I don't wish to sound patronising Lox, but please re read what you just put.

Inflation doesn't just affect the person in the street. The largest consumer is, one way or another, the government. When I chaired a public body, I recall us getting a 3.5% increase and the press asking what we were going to invest it in. As inflation was 4% at the time, I was asking myself the same question. As the government later told us what to spend it on, as they do, we had to, with treasury blessing, blow our original budget. Hence public spending went up, hence public borrowing went up. (Not just us, our contribution was less than £5M, but add all the arms length bodies, NHS etc and it adds up to real beer tokens.)

Oh, and by the way, I didn't just blame it on inflation. I noted the rise as a contributing factor. There are, as ever, more factors in this than there are pork scratching remains in a folk singer's beard. My main gist being "don't get on your high horse over one month's figures, especially if you keep quiet on the months that public borrowing falls. Public borrowing and national debt may be political motivators but they are facts to be dealt with rather than a whipping boy when they coincide with a point you wish to put across."

The borrowing figures do not mean that Osborne's philosophy is wrong nor indeed right. That takes sustained increases or decreases over a long period. Even the Labour front bench concede that point. (Balls has the benefit of being in opposition in order to make radical claims. I note Darling was steering in the direction Osborne is going at full steam.) If you want a view from me, it would be that a little pump priming of the economy would allow a drop in the deficit through growth rather than just relying on austerity measures, especially if, Like Osborne etc on a personal level, you are not exactly "in this together" after all.