The guardian's figures were based on 2009 GDP - Osborne's wasn't

If he was wrong why hasn't it been" stretched" in the media -  to use the word in the comment above?

I would say his credibility is higher than a lot of people think.

It's not been mentioned anywhere else as like any Tory policy at the moment they are getting the same free ride that Labour got in 1995-7. DC and GO are going to get a free ride from the press for the next 7 months and then when it all go tits up the press will turn on them. Would be hilarious if wasn't so important.

Spot on Barry Chuckle.

Dave + Little Georgie have all the signs of being an absolutely disastrous economic partnership.

And before all my Tory friends dive in with "What about Brown/Gold reserves/roof...sun...shining?"...

Dave + Georgie got every single call on attacking the recession wrong. Just plain wrong. The press don't want to tackle this because the story is about Brown. And as for Dave trying to pin the government down for not setting up enough city regulation...Less than 2 years ago he was berating Brown for setting up too much.

I'd give them one term, with Georgie going in less than 2 years.

The Guardian's claims completely miss the point.  Their is a clear ideological gap that has opened up again in politics.  The Tories want to solve the deficit and then bring down national debt by cutting back on public expenditure.  Labour are hoping to get away with fewer cuts and to inflate the economy to solve deficit and debt.

The Government are helped by the civil service, which we all contribute too.  The fact that Osborne may have his sums wrong is neither here nor there - if in Government he would get the full support of the Treasury to put in place his measures and to calculate savings properly.

The question is - which policy for solving the countries finances makes most sense.  I think the Tories policy of sound money makes more financial sense - plenty others take the opposite view.  However, understanding this distinction is critical and it is arguable whether many on the PH100 do understand this - it is also another rubbish question to add to the long list of rubbish PH100 questions. 

Raising the pension age would create a load more people looking for jobs and at a time when unemployment is rising, is that such a good idea?

Couple this with proposed benefit & JSA cuts the country is going to have a very big group of people barely able to support themselves financially. When people are in that situation how are they supposed to support business or the government through tax?

They can't. If jobs are to be created businesses need a steady flow of income to be able to expand and create jobs and even before banks will lend them money they need to demonstrate that their business is viable, which is a bit difficult when your consumers stop spending money. And I don't think the Tory government will borrow money to support their banker friends let alone important employers.

The retirement age should be voluntary, i.e. The pension is available after (for this example) 60 but you need to retire before you can get it, maybe with different levels of pension payment depending on the number of hours a week you are working.