Something that is continually forgotten about. They don't have a clue. Pretty sure your man works in a call centre with a number of times he's mentioned his qualifications.
Also when a government spend money it's always talked about from the opposition like they're going to a casino and running wild. Not that they've INVESTED money in the public services to improve society. Invested in healthcare, education etc. Perspective changes everything and I can't relate to eejits who think national level economics works like their bloody MS Excel sheet.
If you meant me working in a call centre, no I'm a qualified chartered accountant working in commercial finance, with experience across multiple industries including financial services, telecoms, software (NHS and military related), publishing, legal services and now asset management. It's basically my career to understand the ins and outs of finance. It's why I'm obviously quite passionate about it.
So yes the national economy is a different beast to straight finance of companies/ industries in isolation, but I also studied economics at uni so I have a fairly detailed background.
You are right certain investments are clearly worth it for the payback, but it depends where that money goes. What is clear is money to interest can't be spent on services. So a large government debt isn't particularly helpful. That being said low cost debt used to get financial returns beyond the value of interest, e.g. GDP increasing more than offsetting debt costs is worthwhile. At the moment the leverage doesn't look healthy hence the need for big cuts so however you look at things Conservatives shouldn't get beaten by a stick for the correct prudent approach.
A case can be made for most government spend having a positive impact on GDP, but it does get more tentative in certain areas. Benefits for example are needed to reduce crime (as well as humanitarian side to benefits), but beyond a certain level, e.g. Focusing on Labour it arguably becomes a waste and if supported by higher tax it will reduce the incentive to accelerate careers.
This is probably one of my core reasons for being Conservative. I didn't go to private school, didn't get help buying house or going to uni, etc. I worked hard to get to where I have, so I don't see why I should give a big chunk away to lazy idiots who couldn't be bothered in school or with life. I went to school with plenty of these types to know they chose acting cool, rather than doing well in school.
Education is again a tough debate. Get the right talent and facilities and GDP will thrive over time. But spend too much on salaries and it becomes economically inefficient. Increasing tuition fees is probably the right thing though. Put simply either the people that go to uni pay a bigger share, or those that don't do!
As much as I don't want to pay the benefits of the lazy, I shouldn't be getting my education paid for by the lower paid! So it's right I paid fees at uni. And currently demand is still high so the balance is seemingly about right. And those fees are repaid over a career so it has no impact on who can go to uni.
Anyway I go off on a tangent, but point is I have an emotional and economical reason to vote Conservative.
Do I question if some policies are too right wing and providing too many allowances to super rich, yes, but equally I understand the economics of financial freedom and that some tax income is better than none because their business is taken elsewhere. The balance is tough either way.