Likewise if you vote for a party that spends money unsustainably and leaves the country completely exposed to global economic fortunes.
The number of rough sleepers is estimated to have increased by 169% since 2010.
People can speculate on why that might be, but if you vote for a party that espouses austerity, austere policies are generally what you get. These policies generally affect vulnerable people the most.
Likewise if you vote for a party that spends money unsustainably and leaves the country completely exposed to global economic fortunes.
My type of selfish pontification?? Type?? Yours is a blatant strawman argument and you have put me up as the uncaring, sod 'em all, couldn't care less "Type". I haven't judged ANYONE, what I have said is I will not give money just for the sake of it, but you, you like to brag about giving "all your spare money" to the homeless - and there lies my point - how do you know they are homeless?
Your second paragraph is laughable and obviously self-congratulatory, you like to tell us all how we should all be angels and count our blessings - like you, of course. I am well aware SOME of these unfortunates have mental problems so don't point your sanctamonious finger at me, I never said or even hinted what you are quoting - "No they all go home to nice houses" or " No they spend it on drink and drugs".
Get down off your pulpit.
One that doesn't spend money unsustainably! Obviously it's a question of degrees, but whether you're talking about your personal finances or the country's finances, the more you save for a rainy day, the more insulated you are. Put it this way, if you've managed to stockpile lots of gold, don't sell it off when the price is low.
(I haven't got lots of gold personally, by the way, in case any burglars are reading. )
A non-sequitur. Every country in the developed world was affected by the financial crash of 2008 regardless of the affiliation of their government. This thread is about homelessness. Homelessness has increased by the amount I stated since 2010. You obviously think more people sleeping on the streets is a price worth paying for tighter public finances. (Whether austerity has actually led to tighter public finances is an entirely different debate).
Ahah yeah good old Gordon Brown. He even tried to take the Times to court to stop them reporting it if memory serves.
Problem is most advanced economies have debt, it then depends on other things, like who holds the debt, or which school of economics you subscribe to, as to whether that's a good thing or not.
A circular argument actually. If you don't manage public finances correctly, then eventually you run out of money and end up with even more people sleeping on the streets. And as I said to Elite above, whilst no country can entirely avoid the consequences of a global crash, the more resource you've got in hand, the more insulated you are against the worst effects.
To be fair, it might be true to say that neither of the two main governing parties of the last 20 years have got it right, lurching from one extreme to the other.
How about buying a Greggs gift card and loading it up with cash?
Give that to a homeless person and know that they can choose when they need to eat and drink for themselves. That way it stops them wasting actual money on other items that Greggs do not sell that are harmful to them.