Unless you (or the government) wants to claim either a) the Torys weren't planning larger spending cuts than Labour, or b) that the fiscal multiplier in the UK is currently less than 0 (The Conservatives own calculations had it at around 0.5) then it is inescapable that growth would've been higher under Labour than the Conservatives. The only issue is how much higher would it have been.

Using the targets set out in Darling and Osborne's 2010 budgets (I assume steady pace of deficit reduction - both were ever so slightly back loaded), I calculate that in the 4 fiscal years from 2010/2011 - 2013/2014 the Tory were going to make cumulative net cuts (relative to Darling's plan) of 6.4% of (April 2010) GDP.

According to Oliver Blanchard (chief economist to the IMF, here) a 1% cut in public spending (in developed economies since 2010) directly leads to about a 1% drop in GDP. Therefore the Conservatives extra 6.4% of cuts would result in lower economic growth of about 1.6% for each of these four years. It thus seems reasonable to assume that instead of the Conservatives' slightly better than flat growth, we would be having around 2% growth under Labour.

ps. This only adjusts growth cuts under the Conservatives, for the extra growth due to Labour 'stimulus' (i.e. not as many cuts), so don't say it doesn't take into account things such as the Eurozone crisis and the slower than Darling expected global recovery, because it already does.

Unless you (or the government) wants to claim either a) the Torys weren't planning larger spending cuts than Labour, or b) that the fiscal multiplier in the UK is currently less than 0 (The Conservatives own calculations had it at around 0.5) then it is inescapable that growth would've been higher under Labour than the Conservatives. The only issue is how much higher would it have been.

Using the targets set out in Darling and Osborne's 2010 budgets (I assume steady pace of deficit reduction - both were ever so slightly back loaded), I calculate that in the 4 fiscal years from 2010/2011 - 2013/2014 the Tory were going to make cumulative net cuts (relative to Darling's plan) of 6.4% of (April 2010) GDP.

According to Oliver Blanchard (chief economist to the IMF, here) a 1% cut in public spending (in developed economies since 2010) directly leads to about a 1% drop in GDP. Therefore the Conservatives extra 6.4% of cuts would result in lower economic growth of about 1.6% for each of these four years. It thus seems reasonable to assume that instead of the Conservatives' slightly better than flat growth, we would be having around 2% growth under Labour.

ps. This only adjusts growth cuts under the Conservatives, for the extra growth due to Labour 'stimulus' (i.e. not as many cuts), so don't say it doesn't take into account things such as the Eurozone crisis and the slower than Darling expected global recovery, because it already does.

...and presumably Osborne is aware of all this ?

...and continuing with the presumptions he is now either stuck on a runaway train, has no plan b, or is cutting budgets as a deliberate political exercise with no care to the outcome ?

...and presumably Osborne is aware of all this ?

...and continuing with the presumptions he is now either stuck on a runaway train, has no plan b, or is cutting budgets as a deliberate political exercise with no care to the outcome ?

One new pension for everyone – no means-tested add-ons.

Interesting to see that the government now believes in universal benefits.

One new pension for everyone – no means-tested add-ons.

Interesting to see that the government now believes in universal benefits.

And in principle this is a good idea.

However it's tied to an increase n the pension age to (eventually) 68 and having to pay NI for 35 years instead of 30.

I think having to work in manual jobs until you are 68 is going to result in a sufficient cull of the population to make it affordable!

Also not sure how IDS sells it as good for women who take time off for child care because your national insurance is credited for time off looking after kids up to the age of 12.

I also wouldn't trust IDS as far as I could throw him so there is bound to be some small print somewhere that results in more people losing out than predicted. The devil will be in the detail in this one.

And in principle this is a good idea.

However it's tied to an increase n the pension age to (eventually) 68 and having to pay NI for 35 years instead of 30.

I think having to work in manual jobs until you are 68 is going to result in a sufficient cull of the population to make it affordable!

Also not sure how IDS sells it as good for women who take time off for child care because your national insurance is credited for time off looking after kids up to the age of 12.

I also wouldn't trust IDS as far as I could throw him so there is bound to be some small print somewhere that results in more people losing out than predicted. The devil will be in the detail in this one.