General Election 2015

[saintbletch]

I'm not sure it is a red herring. Someone who smokes 10 a day (moderate smoker) will end up spending around £1800 a year on cigarette, which is £150 a month.

 

So I would say anyone that is smoking 10 a day or more and using food banks shouldn't be using them. It's 'back of a fag packet' maths, but seems pretty accurate to me. I am sure others smoke more as well.

 

Essentially, if they pay for cigarettes it is directing money away from food, surely you can't deny that?

 

Or spun another way, with each of the 10 cigarettes a day seen casually hanging from the be-lipsticked yet dehydrated lips of the food bank user, she is honourable donating cigarette duty that she can't afford to the exchequer, to temporarily appease an addiction she cannot fight.

 

She's paying her way in tough times, despite herself.

 

You've got to respect that.

 

Of course she might get her cigarettes from the Black economy? Tax-avoiding slag!

 

I can't deny your logic, but I think why you've got a bit of push back on the smoking issue is that it comes across as saying that you want to ensure that only truly needy people queue for food given away with compassion by charities.

 

This isn't something that our taxes directly fund, so on that basis I sort of have the feeling that we lose the ability to put conditions on the use of these services.

 

And removing all the smokers from the stats, we still have needy people. The smoking or not smoking seems to be little more than a distraction.

[saintbletch]

Why should they rely on government handouts because they have decided to have a lot of kids?

 

Because right now they find themselves hungry or without shelter?

[saintbletch]

To be fair, I do recognise the problem and in a modern developed country, it shouldn't happen. However, despite the nasty wasty tories, the situation in the rest of Europe, including in countries being run by left wing parties, is far worse. So the nasty wasty tories don't seem as nasty wasty as it first appears.

 

Rather than using the use of food banks as a political weapon, I would like to see a cross-party consencus on dealing with the problem, because it is a problem and it needs to be tackled. Simply throwing more money at people also may not be the answer.

 

People have touted the idea of food vouchers in the past. This scheme in Canada, where there has also been a massive rise in the use of foodbanks, shows there are innovative ways to tackle the problem:

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/08/hungry-hearts-grassroots-alternative-to-food-banks-small-town-ontario

 

I like the idea of a food debit card, where the most needy are guaranteed that they will have enough food, because that is a basic right. They are given money which can only be spent only on food. This system could solve the problem and minimise abuse of the system.

 

Yes, I'd like to see more the arguments for and against a system like that.

 

Logically it feels sensible, but I'd like to hear from people on the receiving end.

[Torres]

Like having loads of kids? I'm not sure you realise how much they cost, and take it from me, it doesn't get any cheaper when they bugger off to Uni.

 

From the IFS income distribution calculator, for a family with a household income of £50001 pa, 2 kids under 14 and 2 over 14:

 

Taking into account household size and composition (click here to see how), we have calculated your position in the income distribution. With a household after tax income of £924 per week, you have a higher income than around 50% of the population - equivalent to about 31.4 million individuals.

 

A picture of the United Kingdom income distribution is shown below, with all incomes expressed in terms of the equivalent amount for a household of your type. Each bar corresponds to an income band of about £21, and to maintain a reasonable scale, it has been necessary to truncate the distribution at incomes above around £2,266 per week. Around 5%, or 3.4 million individuals, have incomes higher than this, after adjusting for the size and composition of their households. Your position in the distribution is shown by the red bar.

 

 

When we assess the distributional implications of tax and social security changes, we often divide the population into ten equally sized groups, called decile groups. The first decile group contains the poorest 10% of the population, the second decile group contains the next poorest 10% and so on. In the above picture, the alternatively shaded sections represent the different decile groups. As you can see, you are in the 6th decile group.

 

Note this is equivalised income and so takes into account the number of adults and children in the household.

 

Is say again, if these people who have an equivalised income more than 31.4 million UK households are reliant on food banks to feed themselves and their family, they have made some very stupid decisions.

[Torres]

Yes, I'd like to see more the arguments for and against a system like that.

 

Logically it feels sensible, but I'd like to hear from people on the receiving end.

 

The Guardian didn't like it when IDS proposed something similar last year - "Playing God with the finances of the disadvantaged is no way to tackle cyclical poverty"

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/tories-prepaid-benefit-cards-welfare-poverty

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Or spun another way, with each of the 10 cigarettes a day seen casually hanging from the be-lipsticked yet dehydrated lips of the food bank user, she is honourable donating cigarette duty that she can't afford to the exchequer, to temporarily appease an addiction she cannot fight.

 

She's paying her way in tough times, despite herself.

 

You've got to respect that.

 

Of course she might get her cigarettes from the Black economy? Tax-avoiding slag!

 

I can't deny your logic, but I think why you've got a bit of push back on the smoking issue is that it comes across as saying that you want to ensure that only truly needy people queue for food given away with compassion by charities.

 

This isn't something that our taxes directly fund, so on that basis I sort of have the feeling that we lose the ability to put conditions on the use of these services.

 

And removing all the smokers from the stats, we still have needy people. The smoking or not smoking seems to be little more than a distraction.

 

Is it by charities only then? The goods I put in the trolleys at Tesco's, where does that go?

 

As said above, I don't know what the true number is, or whether it is a relevant issue, but it would be interesting to see how many users are also smokers. I'm not saying there people wouldn't also need to use the food banks, they may do, but it may reduce the dependency that some people obviously seem to have.

[hutch]

And one of the functions of the state is to redistribute wealth from the more fortunate ("the rich") to the less fortunate ("the poor").

Is it?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Because right now they find themselves hungry or without shelter?

 

We're talking families with one breadwinner earning over £60k per year so they receive no child benefit.

[shurlock]

The Guardian didn't like it when IDS proposed something similar last year - "Playing God with the finances of the disadvantaged is no way to tackle cyclical poverty"

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/tories-prepaid-benefit-cards-welfare-poverty

 

Nor do many serious economists support the principle. But crack on pal.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

From the IFS income distribution calculator, for a family with a household income of £50001 pa, 2 kids under 14 and 2 over 14:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note this is equivalised income and so takes into account the number of adults and children in the household.

 

Is say again, if these people who have an equivalised income more than 31.4 million UK households are reliant on food banks to feed themselves and their family, they have made some very stupid decisions.

 

Don't forget you also don't lose all your child benefit until you hit £60k...

[pap]

We're talking families with one breadwinner earning over £60k per year so they receive no child benefit.

 

No, Torres is attempting to keep us talking about that. Others, bletch included, are grasping bigger parts of the nettle.

[Torres]

Nor do many serious economists support the principle. But crack on pal.

 

Didn't need your permission, but thanks anyway

[Johnny Bognor]

Yes, I'd like to see more the arguments for and against a system like that.

 

Logically it feels sensible, but I'd like to hear from people on the receiving end.

 

If people are really going hungry now and under a scheme like this, they're not, it is hard to see why they would be against it, surely?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

No, Torres is attempting to keep us talking about that. Others, bletch included, are grasping bigger parts of the nettle.

 

It's not really important, but not sure I think we should be paying for others people's kids when they earn up to £60k pa.

[saintbletch]

Nor do many serious economists support the principle. But crack on pal.

 

What are those arguments, shurlock?

 

Got a link?

[pap]

It's not really important, but not sure I think we should be paying for others people's kids when they earn up to £60k pa.

 

Depends on how you see it. I like the original principle of universal child benefit, the idea that we think new British kids are a good thing.

 

This "ooh, those bastards have got that! let's remove child benefit" amendment, not so much.

 

I mean, we had rich people back when Child Benefit was introduced. Why do you think it was made universal then?

[shurlock]

What are those arguments, shurlock?

 

Got a link?

 

Effectively an extension of the cash versus in-kind benefits debate.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-28/cash-better-than-food-stamps-in-helping-poor-commentary-by-edward-glaeser

[saint si]

From the IFS income distribution calculator, for a family with a household income of £50001 pa, 2 kids under 14 and 2 over 14:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note this is equivalised income and so takes into account the number of adults and children in the household.

 

Is say again, if these people who have an equivalised income more than 31.4 million UK households are reliant on food banks to feed themselves and their family, they have made some very stupid decisions.

 

For that model you need to state income AFTER taxation (including NI). i.e. net income, not gross.

 

£50k gross is going to be about £36k net. Running same numbers (i put £100 for council tax - no idea what you used) - it's 27% /17m households

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Depends on how you see it. I like the original principle of universal child benefit, the idea that we think new British kids are a good thing.

 

This "ooh, those bastards have got that! let's remove child benefit" amendment, not so much.

 

I mean, we had rich people back when Child Benefit was introduced. Why do you think it was made universal then?

 

No idea. But I would say in times of economic 'struggles', taking away a benefit that not many of those over £60k need is fair game.

 

I am happy to have my £80 a month back, more than happy, but I don't need it and I am sure there are many others that don't need it either. But yeah, if other people want to pay for my girls first car, or her university tuition then fair enough.

[Torres]

Depends on how you see it. I like the original principle of universal child benefit, the idea that we think new British kids are a good thing.

 

This "ooh, those bastards have got that! let's remove child benefit" amendment, not so much.

 

I mean, we had rich people back when Child Benefit was introduced. Why do you think it was made universal then?

 

Because it was too cumbersome and expensive to administer who should/shouldn't receive it, probably, and nobody could be arsed

[trousers]

Great to see you expand on your views, trousers. I know we don't always have time to do so.

 

And the bold text above is an interesting, if subtle point. Together with the Telegraph article you linked to, it has made me think.

 

One of the positions of the author in the article, who helps run a food bank, was that the demand for food banks is not always represented by the absolute number of food banks.

 

I think an economist would say that in any disruptive or discontinuous 'market', demand always precedes supply. Or, as you say, the demand may well have been there under previous governments. The issue perhaps was that supply (charities like The Trussell Trust) had not as yet seen the need in the market that it could tap into.

 

I reflected upon this, and I've concluded that you are probably correct. It makes sense to me. I suspect the first map that pap showed does not properly convey the latent demand in the market at that time for food banks. It simply shows the spread of those setup and able to meet the demand.

 

Then I reflected a bit further, and I thought "Hold on, Bletch. There's more to this!" (I even punctuate my internal monologue).

 

You see, I realised that as a society, and under various colours of government, we have allowed one part of our society to become reliant on charitable handouts so that they can gain the basic nutrients to continue to meet the job description of being a living human being.

 

Now, you are also correct that this is not unique to our country. There are other countries around the world where this happens. I remember seeing films of black faces looking plaintively up at men throwing sacks of rice from the bodies of low-loader lorries, so I know this to be true.

 

But this also didn't make me feel much better either. I then realised what the problem was. This was happening in the UK in 2015, at the same time that all major parties are promising not to raise taxes and to gouge greater chunks from our welfare state. All of them promising that the most disadvantaged in our society will be protected.

 

I fail to reconcile these two positions.

 

The other point Mr Aitken made in the article is that food banks have become 'politically weaponised' (my term not his). And I agree. So please don't see this as an attack on the Tories from Labour, the Tories from the Lib Dems, or any variation thereof.

 

I just find it amazing that anyone can expend the intellectual energy rationalising the need for food banks, whilst somehow managing to completely distance themselves from the empathy that, to my mind, any human should feel for any other human legitimately forced to reach out their hands and ask others to feed them.

 

I guess we're all hewn from different stone, and I plainly haven't walked a mile in your shoes.

 

We have food banks handing out food to genuinely needy families (some of whom don't even smoke), in the UK, in 2015.

 

*I hope you like the effort I went to to put what I perceive to be a social issue into a market context.

 

x

 

[Torres]

For that model you need to state income AFTER taxation (including NI). i.e. net income, not gross.

 

£50k gross is going to be about £36k net. Running same numbers (i put £100 for council tax - no idea what you used) - it's 27% /17m households

 

Ha, I'm a spaz who can't read. Doesn't materially affect my argument though, tbf.

 

£150, btw.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Or a direct consequence of opening more food banks? Was the demand created by the supply? There are people in desperate need but this does not apply to everyone who uses a food bank.

 

If I was elected I would ban food banks. Then I could campaign at the next election saying I had eradicated poverty in this country.

[Wes Tender]

Or spun another way, with each of the 10 cigarettes a day seen casually hanging from the be-lipsticked yet dehydrated lips of the food bank user, she is honourable donating cigarette duty that she can't afford to the exchequer, to temporarily appease an addiction she cannot fight.

 

She's paying her way in tough times, despite herself.

 

You've got to respect that.

 

And the counter-argument is that despite the revenue that the exchequer gets from taxation on cigarettes, there are costs borne by the NHS in treating smoking-related diseases and lost productivity in the work-place caused by smoking. So although at the time of this article, smoking cost the NHS less than the amount that taxation on smoking generated, taking other factors into account makes the situation much more difficult to judge. I also suspect that numbers of smokers has declined since that article, as many have subsequently switched to E-fags.

 

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288

[trousers]

The unprecedented rise in the use of foodbanks is because people now know about them. That massive increase is not because 1.5 million minus 41k people have suddenly become poor due to Tory or Coalition policy. It's because that amount of people have always been poor and until food banks became a political football, people simply haven't been aware of them.

 

The Labour Party banning job centres referring unemployed people to food banks and Tories' removal of this policy has caused a bigger spike than any other policy. Life for poor people wasn't better under Labour just because they swept the problem under the carpet.

 

Like I've said, the problem has always been there.

 

I think this best articulates the point I've been trying to put across.

 

People see a headline saying that "1,459,000 more people are now using food banks" and automatically assume that overall 'poverty' has risen proportionally.

 

As an aside, does anyone have any stats on the reasons why people use food banks and for how long they use them for?

 

I know someone who had to use a food bank for a few days a couple of years ago because he lost his job and there was a cock up by his local benefits office which meant that his job seekers allowance was delayed. IIRC it was leading up to a bank holiday weekend so they gave him some food bank vouchers to tide him over until the Tuesday when it was all sorted.

 

So, for him, the food bank served as a means to an end for a few days because he didn't have any savings to dip into and had a temporary gap in income. If food banks hadn't existed then friends or family would have chipped in to help him out but he went down the food bank route because it was convenient to do so at the time.

 

Now, I'm not saying this is a typical case and, of course, there are people out there who are in poverty on a more long term basis, but it would be interesting to understand how much of the "1,500,000" that have used food banks are using them due to a glitch in the benefits system (for example) vs those who are in a more continual state of poverty.

 

(And, no, I'm not trying to justify the existence of poverty itself - I'm simply analysing the current situation and trying to understand it better)

Edited 16 April, 2015 by trousers

[saintbletch]

Effectively an extension of the cash versus in-kind benefits debate.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-28/cash-better-than-food-stamps-in-helping-poor-commentary-by-edward-glaeser

 

Ta.

 

An interesting read, shurlock.

 

It just shows that what appears like a simplistic approach that nobody could possibly argue with, might just be a simplistic approach.

 

Some soundbites (from an article that focusses on the impact in the US of in-kind benefits from an economist and not a politician)...

 

Any assistance program that channels aid to people who earn less creates an incentive to work less hard. Any aid that is asset-tested destroys the incentive to accumulate capital.

 

...I am also troubled by the more than $100 billion designated for “food and nutrition” in the president’s 2013 budget. The current dominance of in-kind transfer programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid and housing support, relative to cash-based welfare programs, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, is based on politics rather than economics. A consolidated cash-based program could more efficiently deliver assistance and more effectively encourage employment.

 

We should ask for two things from any redistribution system. It should do as much as possible for society, especially the poor. It should do as little as possible to encourage permanent poverty. And, whenever possible, it should help poor Americans find a path toward self-sustaining prosperity.

 

Perhaps the best explanation for the rise in in-kind transfers is that taxpayers care about how aid recipients use their money. Economists can argue for the value of freedom until they are blue in the face, but there will always be a scandal when public aid, such as the debit cards issued after Hurricane Katrina, is spent at strip clubs.

 

Vilification of welfare recipients makes it particularly hard to make the case for entrusting them with unrestricted cash, even if that is the most effective means of administering aid.

 

But the added cost of relying on in-kind transfers is that, unlike our cash-based programs, these efforts are rarely well-designed to limit the adverse incentives that come from anti-poverty programs. Any assistance program that channels aid to people who earn less creates an incentive to work less hard. Any aid that is asset-tested destroys the incentive to accumulate capital.

 

Well-designed programs, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, do as much as possible to limit these negative incentives and even create some positive effects. That credit initially increases with earnings, creating an incentive to go to work; benefits taper off slowly, which limits the tendency to work too little. The design is smart, and the program seems to have encouraged employment substantially. The 1996 welfare reform that produced Temporary Aid to Needy Families was also aimed at creating better incentives for employment.

 

By contrast, food stamps and Medicaid are more like old-style welfare systems that create strong incentives to earn less. To get food stamps, you typically need to have less than $2,000 in assets, so recipients are pushed to save nothing.

 

Although food stamps typically require recipients to be employed, every extra dollar of “net income” reduces the benefit by 30 cents. Housing vouchers require recipients to earn less than 50 percent of median income in their area, and the voucher amount also decreases by 30 cents as income increases by a dollar. A family that gets both food stamps and a housing voucher loses more than 50 percent of each extra dollar earned in the form of reduced benefits. Medicaid benefits, likewise, disappear with significant income or assets.

 

The proliferation of in-kind programs leads aid recipients to spend on things that they value less and creates perverse incentives to earn less and save little

[saintbletch]

And the counter-argument is that despite the revenue that the exchequer gets from taxation on cigarettes, there are costs borne by the NHS in treating smoking-related diseases and lost productivity in the work-place caused by smoking. So although at the time of this article, smoking cost the NHS less than the amount that taxation on smoking generated, taking other factors into account makes the situation much more difficult to judge. I also suspect that numbers of smokers has declined since that article, as many have subsequently switched to E-fags.

 

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288

 

Yeah, sorry Wes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

 

I was attempting to come across as as obtuse as Unbelievable Jeff's focus on smoking amongst food bank users.

 

There should be an emoticon for "I'm being intentionally obtuse".

 

 

?

[iansums]

Yeah, sorry Wes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

 

I was attempting to come across as as obtuse as Unbelievable Jeff's focus on smoking amongst food bank users.

 

There should be an emoticon for "I'm being intentionally obtuse".

 

 

?

 

Great word 'obtuse', never used better IMO than here:

 

"Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been ****ed by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?"

[Whitey Grandad]

Depends on how you see it. I like the original principle of universal child benefit, the idea that we think new British kids are a good thing.

 

This "ooh, those bastards have got that! let's remove child benefit" amendment, not so much.

 

I mean, we had rich people back when Child Benefit was introduced. Why do you think it was made universal then?

 

I'm with you on this. Oh, and sorry to spoil your day Pap, but you never stop paying for your kids. The only consolation is that are going to look after you in your old age.

 

No idea. But I would say in times of economic 'struggles', taking away a benefit that not many of those over £60k need is fair game.

 

I am happy to have my £80 a month back, more than happy, but I don't need it and I am sure there are many others that don't need it either. But yeah, if other people want to pay for my girls first car, or her university tuition then fair enough.

 

It's a matter of semantics perhaps, but we're not actually giving these people any money, we're just not taking quite as much in tax. They will still be paying nearly half of their extra earnings in tax and overall NI. There is a separate question as to whether we should be helping anybody to have kids at all.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yeah, sorry Wes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.

 

I was attempting to come across as as obtuse as Unbelievable Jeff's focus on smoking amongst food bank users.

 

There should be an emoticon for "I'm being intentionally obtuse".

 

 

?

 

I spend a lot of my time being obtuse on here, I admit, but with this no-one has responded.

 

As with yesterday's 'discussion' I guess as we don't know how many people actually smoke at the same time as using food banks I guess it is all pretty academic, it could be 1, it could be 1.5 million. But until then we could be seeing a number of people, admittedly too poor to pay for both food AND cigarettes, using food banks incorrectly or unethically.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm with you on this. Oh, and sorry to spoil your day Pap, but you never stop paying for your kids. The only consolation is that are going to look after you in your old age.

 

 

 

It's a matter of semantics perhaps, but we're not actually giving these people any money, we're just not taking quite as much in tax. They will still be paying nearly half of their extra earnings in tax and overall NI. There is a separate question as to whether we should be helping anybody to have kids at all.

 

When you add student loan as well it's up to 60%. Remember taking home £2k of a £5k bonus, which is pretty demoralising...

[iansums]

I was told that CB was only introduced to encourage people to have children after the War, not sure it applies so much nowadays.

[hutch]

When you add student loan as well it's up to 60%. Remember taking home £2k of a £5k bonus, which is pretty demoralising...

Yeah, but you must have had a warm fuzzy glow inside knowing how many fags you'd just bought for poor people.

[Whitey Grandad]

When you add student loan as well it's up to 60%. Remember taking home £2k of a £5k bonus, which is pretty demoralising...

 

Did you earn any more after that?

 

I was told that CB was only introduced to encourage people to have children after the War, not sure it applies so much nowadays.

 

It's been messed about with for ages. I remember it being called family allowance and child allowance and now child benefit. At one time the money went to the husband and there were complaints that he would spend it on booze and fags so then they made it payable to the mother and eventuially it was absorbed into the tax system. It's only in recent years (recent to me) that we have seen the rise in unmarried mothers and single-parent families. It could be argued hat the welfare state has encouraged this.

 

Further to my earlier questioning as to whether the state should encourage people to have children it occured to me that it might be a long-term plan to make sure that there are enough carers around to reduce the burden on the state caused by too many old people.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yeah, but you must have had a warm fuzzy glow inside knowing how many fags you'd just bought for poor people.

 

I have a rule that if I see someone who I think is poor, I will bum a fag off them. Gotta get that money back.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Did you earn any more after that?

 

 

 

It's been messed about with for ages. I remember it being called family allowance and child allowance and now child benefit. At one time the money went to the husband and there were complaints that he would spend it on booze and fags so then they made it payable to the mother and eventuially it was absorbed into the tax system. It's only in recent years (recent to me) that we have seen the rise in unmarried mothers and single-parent families. It could be argued hat the welfare state has encouraged this.

 

Further to my earlier questioning as to whether the state should encourage people to have children it occured to me that it might be a long-term plan to make sure that there are enough carers around to reduce the burden on the state caused by too many old people.

 

Yeah, but still a bit Meh isn't it?

[pap]

 

Not one of mine, but apt after comments about the "feckless".

[CB Saint]

 

Not one of mine, but apt after comments about the "feckless".

 

It just poor decision making, everyone knows that in monopoly when the board is stacked against you, the safest place to be is in jail.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

 

Not one of mine, but apt after comments about the "feckless".

 

Of course, they could just spend their time living on Whitechapel Road, saving up the money they receive as people stay there, and then negotiate to buy other properties from the other players, hence moving up that way. That's how the majority of us live our life...

 

[bridge too far]

[CB Saint]

On a different subject - will Ed regret taking part in the challengers debate. Without DC and NC to attack, will the minor parties turn their collective gun sights on him instead.

[pap]

Of course, they could just spend their time living on Whitechapel Road, saving up the money they receive as people stay there, and then negotiate to buy other properties from the other players, hence moving up that way. That's how the majority of us live our life...

 

 

The funny thing is you don't even know you'd be getting the 5%.

[Colinjb]

On a different subject - will Ed regret taking part in the challengers debate. Without DC and NC to attack, will the minor parties turn their collective gun sights on him instead.

 

I'm expecting something of a love in, t'will be beautiful.

[Wade Garrett]

On a different subject - will Ed regret taking part in the challengers debate. Without DC and NC to attack, will the minor parties turn their collective gun sights on him instead.

 

It's going to be a free hit on the Tories and Liberals for all concerned. Sturgeon will be Ed's biggest problem.

[solentstars]

seeing as i own 95% of the houses there is no need for the income tax has the owner of whitechapel will pay it for me has i can,t afford it.

[Johnny Bognor]

This is shocking from the shadow chancellor, who may be in control of our finances in a few weeks time!!!!

 

Ed Balls dismissed a Labour note saying there was no money left as a "joke".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11541290/Ed-Balls-Labour-note-saying-money-had-run-out-was-a-joke.html

 

Yeah, ****ing hillarious. Perhaps you want to tell that to the people queuing outside the food banks. How can anyone want this joker near our finances ever again? It just shows the contempt these no-good career politicians have of the hard working electorate. I almost yearn for the days of the Chancellor who officially ended boom and bust... just before the bust

Edited 16 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[aintforever]

On a different subject - will Ed regret taking part in the challengers debate. Without DC and NC to attack, will the minor parties turn their collective gun sights on him instead.

 

Could do, but in my opinion the SNP, UKIP, Greens and Plaid Cymru have so far done a good job in making Labour look like a rational, middle-ground option.

[Wes Tender]

This is shocking from the shadow chancellor, who may be in control of our finances in a few weeks time!!!!

 

David Cameron has accused Ed Balls of making the "most appalling" comments of the General Election campaign so far after the shadow chancellor dismissed a Labour note saying there was no money left as a "joke".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11541290/Ed-Balls-Labour-note-saying-money-had-run-out-was-a-joke.html

 

 

Yeah, ****ing hillarious. Perhaps you want to tell that to the people queuing outside the food banks.

 

I dont want this joker any where near our finances ever again.

Cameron makes these accusations about Balls-up in his constituency seat. Apparently Balls-up only has a majority of 1100, so definitely one to target.

[aintforever]

Someone made a joke, how shocking!

 

You do get some complete ***ts on here.

[st alex]

When our current government did eventually debate the food bank issue, the tories laughed their way through it and then left early. This is what I don't like about the party, that they won't even have a rational debate about issues like food banks and drug policy, preferring to pretend that the problems don't exist. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-leaves-commons-debate-on-food-banks-early-9013917.html

 

Of course they've got better things to use their debating time for: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11263673/Conservative-minister-says-ck-six-times-in-Parliament-for-smutty-Navy-bet.html

 

There's more debate on here than there is from the tories in parliament (unless of course they're debating a matter of their own choosing).