Callaghan inherited the ****e from Ted Heath and was getting things a lot better by the time he lost the election. The facts speak for themselves and figures going back 70 years show that Labour run the economy better..
Sorry mate, you're wrong! Calaghan inherited the "****e" as you call it From Harold Wilson, so your facts are wrong too.
Wilson resigned because he was getting the **** left by Heath and he felt to weak to deal with it..So I stand by my comment..
You have skated over the Callaghan period inflation he was wrestling with. The whole country was suffering and people were struggling at every level through short supply. Prices were shooting up and way outstripping wages. No matter who or what was in office at the time, we are all victims of the money men and laying the fault at any Governments's door is often not accurate. However, it was Maggies who removed control over the Banking system and we are still suffering so giving up that control proved nothing. Look elsewhere like Wall Street for the answer to politic and economy, we can change Government's as often as we like but it makes little difference in the end.
Whatever happens and regardless of the outcome I have to say that I have become impressed by Corbyn and how he conducts himself. Time will tell if he is a quiet man who is carrying a big stick.
But the deficit has increased by over £500 billion since the tories got back in so how can that be true?
The main cause of the very high inflation in the mid 70's was the massive hike in oil prices due to the supply shortages when, in effect, Arab countries turned off the taps in protest at the West's support for Israel. That set the inflationary cycle off and in The UK the situation was worsened considerably by Union led industrial action which led to reduced production. Then higher wages led to our goods being uncompetitive and we were on the long slippery slope to Thatcherdom. You are wrong about it being Maggie who removed the controls over Banking. Her De-Nationalisation programmes allowed lots of flash city trader to get rich, (for a while), but the basic Banking Controls remained in place. The Bank of England continued to closely monitor all of The Clearing Banks. Oddly it was Gordon Brown who was the guilty party. Gordon was, at the time, a very highly regarded Economist. However he got very cosy with 'The City' and all sorts of old regulations were quietly removed including the micro monitoring by The Bank of England. For instance, the banks had previously has to hold 'Asset Cover', that cash or Government short term bonds, of (I think) 5% of the value of the credit balances they held. Something called the Money Supply theory had been popular since Thatchers time and Gordon reasoned that if this % was lowered, then more wealth would circulate through more spending creating more wealth. Good theory. Gordon though expected the longest 'Boom Period' anyone could remember to continue forever. It didn't. And when the Banks came under pressure, guess what? They didn't have the cover needed because they had been allowed to reduce it by Gordon. They had to be saved, either by The Treasury or The Gulf States. As part of the measures put in place since to ensure that the same situation can never happen again, that particular rule has been re-introduced. Gordon it seems was not quite as good an economist as everybody thought.
Brown handed independent financial control to the Bank of England to remove party political control of it and they were responsible for that error. No one could forecast the shennanigans the Stock Exchanges could get up to. Maggie had started first on the Stock Exchange and the banks followed.
This is a conservative voter view of the cycle. Let us just try to separate fact from opinion here for a moment! Little things like the debt having got from around £950 billion to £1600 billion during the conservative government. If that is austerity 'fixing' the country then I'd hate to see how it would look if they were trying to break it.