IT is difficult sometimes to know whether we should admire Prime Minister David Cameron for his sheer gumption in claiming the Conservatives have done well on the economy.

After all, putting it mildly, growth has not materialised in the way we were promised, and the public finances are in much, much worse shape than was projected when Mr Cameron came into office.

Yet Mr Cameron has stuck out the brassiest of necks to tell us that we should be grateful for his party's economic stewardship as senior partner in the Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats. And he has warned in grave terms indeed about what might happen if it were left up to others to run the economy.

Not only has he chosen to adopt a wildly Panglossian view of the Conservatives' track record, he has even had the gall to make the economy a central plank of his party's election campaign. Some politicians might admire him in this regard either openly or secretly, although, admittedly, most if not all of such individuals would probably be in the Coalition ranks.

Judging by Chancellor George Osborne's Twitter account, he seems to be turning business visits into something akin to a rapid Munro-bagging exercise. And the morsels of wisdom that emanate from this source are most decidedly upbeat.

When Mr Osborne hiked the scale of annual public spending cuts and tax rises to be in place by 2014/15 by £40 billion to £113bn in his debut Budget in June 2010, the forecast was the UK would achieve growth of 2.3 per cent in 2011, 2.8 per cent the following year, and 2.9 per cent in 2013. And it was anticipated that growth would be 2.7 per cent in both 2014 and 2015.

These forecasts were produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which was set up by the chancellor himself to produce robust and independent economic predictions. So just how did Mr Osborne actually perform, relative to these robust forecasts?

In 2011, the first full year in which Mr Osborne was steering the economy, the UK fell miserably short of the OBR's forecast, recording growth of just 1.6 per cent. And it got worse still the following year, when the UK economy grew by just 0.7 per cent. This was a mere one-quarter of the expansion rate projected for that year by the OBR back in 2010.

In 2013, gross domestic product grew by 1.7 per cent, still way adrift of a long-term average rate put by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney at about 2.75 per cent.

The 2014 growth rate was last month revised up by the Office for National Statistics to 2.8 per cent, marginally above the OBR's 2010 projection.

However, Mr Osborne's record over the period from 2011 to 2014 does not look like one to be shouting from the rooftops about, even on social media.

And, not surprisingly given how things actually feel out there in the real world, the OBR is forecasting a deceleration of UK growth to a below-trend 2.5 per cent this year and then to 2.3 per cent in 2016.

The OBR predicted in June 2010 that the UK's outstanding public sector net debt would, by the end of last month, have increased to £1.28 trillion, from an estimated £771.5bn at the end of March 2010. When Mr Osborne presented his final Budget ahead of the General Election a little more than five weeks ago, the OBR projected net debt would be £1.479 trillion at the end of March. The ONS said yesterday that net debt, excluding the public sector banks, was £1.484 trillion at the end of March.

In spite of the Coalition's serious shortcomings on growth and overshooting of debt forecasts, there appears to be very significant support among the business community for another Government in which the Conservatives hold the whip hand. This support should not be dismissed lightly.

So why is it, given the utterly miserable macroeconomic times we have endured during the Coalition's term, that much of the business community has remained so loyal to Mr Cameron and his colleagues?

It is worth noting a portion of this loyalty might stem from a desire among some individuals in the business community to ensure the top rate of income tax in the country is as low as possible.

If you speak to those who are in the £150,000-plus income bracket or advise the people who are, you will hear it argued that, the lower the top rate, the less likely it is that people will try to use legitimate "planning" measures to limit their liability.

And Mr Osborne declared, when he reduced the top rate of income tax to 45p in the pound in his March 2012 Budget, that the increase from 40p to 50p introduced by the previous Labour administration had in 2010/11 brought in just one-third of the £3bn estimated.

But 2010/11 was the first fiscal year in which the 50p rate was in place. And it is likely many people affected would have chosen to bring forward income to the prior tax year.

They could not have limited exposure to a 50p band in future years by bringing forward income.

So, given the general clampdown on avoidance and the fact many people are not actually willing to go overseas if they do not like the top tax rate, perhaps we should have stuck with the 50p top band to help reduce the deficit.

There is little doubt the Conservatives have delivered much of what many in the business community have wanted in terms of slashing corporation tax, dismantling employment legislation and turning a blind eye to the scandal of zero-hours contracts.

Business has been given much, while austerity has been aimed too much at the most vulnerable in society.

But many in the business community appear to ignore or fail to realise the crucial fact in all of this: businesses need a strong economy. That is not achieved by sucking out demand by hiking VAT and slashing welfare spending. Not to mention the drag on consumer spending from the insecurity created by pernicious zero-hours contracts.

Business investment has remained dismal in spite of corporation tax cuts.

So we should ask ourselves this question: if corporation tax had been left at 28 per cent (still a fairly competitive international rate), and not cut to 20 per cent, and if VAT had not been raised and welfare spending cut to the extent they have been, might we be in a much better place economically right now?