‘Coalition to blame for food banks’

York Press: ‘Coalition to blame for food banks’ ‘Coalition to blame for food banks’

WHAT a mess this country has become since 2010. The Con/Lib coalition is not only conning the Liberals, but they think they are conning us all.

The Press (April 16) reports that “poverty leads to 163 per cent more food bank users.”

Your article points out that there are now 913,000 people receiving emergency food assistance from food banks.

If I may add, this compares to 350,000 only 12 months ago.

The PM is allowing Nick Clegg to be Deputy Prime Minister to get his moment of glory and fame and Clegg is wasting his opportunity to curb the drastic measures the Tories are imposing in this country.

The coalition is decimating the safety net of the welfare state and social system with its instant sanctions of Job Seekers Allowance and then making people wait for month(s) before their appeal against the decision, taken by bureaucrats, can be heard and possibly reversed, thus making it impossible for people to feed themselves.

How long will it be before we have the old Victorian workshops in our society and children going up chimneys?

Cameron did not win the 2010 election, nor did Clegg.

Let’s be rid of them in 2015.

Howard Perry, St James Place, Dringhouses, York.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:47pm Thu 24 Apr 14

CHISSY1 says...

As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.
As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks. CHISSY1
  • Score: -13

3:11pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Firedrake says...

Well Chissy, I would imagine that anyone genuinely depending on food banks would be unlikely to afford a computer/broadband etc. Please note the word "genuinely": of course there are cheats, but they must not be allowed to tarnish the very real victims of increasing poverty.
Well Chissy, I would imagine that anyone genuinely depending on food banks would be unlikely to afford a computer/broadband etc. Please note the word "genuinely": of course there are cheats, but they must not be allowed to tarnish the very real victims of increasing poverty. Firedrake
  • Score: 16

3:35pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Zetkin says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.
Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals.

Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital.

If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco.

After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs.

After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition.

In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule.

This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.[/p][/quote]Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals. Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital. If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco. After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs. After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition. In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule. This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst. Zetkin
  • Score: 19

3:46pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Ichabod76 says...

I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 4

4:28pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Firedrake says...

Well said Zetkin!

The current situation is utterly disgraceful and getting worse: it feels like the 1980s all over again, during which decade I was only sporadically employed and constantly penalised for making myself "unavailable for work" by volunteering for all sorts of things in the hope that it would lead to "real" work ... a viscious circle if ever there was one!

I am profoundly grateful that I am no longer in that position, but increasingly angry on behalf of younger people who are.
Well said Zetkin! The current situation is utterly disgraceful and getting worse: it feels like the 1980s all over again, during which decade I was only sporadically employed and constantly penalised for making myself "unavailable for work" by volunteering for all sorts of things in the hope that it would lead to "real" work ... a viscious circle if ever there was one! I am profoundly grateful that I am no longer in that position, but increasingly angry on behalf of younger people who are. Firedrake
  • Score: 17

4:42pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million.
But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service! Pinza-C55
  • Score: 12

4:43pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

I forgot to add this http://www.debtbombs
hell.com/
I forgot to add this http://www.debtbombs hell.com/ Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

4:54pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Ichabod76 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million.
But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ?
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tommytman says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million.
But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ?
The National Debt is worrying but as Pinza-c55 says the NHS is the next sell off if the Torys are re-elected that is worrying I hope the electorate wake up to that fact the without your health money becomes totally meaningless
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ?[/p][/quote]The National Debt is worrying but as Pinza-c55 says the NHS is the next sell off if the Torys are re-elected that is worrying I hope the electorate wake up to that fact the without your health money becomes totally meaningless tommytman
  • Score: 11

6:42pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Yes, the National debt has almost doubled since 2010 and one would expect it to be at least that under a Labour Government right now. It costs an arm and a leg to service that debt; money that could be spent on job creation, tax reduction and healthcare etc. Don't forget that we are sitting on a PFI debt mountain yet to hit us. And then there are our so called carbon commitments with huge costs of £18.5 Billion per year until 2050, all to meet meaningless targets.
If you want more of the same then vote for the GreenLibLabCon but don't then moan about it on here. They are all in it together!
Yes, the National debt has almost doubled since 2010 and one would expect it to be at least that under a Labour Government right now. It costs an arm and a leg to service that debt; money that could be spent on job creation, tax reduction and healthcare etc. Don't forget that we are sitting on a PFI debt mountain yet to hit us. And then there are our so called carbon commitments with huge costs of £18.5 Billion per year until 2050, all to meet meaningless targets. If you want more of the same then vote for the GreenLibLabCon but don't then moan about it on here. They are all in it together! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -23

6:49pm Thu 24 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

what a load of old cobblers!!!
what a load of old cobblers!!! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -19

7:10pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Thislittleold market town says...

Zetkin wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.
Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals.

Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital.

If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco.

After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs.

After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition.

In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule.

This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.
Usual drivel from the know it all
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.[/p][/quote]Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals. Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital. If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco. After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs. After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition. In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule. This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.[/p][/quote]Usual drivel from the know it all Thislittleold market town
  • Score: -27

7:51pm Thu 24 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Thislittleold market town wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.
Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals.

Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital.

If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco.

After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs.

After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition.

In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule.

This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.
Usual drivel from the know it all
You must be joking. It is exactly how it is and well put by Zetkin. Party politics aside, national debt aside, THIS is what is happening in this country and all our politicians are to blame. The fact we all want to swipe at 'the other side' is why they get away with it. Wise up.
[quote][p][bold]Thislittleold market town[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.[/p][/quote]Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals. Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital. If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco. After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs. After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition. In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule. This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.[/p][/quote]Usual drivel from the know it all[/p][/quote]You must be joking. It is exactly how it is and well put by Zetkin. Party politics aside, national debt aside, THIS is what is happening in this country and all our politicians are to blame. The fact we all want to swipe at 'the other side' is why they get away with it. Wise up. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 10

8:27pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million.
But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ?
No idea. But if you are trying to hold the Nasties up as an example of financial probity you are on a sticky wicket. Plus the pudding faced manboy Cameron believes in an Invisible Man In The Sky.
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]So what your saying is that Labour would have maintained the debt at £700 Billion ?[/p][/quote]No idea. But if you are trying to hold the Nasties up as an example of financial probity you are on a sticky wicket. Plus the pudding faced manboy Cameron believes in an Invisible Man In The Sky. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

11:55pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ?
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -18

3:36am Fri 25 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

Zetkin wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.
Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals.

Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital.

If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco.

After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs.

After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition.

In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule.

This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.
Well said... the only slight correction I would make is that in York you'd be luck to work for nothing in Tesco, all the "work placements" (wether you can call it 'work' is objective) are in charity shops or at St Nicholas Fields in the rain. Oh, and if you lose the will to show up for tagging frumpy old womens saggy boob tops, somehow it's you who is having a laugh and not the company taking hundreds of millions of pounds from the government to do sweet FA and exploit jobseekers.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: As long as there is something for nothing there will always be people queuing for it.I have noticed that i have not seen a post from someone who uses these so called banks.[/p][/quote]Yes, like those pesky sick people, queuing to get their life-saving treatment for nothing at so-called hospitals. Any of us could find ourselves needing the services of a foodbank, just as easily as we could find ourselves needing a hospital. If I lost my job this afternoon, I reckon I've got enough money saved to see me through the next 12 months, allowing for the miniscule amounts of cash I'd receive from the state in return for humiliating myself at the job centre and/or going to work for nothing for the likes of Tesco. After that I'd be at the mercy of government diktats to the job centres on how many people they want sanctioning in any given month. If you're in any doubt, "sanctioning" can mean complete withdrawal of all benefits for four weeks, no matter how much tax and NI you've paid during a lifetime's work, and no matter how hard you've worked at looking for a job. A missed appointment is all it takes, or failure to apply for a set number of totally unsuitable jobs. After four weeks with no money whatsoever I doubt very much whether I'd be logging on to the Press website, sharing the gory details, because if I still had a computer, I probably wouldn't be able to top up the electricity meter to run it, even if I had the inclination to let everyone know that I was relying on charity to stave off malnutrition. In the course of this parliament, a man has died of malnutrition in the prime minster's constituency, yet it's caused scarcely a ripple in the media. Imagine the hoo-ha if the same had happened during Blair or Bown's rule. This country is being dragged back to the Victorian era, while big business cheers and the media ignore starvation in our midst.[/p][/quote]Well said... the only slight correction I would make is that in York you'd be luck to work for nothing in Tesco, all the "work placements" (wether you can call it 'work' is objective) are in charity shops or at St Nicholas Fields in the rain. Oh, and if you lose the will to show up for tagging frumpy old womens saggy boob tops, somehow it's you who is having a laugh and not the company taking hundreds of millions of pounds from the government to do sweet FA and exploit jobseekers. Magicman!
  • Score: 3

11:35am Fri 25 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ?
Again I have no idea. He might want to bomb Russia or launch a space flight to Pluto.
I only deal with what has actually happened in the real world, not in idle speculation.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ?[/p][/quote]Again I have no idea. He might want to bomb Russia or launch a space flight to Pluto. I only deal with what has actually happened in the real world, not in idle speculation. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

11:58am Fri 25 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?
Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service!
But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ?
In addition Badger here is a little graph you might like, showing UK national debt as a percentage of GDP. You will notice that it rose under the Tory government until 1997 when Labour took over then fell and stabilised till 2002-2004 and rose gently till the last couple of years of Labour when it increased and has continued to increase sharply under the Tories despite their claims that the recession is over. In fact it is on course to be 100% of GDP either next year or the year after. In other words if the entire nation lived off bread and water for a year we could pay it off. As it is we can only pay the interest at about £40 billion a year and can NEVER pay the debt itself.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/United_King
dom_national_debt
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the country would be now if we had continued spending at Labours rate ?[/p][/quote]Well the National Debt at the end of the last Labour government was £700 billion. Today, 4 years later, it is about £1.267 trillion - that's £1,267 billion, a rise of £567 million. But hey, I am sure there must be a nationalised industry still to sell off ? Enter the National Health Service![/p][/quote]But, didn't Balls want to increase debt further ?[/p][/quote]In addition Badger here is a little graph you might like, showing UK national debt as a percentage of GDP. You will notice that it rose under the Tory government until 1997 when Labour took over then fell and stabilised till 2002-2004 and rose gently till the last couple of years of Labour when it increased and has continued to increase sharply under the Tories despite their claims that the recession is over. In fact it is on course to be 100% of GDP either next year or the year after. In other words if the entire nation lived off bread and water for a year we could pay it off. As it is we can only pay the interest at about £40 billion a year and can NEVER pay the debt itself. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/United_King dom_national_debt Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

12:40am Sat 26 Apr 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Heating or eating? More wind turbines = higher energy bills = less money for food. You can't blame UKIP for that!
Heating or eating? More wind turbines = higher energy bills = less money for food. You can't blame UKIP for that! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree