Does the deficit include borrowing?

[jsmoke]

So what options does George Osbourne have. He is being pretty well slated at the moment due to his propsed cuts to reduce the deficit, but what else can he do, is it not a case of cut or pile up more and more debt?

 

[Tonester0011]

I feel this pie chart explains it much better

 

[aardvark]

So what options does George Osbourne have. He is being pretty well slated at the moment due to his propsed cuts to reduce the deficit, but what else can he do, is it not a case of cut or pile up more and more debt?

he doesn't really have a another option - the only choice is what to cut - thats the only real difference between parties.

 

[Caged]

Pile up some debt, live it up, leave the problem of sorting it out to the next generation. It's what the boomers would have wanted.

 

[Destination]

he doesn't really have a another option - the only choice is what to cut - thats the only real difference between parties.

Except for labour who know magical growth happens when you borrow extra, and get us out of this mess by stimulating the economy by borrowing even more.
Muppets.
They spent three years telling us that at the start of this government. 'Growth isn't fast enough as we're not borrowing and spending enough.' Three years of that drivel, then they didn't talk plans at all for a while, now they say tax rises and a magical 50% rate will solve the entire bloody problem.
Still won't solve it Eds (Wallace and Testicles).

 

[Dr Jack]

he doesn't really have a another option - the only choice is what to cut - thats the only real difference between parties.

That's completely untrue. Even if you accepted Osborne's argument, there's the question of whether to cut spending or raise taxes.

But the fact is, there are two effective ways to deal with the debt: growth and inflation. Osborne's policies have delivered neither. We should have accepted a short term growth in debt in order to secure the recovery and then used that growth to eventually reduce and eliminate the deficit. Osborne set out to eliminate the deficit in a single parliament, he has failed miserably. Part of the reason for that is that his policies and approach killed the growth in the economy and the insecure, low-paid jobs that have been created don't deliver much in the way of tax revenue so tax receipts are below his predictions.

Britain didn't need austerity, there was no pressing crisis that needed it, instead Osborne chose it and as a result the country is a lot worse off.

 

[PMKeates]

That's completely untrue. Even if you accepted Osborne's argument, there's the question of whether to cut spending or raise taxes.

But the fact is, there are two effective ways to deal with the debt: growth and inflation. Osborne's policies have delivered neither. We should have accepted a short term growth in debt in order to secure the recovery and then used that growth to eventually reduce and eliminate the deficit. Osborne set out to eliminate the deficit in a single parliament, he has failed miserably. Part of the reason for that is that his policies and approach killed the growth in the economy and the insecure, low-paid jobs that have been created don't deliver much in the way of tax revenue so tax receipts are below his predictions.

Britain didn't need austerity, there was no pressing crisis that needed it, instead Osborne chose it and as a result the country is a lot worse off.

In reality your statement should be littered with ifs and maybes. You're using hindsight to guess what may and may not have happened in what is a far more complex situation than what you describe. It's not possible to say with the absolute certainty that you do that the country is a "lot worse off" than it would have been if it had increased spending.