to be disappointed in the apathy of the county

[southeastastralbeing]

and the quickness at which the people seem to roll over and accept all these horribe cuts and looming redundancies - it's so accepting and lambs to the slaughtery (yes i know that's not a word)

i find it very depressing and wish i lived in france, where at least they're prepared to get on their arses and be heard

:(

Is this the Lib Dems who vehemently opposed increases in tuition fees when they were in opposition and now have totally changed tack? I wonder why no-one listens to them?

Quodlibet Vince Cable was warning about debt levels long before the financial crisis in 2007.

Fine - but he's now part of a government which is continuously making the 'it's like a household budget' allusion. Which it is not - and deliberately perpetuating that comparison is irresponsible and deliberately misleading. I'm pretty sure Vince Cable knows that full well, it's a shame he can't stand up for his principles.

I'm sure the Government don't think its just like a household budget but they are using that as an analogy to try and explain what they are doing.

But its nothing like a household budget! The economy can't recover without growth, where is the growth going to come from with 1000s of jobs being lost and everyone else scared to spend and saving for a rainy day?

As for Labour not predicting the crash, as late as Sept 2007 David Cameron was saying that 'our hugely sophisticated financial markets match funds with ideas better than ever before' and 'the world economy is more stable than for a generation'in a speech at the London School of Economics!!

I agree its nothing like a household budget but I think the Government are using that comparision to simplify the situation for the non-economically minded majority of the population.
The economy cannot grow with a deficit that is 12% of GDP as there is always the possibility that the country will get a battering on the markets and this uncertainity will deter foreign and domestic investors. Dealing with the deficit is not optional, you cannot ignore financial markets.

I agree with leandro is just a way of explaining the situation in lehmans terms and she is right international markets will cripple us if we don't deal with the deficit.

Not arguing about the cuts per se just the timescales and that the coalition is blaming the whole deficit problem on Labour and also not happy about the fact that so far they do seem to be mostly aimed at women, children and families. However, I shall reserve judgement until Wednesday!

The problem with delaying the cuts is we may lose the confidence of the markets and even if we didn't we spend £40 billion on debt interest a year and that is outrageous in my opinion.

Well yes but there is a fine line between losing confidence of the markets and the economy ending up crippled because of lost confidence at home IYSWIM. As I say I await Wednesday's outcome with interest/dread...

It is not 'explaining the situation in layman's terms' (isn't Lehmans the failed US bank? Bit of a freudian slip there...)

It is patronising and unethical. It's either a) assuming that a large proportion of the population are not intelligent enough to understand the actual situation, which is very different to 'it's like a credit card' OR it's b) deliberately trying to promote that misleading analogy because it makes people think of the previous government as someone run amok with a credit card they can't afford to pay off.

Why is it in anyone's good to mislead 'the non-economically minded majority' of the population? It's elitist to think normal people can't understand this if it's explained to them clearly. Why would a government want its population to remain ignorant and misinformed? Now why would they?

To be fair to the Government most people have little or no understanding of the deficit and debt crisis. Most people just shout tax the bankers even though the banking bailout is not part of the structural deficit. The household comparision is not sound but I don't see how else to explain to the man on the street.

Maybe 'most people' have got a point - the structural deficit was massively exacerbated by the economic crash, which in turn was caused, above all else, by unsound and risky banking practices (worldwide) brought about by bonus incentives. I find it very difficult to explain how it is 'fair' that banks which needed government bail-out are now able to offset their losses against this year's profits to reduce their tax bill and maintain their bonus pool, whilst at the same time refusing to lend to businesses. I think a large amount of people share my difficulty in understanding that.

Maybe you could try explaining that to me, and I could try explaining why the household comparison is not sound to the man on the street? I honestly don't think it's that hard to grasp.

Most banks didn't actually recieve Government support in reality though. The Government offered to guarantee their balance sheets to help maintain confidence within the financial sector and prevent inter bank lending seizing up.
Banks are allowed to offset their losses against this years profits to help reduce the losses caused by their toxic assets. They are not lending because they are rebuilding and because the Government is making them retain more of their capital to help insure against a similar crisis in the future.

Unlike a household, saving money by making cuts has the extra effect of reducing income.

It's that simple.

How does making spending cuts reduce income?

Whelker, if you make cuts to public service workforce, and make hundreds of thousands unemployed, they can no longer pay you tax on that income. You also have to pay them unemployment benefits.

If you close down free/subsidised nurseries, meaning many women can no longer afford to have paid work and pay tax on those earnings, then the same applies.

If you cut arts funding, which has been shown to generate £4 for every £1 of subsidy, then that's another reduction in income, potentially from several sources (artists paying tax on earnings, tourist money drawn to the UK for its excellent arts scene, VAT receipts...)

That's three examples of how making spending cuts reduced income. It's potentially a very long list.

Whelker, spending cuts means less money in the pockets of those who spend. Primarily, benefits recipients, defence forces and low and middle income earners who spend and therefore re-inject most (if not all) of their income into the economy.

Expenditure in social housing is passed onto builders and maintenance staff. Lower level civil servants spend their money on goods and services supplied by the private sector. Expenditure on education not only puts money into the pockets of teachers and support staff (to spend on goods and services) but is an investment in the future (higher earners, lower crime).

Cuts to social housing/civil service/defence services/education, put people on the dole, stop money going into goods and services and are detrimental to the future of the country.