A lot of this thread seems to be following the logic that the only way to reduce the deficit is to cut public services. We are being fed this line by Government and a compliant Press to obscure the true nature of the choice. Governments have choices about how they cut deficits, and how far and fast they do so. Cutting the public sector workforce is one way; but it's pretty inefficient economically. By doing so, you put more people in the position of claiming benefits, which offsets the original cut. These people are less economically active, which inhibits economic growth. They don't pay tax any more, which further offsets the original cut. Irrespective of politics, basing 80% of your cuts strategy around public sector workforce cuts is economically dim. Making the cuts quickly and dogmatically is also risky; there is a 'tipping point' in most economies beyond which there is not enough economic activity to support the economically inactive; this point is closer than most politicians realise, particularly with an ageing population.
Other strategies could be considered, but don't seem to be on the agenda. Forcing the banks to repay taxpayers money or be nationalised is one approach, and could be done over a medium term period so the 'shock' to the banking system is negligible. Squeals from the banks should be ignored, and compared to their still obscene profits.
The tax system should be changed to an approach where the rich (and especially the super-rich)are forced to pay their share instead of avoiding payment. Penalties for tax avoidance (not just evasion) should include confiscation of assets and imprisonment. (The argument that 'the rich will just move abroad' has been shown to be utter nonsense, as experience of previous tax increases shows no correlation between tax rises and economic migration). Instead we have the disgusting situation where this Government is taking the bulk of tax increases from the poorest third of the population. Another approach; stop interfering in foreign wars, and stop pretending we are a nuclear force in the world. Have a small standing Armed Forces who are actually engaged in defending the UK itself, not US interests abroad.
Another approach; the public purse currently subsidises bad employers by paying support benefits to employees who are unable to live on the wages offered by the employer. Raise the minimum wage to a realistic level so that employers are paying the economic rate for work done, and remove the need for taxpayers to subsidise the profits of the company. There are many examples of huge companies making massive profits when the bulk of their workforce receive income support. (The hitherto supine Trade Union movement in this country has been complict in this, incidentally). Again, the employers argument that this will cost jobs has been demonstrated to be spurious, as the introduction and subsequent review of the minimum wage has been demonstrated to have no significant effect on employment levels.
Reintroduce the well-established economic dictum of 'reasonable profit', and tax companies and their shareholders heavily when this is exceeded.
All of these strategies are in place in one form or another in developed countries around the world; it's really just the UK (and to some extent the USA) who follow a model of capitalism that predetermines that the poor should always pay with either their jobs, their services or in taxes when things get tight.
To John MacKenzie; this isn't a left-wing knee-jerk response, it's a considered alternative to the economic barbarism (not Barberism!) that is being proposed. Economically speaking, all of these proposals have a greater chance of success than simply slashing and burning public services.