Cameron claims he cares about the most vulnerable

[wildman]

Neither do I but that really isn't the point.

Cameron talks about trust, why should I trust him to deliver his economic promises when they have failed to meet their own targets for the last five years?

can say the same for Labour, they failed for 13 years, opened the doorway to mass uncontrolled immigration, squandered billions on failed projects within public services and left UK Plc in the worst fiscal state it has ever been in. Their excuse................ it was a global down turn. My retort........ if they were fiscally prudent through their years of office then they would have had a plan B or at least been bale to take some of the sting out of it for the everyday Joe. Instead their boss eyed Cyclops leader sold gold reserves at an all time low and threw billions at the banking sector to cover up their complete mis-management of the financial regulatory system.

So who are you going to trust....................

I'd rather have the Torries back considering they have managed to at least spark some growth back into the UK albeit somewhat fractured. I have much more faith in Cameron and Osborne to keep this country liquid than balls and millipede.

 

[cheesyboy]

Are you under the illusion that a government can run a deficit indefinitely?

It can.

 

[Danthus]

I'd rather have the Torries back considering they have managed to at least spark some growth back into the UK albeit somewhat fractured. I have much more faith in Cameron and Osborne to keep this country liquid than balls and millipede.

Go and ask someone earning minimum wage how they feel about GDP growing.

 

[wordy]

Labour sat and rode the faux-prosperity of the debt bubble in the UK, when people were getting 110% mortgages and seeing positive equity in a year because the market was so out of control. People with no right to were being dished out 5 figure credit card balances and running them up.

The crunch in the UK economy was not just about some American banks. It was about banks pulling back from the stupidly cheap and irresponsible lending they had been doing which drove that bubble.

can say the same for Labour, they failed for 13 years, opened the doorway to mass uncontrolled immigration, squandered billions on failed projects within public services and left UK Plc in the worst fiscal state it has ever been in. Their excuse................ it was a global down turn. My retort........ if they were fiscally prudent through their years of office then they would have had a plan B or at least been bale to take some of the sting out of it for the everyday Joe. Instead their boss eyed Cyclops leader sold gold reserves at an all time low and threw billions at the banking sector to cover up their complete mis-management of the financial regulatory system.

So who are you going to trust....................

I'd rather have the Torries back considering they have managed to at least spark some growth back into the UK albeit somewhat fractured. I have much more faith in Cameron and Osborne to keep this country liquid than balls and millipede.

And the tories wanted even less regulation on the financial institutions than Labour.

 

[bloodiedathame]

What a bizarrely subjective question..

Well i guess its got worse for all the thousands that have to use food banks to make ends meet and the thousands that have had their pay frozen for years while inflation marches on...

Doubt it got that much worse for IT contractors or Project managers no...

He was talking about himself, of course it's subjective.

 

[Efour]

He was talking about himself, of course it's subjective.

well errr im glad we got that cleared up..

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I don't understand this 'outrage' over food banks. The number of people using food banks is not a measure of poverty.

The number of people using food banks is just as much a measure of the amount of media coverage of food banks.

Can anyone just rock up to one of these food banks and make a withdrawal or do you need to prove you're poor to use them?

 

[Monkeynut]

Can anyone just rock up to one of these food banks and make a withdrawal or do you need to prove you're poor to use them?

I think you're joking, but just so mid_gen knows, you need a referral from the Jobcentre.

 

[Abraham]

Yeah, I feel like that too but currently, he (Cameron) is the only party leader to I feel can deliver. While his term hasn't been perfect, I think he's done well and will get my vote! All the other leaders, especially UKIP, labour are just empty promises and full of poop! Actually, maybe not empty promises, but the policies and plans I don't agree with.

Why are you voting for a leader?

You should either vote for a party irrespective of leader, or your local MP irrespective of party. The leader of a party and thus PM can change without any public involvement.

 

[LordSplodge]

I don't understand this 'outrage' over food banks. The number of people using food banks is not a measure of poverty.

The number of people using food banks is just as much a measure of the amount of media coverage of food banks.

Sure, I mean people, often families even working ones, not being able to afford food isn't a measure of poverty or a failing government. Nope, all is well...

Yes, it is being managed, by making cuts. Are you under the illusion that a government can run a deficit indefinitely?

Sure, just like we have been since 1900 with no real ill effect. It's keeping the debt and repayments manageable.

 

[Efour]

Pretty much every British person lives their whole life with manageable deficit.

 

[atpbx]

And the tories wanted even less regulation on the financial institutions than Labour.

Have you never egged someone on?

 

[atpbx]

I think you're joking, but just so mid_gen knows, you need a referral from the Jobcentre.

No that is factually incorrect.


Also the argument that food banks are direct and inarguable indication of the level of poverty in the country is also factually incorrect.

More people using food banks is purely and indication that more people are using food banks.

The fact that ANYONE who for WHATEVER REASON has no money for food for that week can get a voucher from the the social services, GP or CAB for food is not an indication that the level of poverty in the country is increasing.

When the news and indeed the foodbanks themselves are saying nurses, police officers and professional people are using food banks, that is more an indicator that people have managed their finances irresponsibly, over extended themselves and cannot manage their personal lives.

 

[atpbx]

Sure, I mean people, often families even working ones, not being able to afford food isn't a measure of poverty or a failing government. Nope, all is well...

Of course its not.

You would have to monumentally stupid to come to that conclusion given the facts at hand.
The information at hand "some working families use foodbanks" doesnt indicate or implicate anyone in any kind of failure.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

A million using food banks does not suggest an economic recovery to me.

Also, if people from other walks are hammered with cuts, why wasn't a Tobin tax introduced, even if only for a set period .....

Rhetorical question as many MPs will flee to City banks as consultants when they leave/are booted out if Westminster.

 

[cheesyboy]

How much is that down to an increased awareness, a lessening of the stigma, and people who aren't in need making use of them?

The answers are likely:
Quite a lot
Not a lot
Very little

Honestly, you'd need to be a pretty special sort to go through the food bank process to get less than £10 of food when you simply don't need to. And a pretty special sort to believe the practice is widespread, frankly

 

[cheesyboy]

Got any evidence?

You show me yours and I'll show you mine

 

[eatcustard]

A million using food banks does not suggest an economic recovery to me.

900,000 is not a million

 

[wordy]

Have you never egged someone on?

Not to deregulate banks even further so they can get away with being even more irresponsible I haven't.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

It can.

No, it cannot. A government can run a deficit for a sustained period, but not indefinitely. At some point the gross debt will become so high, your tax take won't even cover the interest payments.

But in the normal course of affairs, further lending would have ended long before you could reach that point.