, trying to tidy up the mess, so much so that they will be resigned to the annals of history. Maybe a bit dramatic, but there are certainly really tough times ahead.

[Beefster]

They are now suggesting on Five Live that this would be a good election to lose. They reckon whoever wins it will become the most despised government ever, trying to tidy up the mess, so much so that they will be resigned to the annals of history. Maybe a bit dramatic, but there are certainly really tough times ahead.

Yup, apparently the Governor of the Bank of England told some American finance bloke that whoever wins will lose power for a generation as a result of the action that they have to take.

As much as it pains me to say, it might be best for Labour to take the punishment for the mess that they got us in.

As an aside, the Economist has come out for the Tories because of their economic policy. A boost for their credibility?

[New Corrie]

Yup, apparently the Governor of the Bank of England told some American finance bloke that whoever wins will lose power for a generation as a result of the action that they have to take.

As much as it pains me to say, it might be best for Labour to take the punishment for the mess that they got us in.

As an aside, the Economist has come out for the Tories because of their economic policy. A boost for their credibility?


I think you're right Beefster, it might be a good time for Labour to take their medicine. I don't think a hung parliament would be the worst thing, maybe if they'd worked together in the first place things wouldn't be so bad.

They could do with a political transfer window....Cable and Clegg would be at the top of the shopping list....sadly for George Osborne it would read.....Conservative to East Stirling....no fee attached.

[hibsdaft]

As an aside, the Economist has come out for the Tories because of their economic policy. A boost for their credibility?

the Economist, the rag which spent the last decade cheering on the reckless deregulation of banking that created the mess we're in?

[hibsbollah]

the Economist, the rag which spent the last decade cheering on the reckless deregulation of banking that created the mess we're in?

Its a great paper, with great articles but with terrible right-wing editorials. Its heartening they're not supporting Labour; they must be doing something right to be offending the Economist:greengrin

[Beefster]

the Economist, the rag which spent the last decade cheering on the reckless deregulation of banking that created the mess we're in?

Who was carrying out the 'reckless deregulation of banking'?

[hibsdaft]

Who was carrying out the 'reckless deregulation of banking'?

we both know the answer to that, whats your point?

[One Day Soon]

It is more interesting than other election's especially with the rise of the Lib Dems but it's disappointing to see from many polls that the distribution of Scottish seats could end up exactly as it was in 2005 give or take 1 or 2 seats.

It seems Labours "vote for anyone else and you'll get Tories" and "remember Thatcher?" themes will have Labour votes up and down Scotland running out to put their vote in once again for Labour.

Eh? So if voters decide to change a significant number of the MPs then that is positive and thoughtful engagement in the political process, but if they decide to stay with the status quo they're thick and stupid?

[One Day Soon]

The problem that they might have whith that message is that people have had no option but to remember Thatcher, as Blair and Brown have basically continued, and in some cases, advanced, her hateful, selfish and destructive policies.


Dear me, that's disappointingly trite coming from you DBS. And way off the mark too.

[Beefster]

we both know the answer to that, whats your point?

That, of course, the finance industry is going to cheer deregulation but it's not up to them.

[Hainan Hibs]

Eh? So if voters decide to change a significant number of the MPs then that is positive and thoughtful engagement in the political process, but if they decide to stay with the status quo they're thick and stupid?

To be honest I would give a reply but you get your knickers in such a twist at anything that seems to be a criticism of Labour or their supporters it's not worth my energy or time.

[One Day Soon]

To be honest I would give a reply but you get your knickers in such a twist at anything that seems to be a criticism of Labour or their supporters it's not worth my energy or time.

Which means you don't have an answer. Either the electorate know what they're doing or they don't. Either they make sensible judgements when they send so many Labour MPs south and when they make the SNP the largest single party by one seat in the Scottish Parliament or they're a bunch of mindless idiots who don't know what they're doing in both instances. You can't have it both ways. Don't ask me which one I think it is...

I could of course make the same point about your own fetish for anything SNP. Now that really does produce eye twitching responses.

[JimBHibees]

To be honest I would give a reply but you get your knickers in such a twist at anything that seems to be a criticism of Labour or their supporters it's not worth my energy or time.

Yep wonder where he is standing in the election. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

the Economist, the rag which spent the last decade cheering on the reckless deregulation of banking that created the mess we're in?

Whether you agree with the editorial or journalistic slant of The Economist or not (most of it is non political anyway) it can hardly be considered a 'rag'.....that's just a ridiculous thing to say.

[hibsdaft]

Whether you agree with the editorial or journalistic slant of The Economist or not (most of it is non political anyway) it can hardly be considered a 'rag'.....that's just a ridiculous thing to say.

why? its one-dimensional lightweight purile crap.

its not less a rag than the rest of them (and i include the guardian in that).

the only decent UK paper is the FT imo.

[Leicester Fan]

There are so many variables in this election that it's impossible to call. The liberal surge means that; Labour could get the least votes and still be the largest party or the Liberals might split the anti-Tory vote and lead to a Tory landslide. If there is a hung parliament who will the Liberals side with?

The only thing that's certain is Labour cant win this election on their own.

[RyeSloan]

why? its one-dimensional lightweight purile crap.

its not less a rag than the rest of them (and i include the guardian in that).

the only decent UK paper is the FT imo.

Again you are being ridiculous. In fact so ridiculous I have decided to be ridiculous myself and spend the time evidencing out just how daft a statement you have made.


Lightweight - A weekly publication that runs to about 100 pages. The vast majority of which are 3 column, small typeset articles. Lightweight it is not when it comes physical content/volume or topic coverage nor indeed facts and figures to evidence the articles.

Purile - The Economist childish...really I've got no idea what you are on about...how can a paper that covers events and gives analysis of all manner of situations and circumstances from across the world with dedicted region sections be considered puerile? Add in the dedicated sections on Finance and Economics, Science and Tech, Books and Arts plus 2 full pages of ecomomic and financial indicators and you hardly have any that could remotely resemble anything, immature, foolish or trivial.

One dimensional - Lets have a look at how undimensional one edition is by having a wee list of topics covered in say the international section alone:

In depth review of the future of nuclear non proliferation
Report on a new development in Whaling control
A report on a very succesful and efficient US healthcare provider with views to what lesons could be learned
Analysis of the latest twists and turns in the IPL
A look a how content providers could make online presence pay
News on the discrete way Chinese companies are buying over Japanese companies
Report on the current state of world shipbuilding yards
Article on how and why China is adding absolutely huge amounts of electricity capacity every 3 months (capacity added in the last year alone is the equivalent of the installed total in Brazil, Italy and Britain combined!!)

Considering that lot accounts for only 8 of it's 100 pages it's hardly looking one dimensional is it.

Another quick glance, again at just this weeks edition shows articles ranging from the debate in taxonomy on the renaming of the fruit fly to a report on how male brains react to the hormone surge just after birth to a review of a book on Myanmars evil junta to a 15 page review on television to the latest moves on the middle east peace process etc etc etc....one dimensional? I don't really think that's accurate.

I read plenty of other publications and have no particular affinity to The Economist but a rag, lightweight, one dimensional and puerile?? C'mon.

I do agree with one thing you said though in that the FT is indeed decent :greengrin

[steakbake]

why? its one-dimensional lightweight purile crap.

its not less a rag than the rest of them (and i include the guardian in that).

the only decent UK paper is the FT imo.

I see the FT has come out for the Tories.