[MovedGoalPosts]

I fail to understand what strikes really achieve. Yes eventually there might be a pay rise, but if yo've been on strike for a couple of weeks, how much money have you lost before you even got that pay rise? Maybe there might be some form of hardship fund, but that isn't going to go far. Meanwhile the company involved is damaged and in the cases of companies such as British Airways where there is plenty of competition, then that will ultimately lead to a reduction in workforce as customers look elsewhere. Unfortunately in monopoly situations such as public service there aren't alternatives for the customer and the strike mentality can have greater impact due to the innocents in any often contrived dispute.

What really bugs me though in all of this argument about cuts and reduction in spending is the common sense economic reality that you have to balance the books. As a household you know you can only get so much credit as loans, overdrafts, etc before you can't get any moe, and your own interest repayments become too much to bear. Why do some expect that the government can just keep endlessly borrowing beyond it's means?