Keep your hands off my balance sheet, Dave

I’ll be paying back my student debt for some time to come, thanks to the last government’s zeal for vast loans and my complete inability to secure ample part-time work while I was studying. Resigned to not being financially secure until my mid-thirties – and that’s an optimistic outlook – I now realise that the semi-detached, picket fence comfort of my parents’ generation will be much harder to come by.

Short of inviting himself to kitchen tables across the land, armed with an accounts book, a calculator and a pair of scissors to guillotine our flexible friends, the Prime Minister’s response to my domestic financial crisis has thankfully proved short-lived. An early draft of his conference speech announced that “the only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households - all of us - paying off the credit card and store card bills."

All of this confuses the Government’s economic message; aren’t we supposed to be propping up fragile High Streets by spending on clothes, electrical goods, and holidays? Or should we be living as if we’re part of a religious order? What Dave has failed to explain is how we’re supposed to eke out a day-to-day existence in the meantime.

Yes, debts are terrible, nasty things that strangle our otherwise happy existences like a noose around the neck. Most of us enjoy luxuries such as shelter, food and clothes that make us look vaguely flattering, so we put off the inevitable. We limit your outgoings, dealing with one debt at a time. An instruction to pay off everything we owe on national television would have halted already fragile consumer confidence, plunging our retail sector into despair. The message is all the more insulting as when you consider that Britain’s Prime Minister and his consort are reportedly worth around £30million between them. Many of the Cabinet are also millionaires. They don’t have to borrow a penny to survive.

Here’s a better idea. ‘Plan A’ doesn’t work. Youth unemployment is at 20%, consumer confidence is at an all-time low. Cameron would be better off concentrating his efforts at macro-level, securing growth and jobs for those who really need them. That’s what he’s paid to do. Frankly, I’d rather be advised on my finances by the broadcaster and financial advisor, Alvin Hall. He’s got bags more charisma and would make a lot more sense.

The crushing brutality of the new state

Crowds of people 'celebrate' the coming of the Big Society

 Yesterday afternoon George Osborne announced the biggest cuts in public spending in 80 years. In a systematically crude and overtly political move, Osborne sought to rewrite the chapter of history book which covered the banking crisis, which forced governments all around the world back into a classic Keynesian model of injecting capital into the economy, telling the British people upfront that they had to pay the price for a decade of free market gambling.

Hundreds of thousands of public sector workers who rely on government contracts face the misery of unemployment, knocking their self-confidence and forcing them into Iain Duncan-Smith's new, 'progressive' welfare system.

People already dependent on state handouts, who know what it's like to simply live hand-to-mouth, will face an even more crushing disadvantage as local authorities cut back the services which they rely upon to enjoy any sort of quality of life. Citizens of rural areas will quickly find their wings clipped and face disconnection and isolation on an enormous scale when their bus services are axed - because the Department for Transport will no longer support the subsidy for their local routes - making it far more difficult to find an already scarce job, or enrol on a college course. And, for those who can't afford £500 iPads or home PCs, small community libraries will wither when local authorities find there's actually quite a high market value in a solid Victorian building ripe for redevelopment.

But, hold on! Like an omnipresent supernatural force, the Big Society is here to step in and fill the gaps left by dedicated public sector workers! They who once ran high-quality local services will run your library for free and happily shuttle across the Shire counties in minibuses, ferrying pensioners, aspiring students and single mothers between centres of prosperity, because, after all, they've nothing better to do anymore. Who needs a salary?

Sarcasm aside, the broader political question obstinately remains. Does George Osborne really have the credibility to redefine fairness, a man who, as Johann Hari pointed out today, is the beneficiary of a £4m trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn? Does he really get what it means to live in a town dependent on the public sector for employment and endemic post-industrial health problems? The state as we know it, as a provider of public services and an enabler of prosperity, is being redefined so fundamentally and so rapidly, that the howls of protest over one cutback are being noisily drowned out when another is announced.

Worse still, when the government decides it's simply going to stop doing something, the persistent apathy which pervades our parliamentary system means that our democratic institutions won't be strong enough to resist, as Paul Richards' excellent book points out:

"On the housing estates and in the inner cities, democracy is ending not with a bang, but with a whimper. If democracy fails, it won't be because of a coup d'etat. There'll be no revolutionary soviets or troops in the streets, no capture of the radio stations and martial law. It will die because we couldn't be bothered to save it".*

We might agree with some of the decisions being made by the coalition, particularly when they genuinely enhance individual liberty and protect the public services we value most, but struggle to understand or support public policy initiatives which the coalition idly leave to the Big Society - an initiative which the Tory party have struggled to comprehend, let alone the public at large.

It's Government, Jim, but not as we know it.

Ask The Chancellors - a personal view

If Channel 4's Ask the Chancellors debate tonight was the template for the long-awaited leaders' debates during the General Election campaign, then the real thing may be well worth watching. Maybe it was the focus on specific economic issues rather than general platitudes and populist issues which made it more interesting than the usual 'panel' style of debate, or the skillful chairing by Krishnan Guru-Murthy - I don't know - but it was a good bit of telly – an intelligent alternative to the the usual bloodbath you normally get on Question Time.

Even though I’m admittedly biased towards Labour, putting those prejudices aside for one moment I still thought Darling and Cable both came across exceptionally well – Darling very confident and with good arguments. Cable absolutely right on a lot of things and you could sense a genuine interest in the things he was saying from his views on public spending to bankers’ bonuses. Some people might write off the election campaign as a two-horse race but in a possible and likely hung parliament this guy has a higher chance of becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer than any Liberal/Liberal Democrat since the government of David Lloyd George.

George Osborne, on the other hand, just sounded like he’d been spending far too much time with Andy Coulson, the Tories’ director of communications. There was a time in British politics where you could get away with those sort of vacuous soundbites, but even if (as we are led to believe) Osborne is a very clever guy with a firm grasp of economics, he didn’t display these qualities this evening. I felt Darling and Cable had the right balance of sound figures, a record of making the right judgements and the right sort of political acumen in a studio environment. Osborne tells us it is essential to "learn the lessons" of the banking crisis and calls for stronger regulation, but to me this is a belated conversion. You might have expected that if he'd really believed in reform of the banking system, Osborne would have fought back when Darling pointed out the Tory position on the response to the crisis was completely at odds with 20 of the world's largest economies.

It'll be interesting to see how the Tory high command judge Osborne's performance tonight - if I were Dave I'd be deeply worried at this point. If anything, tonight's debate was a complete vindication of the 'do-nothing' response to the turbulent economic times of the last few years.