Independent observers declared today that the Con-Dem government spending review was the equivalent of political suicide for the coalition government.
As analysts revealed that the true purpose of the spending review was to get people off welfare, it quickly became apparent that the bottom 10% of the population will bear the brunt of repaying debt incurred principally by bankers and stock market chancers.
But is their criticism based on politics or economics?
"It's based on both," Professor Edmund Ludd told us. "The two go hand in glove in a situation like this. Yes, there had to be cuts in order to reduce the deficit, but this move is simply way too radical. The public were told to expect 25% cuts, and expected to be grateful that the cuts came in at marginally less than that. That's an old Thatcher tactic."
Concerns have been raised across the board that as the national infrastructure rapidly crumbles, the poor become even poorer, communities become increasingly enraged as essential services collapse, and there are even fewer police available to maintain the peace, things will escalate out of control, as they have done in France and Greece.
Experts say that a 10% cut in spending would make great inroads towards servicing the national debt, with a far less devastating socio-economic impact. This option would be more expensive in the long run, but the impact would at least be cushioned to a degree.
"It doesn't matter how much Adam Boulton and the Sky News team try to dress this up in a positive light, putting another million people out of work is hardly going to reduce the welfare burden," Professor Ludd said. "Indeed, we could be facing a complete systemic breakdown. In simple terms, the coalition is trying to run before it learned to walk. They're alienating core voters, and placing our national security at increased risk. They may as well have gone off and committed suicide as a political force, because that's what this spending review has achieved."
More as we get it.