Having produced information on government borrowings and repayments over a seventy year period, and in the process shown that curtailing the analysis after 62 years would not change the outcome, I have been challenged to produce further variations.
One, oddly demanded only by those of a right wing persuasion it seems, wanted the first eight years of data lopped off to match my ignoring the last eight. Those making the request seemed to think that the economic environment of the immediate postwar period might have given a result biased to Labour. I have to say I think that absurd: the contention is that Labour was as unable to manage this post-war environment in a way that it is suggested (by implication) that George Osborne has been unable to manage the last few. When the Attlee government transformed the economic environment forever in this short period the hollowness of that suggestion will be noted.
So how did Attlee manage to transform matters? But running a budget surplus, right? The very thing that Ritchie is calculating, who ran budget surpluses.
But Ritchie insists that no one should ever run a budget surplus, right?