Skip to main content

'The Economist' Picks Cameron For Prime Minister

  • Author:
  • Updated:

Having got it disastrously wrong over the economy in 2008, pop-economics magazine 'The Economist' has anointed David Cameron the savior of Britain, predicting his economic policies will better serve Britain's 'entrepreneurial vim'.

I don't mean to rag on the magazine too much. It's a good read and it usually gives a pretty balanced view of whatever topic it covers. However, having failed to predict the economic crisis in 2008 due to its unwavering belief in 'free markets' I think it's safe to say we can ignore whatever advice they dole out on most economic issues (which is kind of a shame given the whole point of the magazine). The magazine can certainly be read to give an overview of what is happening in the global economy, but it should probably keep its opinions to itself for a while.

The article argues strongly against a Lib Dem government mostly due to his views on taxing the rich:

Their policies towards business are arguably to the left of Labour’s. A
50% capital-gains tax, getting rid of higher-rate relief on pensions and
a toff-bashing mansion tax are not going to induce the entrepreneurial
vim Britain needs. Vince Cable, the Lib Dems’ chancellor-in-waiting,
recently dismissed the bosses who argued against the government’s
planned National Insurance increase as “nauseating”; that feeling might
well be reciprocated by the nation’s wealth creators if the Lib Dems
came into power.

Comparing a National Insurance tax hike to a rise in capital gains and property tax is simply offensive. National Insurance is a tax that gets taken out of your wages, so it effects working people far more significantly. Hiking the capitol gains tax only really affects the rich, so the burden is far, far less. While the economist clearly feels that rich people should pay proportionally less towards society than everyone else, most of the public don't. This type of 'let the rich run everything' mentality was responsible for the meltdown of our economy in the first place. Allowing owners of capitol to structure society around their needs hardly turned out well for everyone, and in my view, taking back some of that money through increased taxes isn't too much to ask.