Farmer Saint

Cool, well have a read: https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/5856/uk-children-dying-through-poverty-data-shows https://www.ncmd.info/publications/child-mortality-social-deprivation/ https://cpag.org.uk/news/more-children-ill-poverty-bleak-paediatricians-survey-anniversary-child-poverty-taskforce

I'm waiting for his suggestion of chemical castration to ensure people that he doesn't think should have kids, don't. I certainly know at least one person on this thread who should fall under that category.

Thank God we've got fuckwits like you to police us eh?

The point is your opinion is that children should suffer in poverty as a result of their parents feckless attitude towards procreation. That's the problem here. Lifting kids out of poverty should be the first agenda for any government, left or right. They are the economic future for countries, so you want them to be as high-achieving as possible. Starting them off in a life of poverty strangles that, and is very poor for the economy.

https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/2025/11/19/sir-john-majors-speech-at-maurice-fraser-lecture-18-november-2025/

This is not aspiration. You don't aspire for children to not be in poverty. Kids are in poverty now, this will help to lift quite a few out. If that means we have to tax the rich, which includes myself, a bit more, then fuck it, we should do it. Children are not a commodity to use as collateral because you think that we should punish the feckless. We live in a country where two parents can both work full time and still have to use food banks. You do not understand the societal impact that poverty has on children. I'm not a socialist, I'm a one nation Tory, and you ARE a cunt. A real, grade A, don't give a fuck about anyone than myself, cunt. Own it.

Oh sorry, you just hope those children suffer in poverty. Luckily no-one in poverty ever dies. I apologise, you must be the new Mother Theresa. What a cunt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt?app-referrer=deep-link UK net migration drops sharply to 204,000 in year to June - live updates - BBC News Need to take into account for every 100,000 people lost, we lose £7bn from the tax coffers...

Good, we're into the collateral damage realm, and that collateral damage is children dying. This conversation is over, because you're an odious cunt.

Ok, so you're happy that children with irresponsible parents starve then? I can tell you don't have kids.

No, again, not true, as sensibility is a subjective thing. Most sensible people I know don't want children to starve.

Proof needed that it's what "most" of the population think, ta! And a response to my retorts too please.

But I've answered the questions...

No, but the concept is the same. Yeah, he cut public services massively, perhaps irreparably, and has led us to the situation we are in now. I am really struggling to understand why you don't think a Labour government would increase taxes and plow money into public services? That's why I voted Labour.

But the point is his manifesto changed even though the fallout had taken place for 2008...but if you are correct it still feels very similar to finding a unaccounted for £22bn hole in your finances.

But he didn't come in until 2010, and his manifesto was written after the 2008 crisis.

Send us a photo of your Foxton's Mini.

Labour were in charge in 2008...

Ok, here goes: 1. Nope, but they were elected before the £22bn black hole left by the Tories was discovered. To not raise taxes to cover that would be stupid as would leave us further in deficit. To cut on an already fucked set of public services is idiotic. 2. Taking kids out of poverty is a good thing. Giving disabled people help is a good thing. Welfare needs reform, as we've all been asking for on the left, but these policies aren't the ones to lose. 3. As we've argued many, many, many times before, to increase productivity you can't just cut jobs. You have to invest in IT and Process improvement, and it takes significant time to do that, to a point where Labour are likely not in power. It's why it's been overlooked by successive governments for 40 years. 4. Some of those taxes are irrelevant to growing the economy. However, what you also have to understand is that investment in public services grows the economy as well through supply chain and increased spending from wages. They are also relying on the BoE to reduce interest rates to increase investment. The ISA change will help to grow the UK economy by increasing investment in British listed companies. By the way, this is how we have looked over the past few years in relation to growth: 5. Why isn't there a justification for it? We have crumbling public services and infrastructure. We have kids going hungry. Tell me why it is not justified, rather than just saying it isn't.

Yep, we should be listening to a jumped up estate agent who makes up people to prove his points.

Me too - I'll give you a clue @Sir Ralph, it's not beekeeping...

Always been the same, he's never been able to stand on his own two feet and create a valid argument. He's an internet plagiarist.

Christ almighty - is some right wing meme off Facebook the best you can come up with after yesterday's budget? The wish of the people was for a Labour government because we needed to fix our public services - that's why they won a landslide election. The people knew that meant an increase in funding to public services.

We still need to see a full Reform of benefits though...

He reminds me of Danny Fox, shit in defence, but really decent going forwards