Without answering point by point I think my point about the banks is confirmed by a lot of this.Already written on Facebook in a reply to a post on my wall…. This country is at present running a deficit; i.e. each year the government is spending more than it gets in revenue. This has come about through a combination of many things but certainly in that mix were the banks high risk investment strategies and the subsequent massive bail out by our government and many others but proclaimed as the only solution by Gordon Brown. That bail out has made our position worse than it needed to be. The solution lies in two things. We can reduce the overspend. At the same time the economy could grow so that at some point the two graphs cross and we are no longer spending more than we collect in taxes. Nobody has suggested not even attempting to reduce that excessive expenditure. The "carry on regardless" option does not appear to be on the table. Now we come to the detail and the devil is always in the detail because to somebody every item of expenditure is a sacred cow and should be ring fenced. My broad take would be to minimise reductions for anything that will be a benefit in future growth of the economy such as education. My other question is this. It seems to be a given that having a flourishing financial sector is good for this country. This actually means a high risk investment type of financial sector. I would really like to know if this given is actually of benefit to us all. Did the high risk financial sector pay more in taxes over the last few years than it cost to bail out? But also did it suck in investment funds which in a more normal investment climate would have gone into industry, the making of goods rather than the providing of services? The analogy of a casino and how it benefits the local economy is town or city is pertinent. I would suggest that it benefits a few but not really the many.