Labour has always left the country in a better state. People who believe the tories are good on the economy ignore public goods, such as roads, rail, hospitals, schools, libraries, parks and leisure, which all deteriorate significantly under Tory governments. It is one of the most corrosive myths of our times that the tories are good on the economy. They're not. Even trickle down isn't working anymore. Those who don't own anything have very precarious finances. If you own stuff you feel safe as your assets are worth more. I own stuff so I should be a Tory but I hate to see those without squeezed, whilst the recession has left me untouched.
Clement Atlee did but then growth continued after Anthony Eden took over. So I'll give you that one.
Nobody could claim that Wilson/Callaghan did, surely? They nearly brought the country to it's knees - although Heath did just as badly.
And Brown/Balls certainly didn't. They inherited a strong economy and trashed it.
Yes, I accept your point that Labour governments spend more on public goods. Unfortunately that isn't the same thing as the economy.
I also think that global circumstances have to be taken into account and play a huge part in the success of the UK - and that the part played by a government is small in comparison. Therefore we have to judge over long periods. Other than the New Labour tenure, have Labour ever had a long uninterrupted period in power? The closest would be Wilson and Callaghan for two terms and they made as big a hash of it as Brown did.
So, I accept your point that they spend more on the public. Do you accept that they have never managed the economy well, Atlee aside (and he only had one term so we don't know what would have happened had he stayed)?
EDIT: One more point: it's the nature of government to leave when you are doing badly - otherwise why would they be beaten in the election?
