I'm sure you're clever enough to understand the difference between voicing an opinion and trolling in a manner that simply drives numerous threads down the same blind alleys.

Right ... so what's your opinion on the debt-to-GDP ratio?
What's your opinion on the continuation of the recession due to ignoring the effects of imposed-austerity on the economy?
If you are not trolling, you'll have some sort of reasoned argument for your thus-far-not-expressed opinion, let's hear what it is.

Completely different issues. I think politicians are reckless spenders of taxpayer money, but also think the austerity measures are too severe, albeit in the wrong areas.

I don't think any political party has the ability to solve the UK deficit and debt problems without fear of losing votes or losing other politicians support - basically stemming from greed. To say "the Tories are in step with public opinion" as a conclusion to the statistics produced from this survey is completely laughable seen as Tories are politicians as well! If anything, as the Tories are in charge of the cheque book, it would suggest the opposite. Try to see past party politics!

Spend more than earn = bad.

Earn more than spend = good.

That seems to be the basic concept behind it. But we all knew that anyway.

Imo the case for austerity was always pretty weak, but it is now almost definitely causing much more harm than good.

The problem is that politicians all around the developed world (nobody more so than Cameron and Osborne) have invested so much political capital into austerity, that there is no way for them to turn away from it without admitting they have made a string of absolutely shocking decisions, that have had disastrous consequences.

I have no idea why Labour aren't absolutely nailing the conservatives with this. All I can think is that they don't back themselves to be able to convince the public with facts and evidence, vs the Tories 'common sense' soundbites of: belt tightening, maxing credit cards etc.


The confidence fairy. If only the government wasn't spending so much money (risking turning us into the new Greece), then big business would have the confidence to spend and invest again, and that would lead to a private sector lead recovery like the one we're going through now... oh wait.

What "austerity measures" do you think are "too severe"? What impact do those measures have on the economy as a whole?

I think there are a few reasons why they sit on their hands and watch from afar whilst collecting what is by most measures an impressive salary and even more impressive expenses and retirement package for a five year contract...

1. If they have an alternative plan then they don't have a "personality" to present it for them, there is no-one in their team with half an ounce of gravitas to make it sound like he knows that his solution is the best - LibDems had one in opposition in Vince Cable, everyone wanted to interview him in opposition but he's been shown to be a sham mouthpiece quoting only theories since being shuffled sideways into a job with no real purpose.

2. They don't have an alternative plan that much is clear, their strategy is to wait for five years, draw the salary and then walk back into power on the back of a disastrous Tory/LibDem term which even a five year old child could shoot down at the election televised debates.

3. There is no plan anywhere in the world that could offer a quick solution, there are people who claim that there is but those people are simply quoting theories, truth is that the whole world economic cycle has been shown and proved to be an impossible dream driven by con-men, shysters, gamblers, smoke and mirrors and some of Sooties magic dust, even last week we saw that the "experts" do not have a clue what is happening when statements were made of GDP figures showing the UK slipping into another recession when in fact they were several points better than the "experts" thought they would be - those self same "experts" would have gambled your pension scheme on their "predictions" last week based on their "expert" knowledge.

What relevence does this have to me highlighting your incorrect interpretation of statistics?

That's the simplistic take on it that the coalition have been pushing all along.
If it were as simple as that no-one would take out a mortgage and no business would borrow to upgrade machinery.
I have seen MPs freely interchanging the terms deficit and debt as though they are the same thing ... which makes one wonder, do they actually know the difference between deficit, structural deficit and debt, and if they do, why are they using one term to mean the other?

Of course, if you have a deficit, then you want to eliminate it at some point, especially if it's structural.
Is a recession the time to do it?
In some ways partly yes, and others no.
If one's family finances are broke, you'd stop buying luxuries but you wouldn't stop buying your travel season ticket that gets you to work.
In a national economy you also have the economy itself to think about ... i.e. GDP ... if you sack loads of people, it costs you in benefit payments and also has a knock-on effect in that other people lose their jobs too, not just the ones you sacked.
That spirals down and down.

And the spin works. People can understand the concept of a maxed out credit card but don't understand how inflation affects debt and what the ability to print money can have on how you manage an economy. In other words the spin is deliberately misleading yet people fall for it.

This government has taken this kind of spin to a new level and my favorite has always been "Why should the postman pay tax towards the students fees?" which implied two things. 1. The postman was paying a significant amount of their taxes that was put toward to block grant. 2. If the block grant was abolished the postman would consequently save a shed load on their taxes.

Neither is true. Due to the progressive nature of taxation if you work out the %'s a postman on a basic postmans salary paid less than £30 a year towards the block grant and their income tax didn't change anyway. They are no better off as a result.

What I don't get is what someone else mentioned is that when it's easy to see such obvious things like this is why Labour don't directly challenge the spin. In this example they don't even have to say they are opposed to tuition fee increases (though I wish they would) but to simply point out forcefully that the way the change was being sold was deliberately misleading and deliberately divisive. They would then be able to question the motive for the change. Is it really austerity or the privatisation of higher education?

It's very frustrating the government is being given such an easy ride.