For the record, and to avoid any claims of covert bias, this comment comes from a card-carrying Lib Dem member. Opinions are my own, and probably don't chime with any party policy.

1. I think public spending cuts are inevitable in the current economic climate.

I agree. So did Alistair Darling, who proposed cuts of this scale at the election last year, just a year later. The question was all about scale and timing, and whether there should be more emphasis on taxation than the Conservatives propose.

2. I don't agree with where some of the cuts are falling as there seems to be a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable in society.

This matter requires a good amount of nuance, because the more vulnerable tend to rely more on social support (whether through the government or other bodies) than the better-off. I suspect that if there were a way of taking services away from people in equal amounts per recipient, then an awful lot of middle-class benefits would go, schools and health would really suffer, and the government would be unpopular amongst the people who really support them. Maintaining services so that everyone feels like they get something for their taxes, and no-one is left unable to live an independent life, that's really difficult. It's almost inevitable that there will be some clear losers, and I don't think the government's done quite enough to identify and ameliorate the problems.

3. Whilst I agree that everyone (companies and people) should pay the tax they owe, I consider that it's an enormous oversimplification of several different issues to suggest that unpaid tax from particular large corporations magically fixes the national debt or removes the need for public spending reductions.

I fear that this debate has been made murky. If I recall correctly, it began when it emerged that Vodaphone had struck a deal with the tax office, so that it would only pay £1000m of its £6000m tax bill. Other companies are believed to have struck similar deals. This much is clearly unfair, clearly wrong, and it's entirely right that Questions are Asked.

But the debate's spread its tentacles, looking at companies that structure their affairs with the explicit aim of minimising their tax bills in many countries. The way they effectively ship profits from the UK (corporation tax: 26%) to Ireland (tax: 12½%) or a Caribbean tax haven (tax: 0%). That's too big for any one government to address, and international negotiations are taking place.

There's a further proposal by the people behind last weekend's march: a tax on the financial industry, specifically, on currency transactions. If I understand them correctly, the unions acknowledge the fact that Labour's spending boom was built, in part, on an unsustainable banking bubble. So their one tax-raising idea is to extract money from the banks in a manner that's equally unsustainable, and will itself delay the recapitalisation of the banks and further delay the resumption of normal lending. Excellently joined-up thinking there.

4. I agree people have the right to protest by marching through the streets if they want. But I'm pissed off at the justifications I'm seeing for damaging property. No, it's not OK. And beyond that, I find it very hard to understand why people put themselves in harms way like this to make this particular point. If we know the police will use 'kettling' and we can reasonably assume within a very large event that there will be small groups of people out to cause trouble, then why join a protest march?

My hackles are really raised by this "kettling" tactic; it's doing an awful lot to divide the police from the people. Once the citizenry withdraws its consent for the police to exist, then a lawless anarchy reigns and it's everyone for themself. The sooner a competent court realises the danger in this tactic, the better. The sooner the police remember that they are part of the citizenry, and can only exist with the consent of the community, the better.

On the general point, I've never understood the purpose of marches. It seems to be exclusively a left-wing phenomenon, an excuse for trade unions to say that they exist and to support themselves, but at the price of inconveniencing an awful lot of people, and taking a remarkably large amount of effort per column-inch of coverage. Surely there's a better, less labour-intensive, way of garnering publicity for their message?

5. I'm reasonably happy with the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition so far. [There are individual decisions I would criticise, but over all they're not bad].

My main beef with Labour was their mile-wide authoritarian streak, doing away with the very freedoms that jihadist extremists wish to destroy. The government has addressed the most egregious violations of personal freedom, and there are plans for this process will continue through the parliament.

That's not to say that everything in the garden is rosy - the healthcare reforms I think are wrong, the change in student funding suffered from abysmal presentation, the "free schools" policy is at least badly explained and probably badly broken. But saying "I wouldn't start from here" is easy; actually moving so that we're not here is much more difficult.

Sorry that this isn't going to help so much with your quest for dissent.