[Link]

See figure 1. Real wages lower now than when Tories came to power.

Selective analysis that you present as factual.

Economists differ on approaches to analysis and theory just as much as experts differ on many things.

That is something that goes completely over your head judging from the stuff you write. You take one approach as put it forward as that's the only way it can be viewed.

You come across as one of those people who thinks they know how the world works because they listened or read someone else's theory of it.

Still 2 weeks to go so hopefully we can avoid such a crisis. They are the party of lies, flip-flopping, u-turns, backsliding, smokescreens, cuts, foodbanks, stagnating wages, increasing the debt, taking consumer debt back to record dangerous levels, no plan for Brexit.

Weak and wobbly. A vote for Tories is a vote for uncertainty (manifesto not costed and u-turns aplenty, plus no realism or genuine cooperative leadership on Brexit). It's a vote for more cuts to public services. It's a vote for the grossly unfair dementia tax. It's a vote for instability in our security. It's a vote for diminishing workers rights and tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a vote for a weak economy and a wobbly (dear) leader.

My post was in response to a claims on growth rates under the past Labour government. So I found the data on growth rates for the entirety of the period in question. I then pointed out that the GFC wasn't down to Labour's economic polices (the G in GFC is the clue). I've not seen any convincing argument to the contrary.

I have formed opinions on economics based on my studies and fairly wide reading. I also consider both what works theoretically in a real world context and the empirical evidence behind it. I do find some economists more influential than others, generally due to the persuasiveness of their argument and their examples, evidence and analysis. I am well aware there are differing opinions out there but I (obviously) find my own current opinions the most convincing.

The whole point of trying to engage in discussion on here is to encounter views of people who I disagree with and express my own views and try and back up those views with reasoned analysis.

Sure, and I'm sure those views would be better received if they more measured in and balanced in their analysis.

I know enough about economics to know that there is far less agreement than even you allude to in this post.

Party political economics is a disfigurement of the discipline. Inevitable of course and perpetrated by both sides but personally I think it does more harm than good.

People listen when they feel something is balanced.

So I've never heard of them before... as they were around in the 1950s having met at the University during the war. This is some 70 years before I lived in Cambridge. I imagine it's changed somewhat since then... And your example doesn't suggest anything close to a "tradition". I can assure you that Conservative Associations in Cambridge are much more of a tradition: [Link]

What an absurd point to raise on a thread about the 2017 election as a response to the Tories failings in the past 7 years and their lack of credibility going into Brexit talks this summer.