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, [url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdfhere[/url) 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.

But surely when old people retire, everybody moves up the ladder creating more entry level jobs at the bottom?

We need to be creating new, unthought of industries to drive the economy and employment growth. That job will be for the younger generations. Not a question of older people holding the young back, that's an oudated concept. Industries tend not to last that long these days. How many computer game designers aged over 68 do you know? Rappers?

I completely agree with the first bit, and I'm not saying the old are holding the young back. I just think we need to accept that if we were to drastically increase the retirement age this would have a negative impact on youth unemployment.

Yes there are some professions where there will be few people in their 60's such as game designers, but what about all the older people who work as check-out assistants, doctors, accountants, etc? If they all work an extra 10 years all that will happen is their companies will hire less people, and the young will lose out.

p.s. were you genuinely using the rap industry to back up your point or was that a joke?

No joke. The music industry is a big overseas revenue earner. But, the key point is that the young are more creative than older people generally speaking. That creative energy should be channelled into deveopling new industries, including manufacturing new unthought of products. This idea of "jobs" is not how this country will move forward again - it will only happen through entrepreneurial activity. As someone old enough to look back I would say that anyone in their early 20s and younger with few responsibilities should be putting all their energy into trying to create their own business, develop their own ideas, etc and not expecting to follow the path that their grandparents and maybe their parents were lucky enough to have. That era was a very specific one in our history - developed on wealth created by the graft of the previous few generations. The job for life norm of a couple or recent generations has gone. It was an historical anomoly and not in fact a norm.

I'm quite pleased that this government is actually tring to tackle the issue of pensions, the devil is in the detail of course but the soundbites sound like a reasonable proposal and they are the first government that I can recall who are at least tackling the issue rather than wait for someone else to take it on.

In theory I could still opt to draw my state pension in just ten years time, in reality I am already resigned to working until at least 70 - there is a Plan B (I always have a Plan B) but if we continue down the path we're currently on then 70 will be the first opportunity that I have.

I'm fine with that and if the soundbite proposals hold true then at 70 we'll be ok at the proposed rates plus our f'kin useless private pensions, and there's always the painting income which doesn't make a profit at all these days, oh no