So the actual analysis is fine, and when you called it inaccurate you were just being unclear because you are having an argument that isn't been made by me or the person who did the blog.
From the blog "it was known that Labour always borrowed more than the Conservatives and that was why the electorate could not trust them with the economy. I knew that evidence I had prepared a year ago did not support that view in recent years (post 1997)"
The purpose of the article, I assumed, was intended to refute the notion that Labour cannot be trusted in future with the economy, it mentions John McDonnell’s new fiscal rule.
If that isn't the conclusion you'd like us to draw from that article in a thread about Labour what other reason did you have for posting it.
I stand corrected the analysis isn't flawed the conclusion is; prior to 1997 the economy was in a regular boom and bust cycle. As I recall Brown became convinced that this cycle was over and allowed the deficit to grow from 2002 to 2008.
Eventually in the crash we were staring at 10% deficit relative to GDP, the highest is has ever been in modern times.
So the premise of the article 'Labour always borrowed more than the Conservatives and that was why the electorate could not trust them with the economy' isn't true, I think the electorate didn't Miliband with the economy because he was seen as weak on fixing the deficit.
I think the electorate would not trust Corbyn on the economy because of his ideology.
