Long-time reader, rarely post. However, this post sparked my interest. I'd challenge the assertion that 'ordinary people feel proud about a rise in GDP', employment figures etc. In fact, I very much doubt that if you surveyed 10,000 people in the street, more than a handful would know what the latest figures are.
What I think is interesting, is that there is a school of thought within psephology which suggests that an election result is tied to whether real wages [in terms of purchasing power] are rising or falling. So while the polls look tight in 2015, real wages were growing very strongly, hence Cameron's surprise majority. By contrast, despite the polls starting heavily in May's favour, real wages had been falling for some time ahead of the 2017 election, and we all know what happened there, despite some encouraging headline figures (GDP partially, but more so inflation & employment).
Similarly, the election in 2010 was a little closer than many might have expected, as while real wages fell quite sharply in 08/09, they were relatively flat in early 2010. Falling slightly, hence the Tories (sort of) won, but not by a distance.
It's not always true to say that increasing real wages = Govt win (see 1997), but it is true to say that falling real wages has always historically resulted in Govt defeat or loss of majority (1910, 1922, 1923, 1945, 2010, 2017).
What's my point? I think there is evidence to suggest that people do care about if their purchasing power is increasing, irrespective as to if that is quicker or slower growth in relative terms to the super-rich '1%', but I don't think there is much evidence to suggest people care about headline economic figures.
