UKIP Economic Spokesman Patrick O'Flynn has criticised George Osborne over new borrowing figures which show that the Chancellor is sinking the country rapidly into further debt.
Government borrowing rose to £11.8bn in September alone, some £1.6bn higher than in September 2013, according to new figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Mr O'Flynn said: "George Osborne has completely failed in his key objective as Chancellor - getting to grips with Britain's giant budget deficit.
"The Chancellor long ago ditched his promise to eradicate the deficit in a single parliamentary term, but now even his less challenging targets are being missed woefully and Britain is on course to chalk up yet another budget deficit of around £100billion in the financial year 2014-15.
"It beggars belief that, in such a climate, David Cameron could airily announce plans for more than £7billion of unfunded tax cuts in his party conference speech earlier this month.
"We in UKIP take fiscal responsibility far more seriously, which is why I spelt out plans to reduce spending on foreign aid, EU membership and the HS2 white elephant scheme, as well as addressing the public spending imbalance between Scotland and England.
"I also set out plans for a turnover tax on large corporations to impose a floor level of taxation in order to recover funds that have gone missing from the public realm because of very aggressive tax avoidance in parts of the corporate sector.
"As we move towards the election, UKIP will spell out other measures that could reduce public spending without compromising the budgets for key frontline services.
"Eliminating the deficit requires incentives for wealth-creation to be boosted across the economy, but it also needs ministers to take tough decisions on public spending. We have highlighted where we would find the biggest savings, while the Chancellor goes on racking up enormous debts on behalf of the British electorate and their children and grandchildren.
"The only thing that is preventing his reputation unravelling completely is that the shadow chancellor would take an even more profligate stance. But being a couple of percentage points less ruinous than Ed Balls is not a sound basis for being allowed to operate the key levers of the British economy."