He criticized the deficit as 'keynesian spending' but it's patently obvious to everyone that actually the deficit was both being reduced and spending was no higher than it was before the crash - ie, the deficit only went up due to a skyrocketing set of unemployed and low tax reciepts. It's ignorant to describe that type of spending as keynesian.

As I've already stated, the deficit rose consistently under new labour long before the financial crash. Additionally, they reacted to the financial crash by bank semi-nationalisation and a massive increase of the public sector. Both of your claims are wrong here.

The criticism is set to match the claim - if you say 'deregulation' and give no details then your opponents will just point out that the deregulation you promise has in the past quite consistently screwed things up

Translation: If you advocate deregulation, your opponents will jump to conclusions about the specific kind that you mean.

look at the last hundred years, we're far richer, far more regulated.

Can you explain what you mean by this? The 80s saw absolutely unprecedented deregulation in virtually every industry I can think of. As I understand, we're far less reguated now than we were in the post-war era.

No I don't accept that at all. We set our rules to maximise wealth and tax receipts and then we spend the tax we take to invest in our future. Take military for example - 2% of gdp, literally whatever we earn, we'll spend 2% on gdp.

But spending as a percentage of GDP increased in the aforementioned areas under new labour. It didn't just rise, it rose even faster than the economic growth that was (partially) paying for it.

You also haven't addressed te fundamental point that it's impossible to support something without supporting the thing that enables it.