My only point here has been that I struggle to see how financial losses and increased debt could ever be referred to as an "improved financial position", for me it is a "worsened financial position". Each year that debt increases and interest repayments increase our financial position is worsening, particularly if it has worsened relative to GDP (or, even, GDP per capita).
I've tried not to make this about party politics, this is all to do with the Ipswich Town analogy. If we do want to make it about party politics though, then the truth is that we have absolutely no idea where we'd currently be with a Labour government, we could be better off or we could be worse off. You don't know and I don't know, which is why I've tried to completely avoid reigniting the red vs blue argument. Particularly as I didn't vote for either in 2010.
If I have an income of £25000 this year and rack up a new credit card debt of £5,000, and an income of £28,000 next year but finish the year with a credit card debt of £9,000 (lets assume 24 months interest free)...... With your logic my financial situation has improved because the difference between my income and expenditure was only £4000 instead of £5000. With my stance, I believe that my financial position has in fact worsened. I owe more money as a proportion of my income and my debt has grown at a faster rate than my income.
That leaves me in a worse position, not an improved one. The point at which I consider my situation to have 'improved' is the bit where either my debt decreases (particularly as a % proportion of my income) or my income rises at a faster rate than my debt increases (so, debt as a proportion of GDP). None of those are true of either Ipswich Town or the UK economy. I've reduced the deficit, but I certainly don't have an "improved financial position".
Our debate was about whether we can use the words "improved financial position" to describe what is happening either with Ipswich Town or the UK economy, not about whether I thought George Osborne was under-performing in his role as Chancellor. You think that the phrase is suitable, and I don't, and that's fair enough. I suppose what is logical and what is illogical is highly subjective and down to each individuals thought process. Or perhaps its just semantics.
I suppose a 7-0 defeat is worse than a 7-1 defeat, and we could look at it that way. I'd still struggle to put a positive spin on the 7-1 though. It would technically be an "improvement" in the result, but I'd probably never call it one, and it certainly wouldn't improve our position. Our position couldn't possible improve unless we managed a 1-1.
I'm sorry, but the point is whether you are talking Ipswich Town or UK PLC the facts remain the same, a reduction in yearly losses is an economic improvement, that is a fact. A business that had been making losses, but cuts those losses, is improving, that is how the market would view it, because that's what it is. Anything else is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
If you look at the UKs debt as a percentage of GDP then our current situation, whether you compare it to the last 100 years or even last 300 years of Government, and I would suggest looking at any smaller sample size is not particularly relevant when that amount of data is available (we had the worst financial crisis in 2008 since the 20's where incidentally our % debt was well over 150% of GDP), the current rate is distinctly average at around 90%, especially when you compare it to 238% at the end of WW2.
The fact is, that since the late 17th century records began the UK Government has been in debt to varying amounts, getting upset because that amount is currently increasing is almost factually irrelevant, we have had far worse debts and are still here, like a company going through bad times or a major expansion the bigger picture is the important thing.
Visually the point is easier to demonstrate. We had a huge spike in debt post the crash, where as debt as % of GDP had been fairly steadily fluctuating around 40%.
Now because the economy is growing, and the deficit is reducing, that % of GDP growth in debt is tailoring off even though we are still borrowing more. We can continue to borrow more in the future and if the economy increases the % will drop.
That is why there is economic improvement and an improved financial position. I don't care about the political argument, but I do think it's naive to believe there would be a huge difference in the numbers, because the only way they could have done that is by producing more growth or deeper cuts. As we are already the fastest growing G7 economy I find that unlikely, but that is my opinion.
Your analogy is far too simplistic and just plain wrong for the situation, there are far more variables and than you are suggesting. For a start you failed to mention that your card carrying citizen had been racking up debts exponentially in previous years while his wages were cut.
You can spin it whichever way you like, but simple economic fact is when you were losing more money than you are now, your situation has improved. You are in a better position than you would have been had that change not happened.
We are in a position where we will soon be able to start reducing our overall debts if we so choose, if Ipswich town continue their improvement then so will they be, we couldn't be in that situation without steady improvement, its not a snapshot in time, it has to be judged over a period.
