Advanced search

Another Tory peer says how they really feel

(113 Posts)
sarah293 Thu 25-Nov-10 15:00:59

Message withdrawn

AMumInScotland Thu 25-Nov-10 15:39:17

Nice one - makes you think he's picturing something like rats or cockroaches, doesn't it?

Unprune Thu 25-Nov-10 15:42:52

Oops. It's such a horrible word. If he'd said 'having children', nobody'd have noticed.

smallwhitecat Thu 25-Nov-10 15:47:03

Message withdrawn

sarah293 Thu 25-Nov-10 15:51:47

Message withdrawn

smallwhitecat Thu 25-Nov-10 15:54:29

Message withdrawn

ISNT Thu 25-Nov-10 16:13:50

If he said nothing out of turn SWC why has DC made him apologise?

It seems to me he said that he didn't want people on benefits breeding, which sounds pretty nasty to my ear.

sue52 Thu 25-Nov-10 16:17:12

I expect he'll b e resigning too. Dave won't want someone who makes the Tories seem like upper class, arrogant bigots. Though many clearly are.

Igglybuff Thu 25-Nov-10 16:22:43

Now I don't know about you, but I didn't breed on the promise of child benefit, nasty middle class scum that I am.


Chil1234 Thu 25-Nov-10 16:37:39

His wording was off but it's basically true though, isn't it? For quite a long time now, the only people that can afford to have children are either the very poor (with the help of income top-ups) or the very wealthy. Those in the middle who get no income top-ups and are not particularly wealthy are leaving child-bearing later and later and having fewer and fewer children.

Igglybuff Thu 25-Nov-10 16:42:51

People having kids later isn't just about money, it's about career progression and changing priorities.

Would you have a kid for cash? No? Then what makes you think most other people would?

Chil1234 Thu 25-Nov-10 17:06:28

Isn't it about money?... Aren't middle-income earners not entitled to tax credits etc., the ones most likely to put off having children until they're established in a job, have a home, some savings? Wealthy people don't have to wait and neither do the very poor.

sarah293 Thu 25-Nov-10 17:08:58

Message withdrawn

Igglybuff Thu 25-Nov-10 17:11:04

Would you have a kid for cash?

DH and I decided that we would cope when we had a kid. You adjust your finances to suit your new circumstances. If you wait until you earn enough, you'll still have to make cut backs unless you're uber rich.

There's a difference between that and thinking "oh I'll have a kid because I'll get money from the state".

HumphreyCobbler Thu 25-Nov-10 17:22:04

He said that cutting child benefit was a disincentive for the middle classes to have children.

Don't see the problem with that

Lots of people on here disagreed with cutting child benefit for higher earners (not me actually).

The squeamishness over the term breeding is a bit silly. He was applying the term across the board after all.

Why on earth Save the Children felt the need to comment I don't know.

smallwhitecat Thu 25-Nov-10 17:57:31

Message withdrawn

Igglybuff Thu 25-Nov-10 18:00:27

But is it really a disincentive? I mean yes it hurts if you get it and now it's gone (for many) but if you don't get it now - would you make a decision based on that??

HumphreyCobbler Thu 25-Nov-10 18:45:51

it is paid to help people with their childcare costs, if it removed then it acts as a financial disincentive.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 25-Nov-10 18:47:38

your comment about nasty middle class scum is strange too igglybuff - what did you mean?

HumphreyCobbler Thu 25-Nov-10 19:21:34

just read the rest of what he said. He didn't agree with raising tuition fees either.

Igglybuff Thu 25-Nov-10 19:27:11

I was being sarcastic - I don't think people have kids because they'll get paid child benefit.

pastyeater Thu 25-Nov-10 20:15:23

Poor people only have kids for cash. That's insulting.

HumphreyCobbler Thu 25-Nov-10 20:18:28

that isn't what he said at all

go and read it

disagree with it if you want to, I can think of lots of ways in which to disagree that are legitimate, but don't comment on a statement that was never made.

pastyeater Thu 25-Nov-10 21:16:13

I have read it.

Maybe I should have worded it better.

He should have chosen his words more carefully too...grin

newwave Thu 25-Nov-10 21:19:25

"Dave" dosent want the "nasty party" to emerge from under the veneer of being a reformed and decnt party but a veneer is all it is the smug, boorish, self entitled filth, nasty, vile, uncaring, scum is still alive and well but hidden away from the public.

But like the cockroches they are they scuttle into view on occassion much to "Daves" horror.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: