This article from the Economist has been published the 29th of April 2010. It is titled “Who should govern Britain?”

...

crisis and stand firm on traditional British’s position in Afghanistan and with the euro’s subject. However he is considered as his own hole’s digger: he invested in public services in the middle of the economic cries which expanded the national deficit that much that the journalist calls it “a time-bomb of a legacy”. He also reproaches Gordon Brown to have harmed to his predecessor’ reforms especially the main ones about health and education which are considered as Tony Blair’s legacy.

He considers moreover that the New Labour’s government is “tired” and that the exercising of power and the scandal of the MP’s expenses made Gordon Brown fall into a static policy. The MP’s expenses scandal has been particularly wrong for the Labour party as a Financial Times’ journalist demonstrated in an article titled “Labour loses grip on core values” which was published five days after this article. Finally the journalist considers that in the interest of the country, it is better for the Labour’s leaders to spend some time in the opposition in order renew the party. If Brown’s reflection isn’t good, the two options left are the Liberal-Democrats and the Conservatives.

The journalist firstly reminds that The Economist is a liberal newspaper which is looking for “a credible liberal party”. He is convinced by Nick Clegg’s personal qualities and convictions such as his enthusiasm for civil liberties or his critics against the unfair voting system. Nevertheless when he is basing his judgement on the policies as he explained in the beginning of the article, the journalist believes Mister Clegg’s party isn’t that attractive. He reproaches the Liberal-Democrats a lack of coherence in their politics; for exemple the tuition fees’ abolition which would rather decrease more the higher education’s level or make the education system more unfaire