Mark Blaug concludes his book "The Cambridge Revolution: Success or Failure?", London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1974, by saying
The Cambridge UK theories are certainly logically consistent, even if they do not always hang together in a logically consistent total framework of theories. They are possibily more realistic in some of their basic assumptions, although that statement is itself highly ambiguous. But they are not simpler, they are not more elegant, they are totally incapable of producing testable predictions. Whatever is wrong with neoclassical economics (and who can doubt that there is much to complain of?), it wins hands down on all possible criteria.But there are those, it would seem, on the UK (losing?) side that will not let the debate die.