If all you've got is a hammer

To be convinced that the UK election outcome was driven by views on austerity -- either that it worked or that its failure was camouflaged or that it packaged a false narrative about the 2008 financial crisis, which is the debate zone that Paul Krugman is in -- you have to believe that:

1. The Tories simply pulled austerity policies out of thin air in 2010 and not in reaction to real-time fiscal outlooks of the time;
2. Labour had failed to present distinctive economic polices other than somewhat less deficit reduction (and thus ignoring their proposals for higher income, home and banking sector taxes, energy price freeze, etc);
3. The dynamics created by the Scottish independence referendum mattered less than the austerity debate in determining electoral outcomes; and,
4. You're more confident in your ability relative to voters to attribute outcomes for jobs, housing, and cost of living to the respective roles of fiscal policy, land use, productivity developments, migration, and international influences like oil prices and you know it's really all about paths for public revenue and expenditure relative to baselines and the effects are so strong they'd be visible to the naked eye!