to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

(1000 Posts)
avivabeaver Mon 08-Oct-12 11:04:43

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:04

<off to Twitter>

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:12

"Planning ahead to get off benefits"

ROFLMAO

But the laughter is hollow because there simply are not enough jobs to go around and some will always be in and out of work.

I know...lets sterilise anyone not likely to have long term work. Bloody scroungers daring to want a family. How bloody dare they....work shy bastards. hmm

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:27

He means, if you have more children when you're on benefits you have to pay for them yourselves. No number's been put on the number of children.

Jake Bullet: there was a note left by Labour "there's no money left". And need I say AGAIN today that under Labour the proportion of people taking out more than they put in (to the state pot) ROSE to over half the population. So, yes, it has got something to do with Labour.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:42

This
demonstrates that the poor and those on benefits really are taking the brunt of the cuts, in fact significantly more than others.
I'm actually quite frightened, the demonisation of benefit claimants of any kind is fast becoming de rigeur for all, encouraged by a government that only looks after its own.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:15

Jake so every person on benefits is a write off and doomed to never work?hmm

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:38

Before I go... judgement and integrity? hmm

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:11:24

"But pregnancies aren't always the result of lifestyle choices."

Let's be honest with ourselves here - the vast majority of pregnancies are. If you forget, or are lazy, or drunk, or are on ABs and get slipshod, it's still a choice.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:11:24

Yep, the note was left by Labour. As information. The banks fucked it, not the Labour Party and frankly anyone who thinks that is daft, the Labour Party cannot possibly have caused the WORLDWIDE recession. That would be the recession that other countries are finally moving out of because they didn't slash so hard and so fast.

vj32 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:12:30

Millionaire pensioners have been told their winter fuel payments are protected while £10billlion has to be cut from welfare. Its a joke, but its a typical Tory stance (protect the rich to win their support and those with aspirations to be rich, screw the poor and the careful people in the middle), I am getting progressively more annoyed at the people who voted Tory, especially those who are now not happy with the policies they are enacting.

One of the fundamentals of the welfare state, and in fact one of the earliest issues that the Liberal Govt in the early C20th tried to address, was child poverty. Saying a family can only have 3 children and if they have a 4th they have to starve is a complete betrayal of the welfare system. I don't want to live in a country where small children are deliberately, with full knowledge of the government, left to starve because their parents didn't act in a way 'we' would like.

Teeb Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:19

I think what niceguy said might be worth looking into, that it's set at the point you begin claiming benefits. So if it's a family where the father has been laid off but they already have three children, then all three children should be provided for.

I wish these initiatives would work hand in hand though with better sex education, more freely available birth control and access to the morning after pill.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:20

Dawndonna: how many times. More people were pushed onto welfare - a quarter more people - under Labour. During a time when hundreds of thousands of jobs were being taken by (harder-working?) incomers every year.

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:55

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

This government is despicable. General Election now please. And let's not forge that children are the tax payers of the future.

OP YANBU and yes Gideon is a knob.

Crazyx4 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:23

Jakebullet, I grew up in a place where it was expected that you voted labour and I supported them for years, but you can't deny it was them who got us in this mess. Not that I am saying Osbourne is getting it right and no I don't accept all his policies. I am losing child benefit next year and with 4 kids that is a big deal for us, but at the end of the day I chose to have 4 and it is my responsibility to provide for them.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:30

Gideon starting to sound more like Comical Ali every day "They're not poor, they're just pretending to be poor".

Fabulous tweet just seen.....and so so true. The man is n arsehole ...

More a tweets...

£55 Carers Allowance is so much money...am amazed more people don't try for a disabled child.

Forgot to pull my blinds this morning #Osbourne #scrounger

...and plenty more there....the man is hated by many so if the Tories here are pissing you off get over to Twitter for some fresh air.

KellyMarieTunstall Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:31

It can be a calculated decision on the part of many couples.

I have spoken with many women claiming lone parent income support who are reporting details of their new baby. The new baby invariably has the same surname as older child/ren (ie the fathers but not the mothers name) even though the woman has been a lone parent for many years. The gap is often just enough to ensure LPIS continues for a few more years.

This practice has diminished recently but has not vanished.

stubbornstains Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:33

"It simply can't go on,we can't afford it and that is the bottom line.It's a ridiculous state of affairs when hard working families have to stick to 2 dc or even just 1 due to lack of finances but those on benefits can have as many as they like..How unfair is that!"

Umm....many families on benefits ARE hardworking. Working hard for the minimum wage, and still having to be topped up, due to low wages and high rents.

This government is trying to depict an artificial divide in its propaganda: "hard working families" versus "scrounging benefit claimants". Well, it's not that simple, is it? Most benefit claimants will have worked in the past, or will go on to work in the future. A period of having to claim benefit is most likely when you have pre school age children, when their claims on your time are the greatest, and when childcare costs can be prohibitive.

And let's think for a moment...what would happen if no one who, albeit temporarily, "couldn't afford" kids didn't have them? That's a hell of a lot of prospective kids not being born. That's a hell of a lot of future taxpayers and workers we'll be missing out on 20 years down the line, when the baby boomers all start getting frail and needing billions and billions of pounds' worth of care.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:15:30

1. And pensioners are often people who've saved all their lives. What's the point of saving if it's all taken away from you? and 2. Means testing of this group definitely would be more costly than the money saved.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:16:47

Brycie. Read the evidence, and remove your racist views.

Oh, and bear in mind people on benefits also include carers and disabled people and their families.

Meglet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:15

this Jamnan - 'children are the tax payers of the future'.

I remember the Tories in the 80's, hence I grew up very wary of them. At this rate (am a single parent) my DC's will be the most ferocious left wing MP's going.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:39

I do agree with Vj over the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners.totally angry that this won't be touched,just how can they justify it?

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:46

Sorry but this "we need the children" isn't necessarily true, there are pensioners now paying tax to support children in non-working families. How is that helping the pensioners? As long as they are supported by the state, there's no contribution to the social contract.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:18:11

There is a world wide recession folks......Labour did not "get us into this mess" and the Tories were promising to match their spending pound for pound.

A WORLDWIDE RECESSION....and Gideon is vetoing a mansion tax but shaving another £10b of the benefits bill .....from where I don't know.

Then again can't have anyone "enjoying" (yes the arsehole actually used that word) a life on benefits. Tosser.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:18:17

Why not just bring in steralization for the feckless and put the children straight in the workhouse? We could have the Sex-factor on tv and vote for who deserves to procreate and who doesn't.

How does this fit with Hunt The Cunt's stance on abortion prior to 12 weeks?

And how soon before we have prescription free contraception withdrawn?

Of course none of us actually gave any thought to being able to afford children before having them. We're all too busy rutting away with men we barely know in our council houses in front of our plasma tellies.

Will nobody think of the goats?!

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:21

What racist views? Are you joking? You need to resort to that? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Meglet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:28

I've always wanted a goat sad. I only have a couple of mice in my compost bin <<sobs>>.

This thread is not accepting new messages.