Agreed - the main problems during Labour's terms in office between 1997 - 2010, other than running a deficit when they should've been running a surplus, was their poor negotiating skills and a propensity for Brown to keep borrowing on an industrial scale off the official books:

Giving the GPs their opening offer on pay and conditions, far more than they deserved, including the disasterous opting out of out-of-hours care, which, combined with subsidising many women to become doctors, now have a shortage of them because so many take career break when they have children, costing the NHS a fortune in training up new staff and providing part time/temp cover when they return (far more than if they were working full time throughout). Temp cover is now used by many staff to earn more money (across the board in the professional side of things) even when there's no need - its just that they can get away with it because the managers let them.

The VERY bad PFI contracts that were a licence to print money for the firms (often foreign ones) who were bidding to provide the funding for the building of new hospitals. It was bad enough that through incompetent management of the building projects (inter-departmental turf wars and politics causing several un-needed redesigns, endless project delays and buildings quite often not fit for purpose) that most went over budget by between 50 - 100%, but then the terms of the funding were so poorly negotiated that even then with high government day-to-day funding in 'good times' (really bought on credit, including government), most NHS Trusts were only just coping or running a deficit BACK THEN.

There was never any incentive to work more efficiently/smarter, only to endlessly throw more money at the problem, until, of course, it ran out after the financial collapse, when as you say, the lack of sens in the spending plans in previous years meant that the government in 2008 had to start borrowing on an industrial scale, and we're only now slowly getting back (not quick enough for me) to weening ourselves off it, still borrowing £50Bn and paying another similar amount in debt repayments. This is partly due to the current government's (and especially beholden from 2010 - 15 to the Lib Dems) reluctance to force the Public Sector to become more efficient (the only way the management think of doing so is by cutting front line staff, not in their own ranks and changing behaviour).

Back to France - which has a lot going for it, compared to the UK - a huge land mass that is conducive to agriculture, can easily accommodate its population (similar to ours in size) and an efficient road and rail network (no need to keep swerving to avoid towns and hills all the time), as well as a ready and easily-accessible market for its goods without having to use ships, planes or expensive tunnels, as well as a long and distinguished history (before the World Wars anyway) of scientific, culinary and cultrual areas.

And yet, in just 100 years, they've slowly sent their country on the path to ruination through their achilles heel - the French ego and unwillingness to accept they may be wrong and change is necessary to survive and thrive. The actions described by the OP shows how backward-looking they are (we shouldn't forget the past, but neither should we just blindly live in it), and a good guide to the voting public here next week to listen to our heads, not our hearts when placing their cross at the ballot box.

"Labour actually managed the first two and a half years of that global recession pretty well, and cushioned the economy from much of the fall-out." Brown did the right thing by increasing state spending to cushion the real economy during a global recession. The criticism comes from the fact that he should have been running a surplus for pretty much the full three terms they were in office. Ask any economist worth their salt and they'll agree that deficit spending should not be the norm. If healthy economic conditions prevail then we should run a surplus in preparation for the next downturn. Labour did not do this. With the big public sector unions funding the party they're not free to set sensible economic policy. "Osborne's accusation of Labour over-borrowing is also false, given the global nature of the recession. Every Western country was exposed." Had Labour carried on with the Major governments spending plans past the first two years we would've been in surplus for almost a decade before the crisis hit. I agree totally that a Tory government would've done little to avoid it (though Brown did relax banking regulations soon after entering office) but they would have been better placed to properly stimulate the economy without spooking sovereign debt markets. "His policies over the following 6 years also proved to be fiscally disastrous, nearly doubling the deficit rather than reducing it. Even the reductions in borrowing under Hammond are only making minor inroads into the damage Osborne inflicted. Austerity has not worked as an economic tool in terms of deficit reduction or growth." As is all to often the case with voters in the U.K. you have deficit and debt mixed up. Of course the debt would continue to rise as we inherited a massive annual spending deficit (10.2% of GDP in 09-10) therefore the debt would not begin to reduce until this became a surplus. It's currently forecast to be 2.2% of GDP this year, a massive decrease. As for growth well we have outgrown all of our European peers, in particular those who chose to ignore reality and carry on taxing and spending as if this would lead to prosperity. No nation in the history of the planet has managed to tax its way to prosperity. "Also, the Conservative party's so-called 'fix' for the economy is based on the old chestnuts of 'getting the housing market moving' and cheap money - in other words, the situation in early 2007 all over again, together with an excessively high stock market." Free market capitalism is cyclical. There will always be boom and there will always be bust, the trick is to prepare for the downturn by having public finances in rude health beforehand which would allow for effective short term stimulus spending. "the NHS is suffering death by 1000 cuts" A common lie from the left oft publicised by the NHS trade unions for obvious reasons. The truth is NHS funding is at a historical high, over £10b more than the peak under Labour. What is upsetting the unions is that the Tories are demanding more efficiency and more modern working practices while Labour were happy just to throw money at it without any care as to how it was spent. Much of the growth in NHS funding under Labour was wasted in increased admin/management staff and inflation busting pay rises for their union backers.

I'm talking deficit, as you were originally, not debt. The deficit grew significantly under Osborne's chancellorship, despite his promises and as a direct result of his policies.

And 'prosperity' deserves defining. With zero wages growth, real incomes are falling, and personal debt is rising. As I mentioned, the stock market is currently at an inflated high, pumped up by cheap money. It's a house of cards.

Also, yes, NHS funding is at an all-time high. It needs to be, because of a growing, ageing population. The funding is not keeping pace with health and care needs - which is not just a Left / unionist opinion. And delivering healthcare is not a process that lends itself to 'efficiency'. Private healthcare providers can manage to be efficient by simply picking and choosing the conditions they treat. The NHS does not, and should not, have that choice.