Flatpackhamster

How would making me pay for a bunch of dying political parties that can't rouse more than half a million members between the 3 of them improve politics?

Quite. It's almost as though some people have a massive mental block that ran from 1997 to 2010.

This is the sole reason why they're proposing a speed limit cut - to comply with whatever eco- is making the running this week.

And by economists all over the place. But IMO it doesn't tell you anything and it's an easy get-out. "Look, we might owe a bazillion and eight pounds but the country's GDP is more." But I think it is a poor tool for deciding if you have too much debt. GDP is an approximate figure for how large the country's economy is. But you haven't kept ramping up the amount of debt you've got in the hope that something will come along. That seems to be the way the country is run. I'm not. I think property ownership is a bastion against tyranny. But I think that people nowadays are far too casual about debt. Was there ever a time when 'moneyed toffs' (to use your hackneyed phrase) didn't? A golden age when we were run by horny-handed sons of toil? I can't think of one.

Hmm. Tricky. Off the top of my head (checking no figures but I think I'm about right) 1995-2001 weren't especially bad. Some debt was paid off, economic growth was steady and taxes weren't too onerous. After that the growth was just fuelled by cheap credit.

I know plenty about the debt, but I'm still buggered if I can work out why we're doing it.

It might be 3% of GDP but GDP isn't the thing you should be comparing it to. You should be comparing to to total tax take. Comparing it to GDP gives you a false impression because it implies that all of GDP is available to service or repay the debt, when it isn't. In reality, 2012 spending looks like this: UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending in 2013 - Charts And debt interest makes up £47Bn of total spending of £506Bn - or 9% of government expenditure. More than the central government education budget, more than the entire defence budget.

Over the short or the long term? Over the short term, the cuts will hurt more. But remember this. Every year you're paying out tax to service that debt. The debt is still getting bigger and it's not shrinking, and every year the proportion of your tax that just goes to service the debt gets bigger. Debt will destroy the country. It has become an article of faith that debt isn't a bad thing. I disagree. It is ruinous. It is ruinous at a personal level and far worse at a state level because at a state level there is no responsibility for debt growth. Labour doubled our debt and now they're out of power how can they be held to account for that?

The only reason MattX despises the current Labour party is that they aren't extremist enough for him. He didn't object to what Cameron said, he objected to where he said it because he said it at a swanky dinner, which is his usual trick of playing the man, not the ball. IMO this article was a lazy troll on the Guardian site, and mattx is a troll for reposting it without comment. But as the saying goes, never wrestle a pig, because you'll just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Hush, now. Let the children have their fun. Rarrrr! Boooo!!! Tories!!! Rich toffs!! Evil!!

However, German companies are finding that they can't compete due to high energy costs. So consumers are losing out because not only do they, as employees, find their wages squeezed because their employers are spending so much on power, but they are also losing out because goods are more expensive, because companies have to raise their prices - because they're spending so much on power. Insulation isn't the problem here. Ecomentalists deciding what the price of electricity should be is the problem here.

If you don't understand the words I can explain them to you. You were the one that made a massive, wrongheaded assumption. Don't take it out on me.

You can't decrease the costs of renewables without raising the subsidy. I think it is wrong to take money out of people's pockets and shove it to the corporates. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which is the endless ramping up of debt which taxpayers have to keep paying the interest on, and there's also house price inflation of course which is the largest single bill most people have to pay. There are solutions - none of them pleasant.

If it was capitalism, I would. It's a corporatist stitch up between the UK govt, the EU and big business. Capitalism is it not. A better example of irony would be Ed Miliband. As climate change secretary enacted the Climate Change Act which guarantees a massively inflated price to wind and solar generation. The consequences of the guaranteed subsidies for windmills and solar are higher bills. Which is why your electricity bills doubled between 2000 and 2010 and why they'll double again between 2010 and 2020. To pay for windmills. Now he's pledging to fix the prices he rigged. Did I write 'irony'? I meant to write 'prick'. Today I see the EU parliament has voted to raise the cost of prospecting for shale gas and oil, thanks to the socialists and greens pushing it through. That means more expensive electricity bills for us.

You are mistaken. You have mistaken a party political point (which I was not making) with a general objection to playing fields sales over the last 40+ years (which I was). Neither would be necessary if mass immigration hadn't created a second Baby Boom which will take 50 years to work its way out of our demographics. Still, so long as Guardian readers get their cheap au pairs and ethnic basketwork shops... In that case the games session is too short.