Reform wants women barefoot and pregnant

It was an example of politicians not future proofing society. Do you want a population collapse to happen before they deal with it & then like they have with net zero put in damaging policies in place that see us getting poorer and poorer. I wasn’t saying we don’t need to move to renewables but I’m 45 and the climate was a big talking point yet we have solutions that are not going to work & to hit our own target we now import our gas by more expensive and more dirtier means than drilling our own. My energy comment was making an example about not future proofing against problems they know that are coming.

i didn’t say any ones physical life was of less value, i was on about the value you are providing society. The minute you’re claiming more than you’re contributing. As a person you should be looked after in old age, but the people who’s made that a possibility are the ones having children now. So not only are most contributing as well as raising children now they’ve secured the future providers. I think that’s worthy of subsidy to their income. Trust me they’re still massively out of pocket raising a child.

Ffs where has that been insuniated.

My comment though I didn’t think needed explaining obviously does. In the context of economy, a person having children are providing potential future tax payers. Birth rates are dropping & that’s a problem you will have to face & live with. So in old age those coming for me please don’t complain if you can neither retire or get the care you need (which is dire now). Saying that incentives are a good idea to encourage people to have children isn’t saying we should adopt a handmaid tale existence for those who wish to not have children. Nor do I think their value is irrelevant. I acknowledge people who have children are part of the solution. I’m sorry if you’re childless due to circumstances out of your control doesn’t mean my point becomes mute.

Have you read the title?

I am against encouraging British women to have more children with the aim of preventing immigration for several key reasons. The first is that the world eventually has to learn to share its wealth equally among its nations and properly controlled immigration so as not to disadvantage each nation's own people is a very good way of doing that. (Stealing poor nations' doctors is not. Taking someone as a lower skilled care worker and upskilling them into a nurse or therapist is.)

Secondly, it's cheaper to take in an adult than it is to raise a child, so it's potentially to the benefit of over-populated poor countries without work for people to do and the wealthier country for that exchange to take place.

Thirdly, the more room we have available to give help to those escaping war and tyranny, the better.

There's no doubt Reform's policy will be intended to reduce the further dilution of British culture. But as long as women actually want more children, and many on this forum and elsewhere say that they do but cant afford them, I don't think that policy would be as evil as many people on this thread are suggesting.

As a woman who is childless by choice I'm conflicted, in an over populated world, about paying higher taxes to enable British and NI women to have more children while there are adults desperate to live in this country who are refused.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense economically.

We can at the moment import as many adults as we need to pay tax to cover pensions, we don't need to breed and bring up children for 18 or more years to do that.

There are already too many people on the planet who can't be fed.

The only arguments for a wealthy western country breeding their own are that parents want to have them and, the Reform one, to prevent dilution of the majority culture.

I dont even know where to start with this...

Does it only apply to women?
What about fertility issues?
What if you are gay?
Do you just go in benefits to avoid tax if you cant / dont want to breed?
Do childless men get taxed too???

its not what I’ve said. I just said you’re providing future value long after you yourself will not be providing. I’m being quite clear that I’m on about the length of contribution. I even said no one’s physical life is more important than anyone else’s.

Nazi Germany had such ideas - "Dilution of the majority culture?" hell, that really is something out of 1930s Germany!

I'm well aware these are NOT Reform official policies but i do find it extremely worrying that the Reform candidate, in such a high profile By Election, is or has put out these ideas.

To me, they make him unsuitable to be an MP but if he still wishes to be one, then its only fair his (far right) views are heavily scrutinised.

The choice for a woman or man to have children should not be subject to Government policies, especially as over the course of 18 or so years, these can change dramatically.

Even if these disgusting ideas are valid, no one knows whether their child will be a benefit to society or not, take this idea a little further, child becomes disabled, due to accident or health issues... what then? get rid of it?

What would this benefit be? tax paid? work done? one could argue a carer is providing more "benefit" than an Accountant?

Neither can function without the other.

I said that people who have children are providing a benefit. I’m not measuring there actual worth

Awful to think I’m of less value because an accident of biology made it impossible for me to have children.

You said their value is more. Your actual words.

Awful to think I’m of less value because an accident of biology made it impossible for me to have children.

I said that people who have children are providing a benefit. I’m not measuring there actual worth

Measuring someone's worth by their ability or desire to have children is frankly dystopian and insulting. I don't disagree that there are demographic issues that need addressing, but assigning some sort of moral value and superiority to having children is not the way to do that.

Because your value is more. I’m sorry but it is. You’re providing the future workforce who will be paying your state pension, potentially your additional care. Paying for the NHS. Whilst sacrificing the freedoms you lose being a parent. By having children your are by default contributing to the future. It’s refreshing to see politicians looking past the end of their noses. Had other governments did that maybe we wouldn’t be paying ridiculous energy prices now. To cut net zero they’ve not considered long term energy supplies. Knowing that successive governments will likely take the credit for any initiatives that uou had started.

He's made it perfectly clear that he was batting around ideas he read put forward by someone else who's name I can't remember and that was one of many ideas that had been single out for comment and that none of those ideas are Reform policies, but if you only read the frothing on this thread you won't know that.

But if you have a child/children who will never be able to work then by your own statements you are providing less value to society. I think that is dangerous. Also it suggests the only way to contribute to society is by having children which is not true. With AI I don't think there will be a need for so many workers anyway. Right now we rely on a ponzi system for pensions but all ponzi systems will collapse in a finite system. The cynical side of me suspects this great push for to increase the birth rate is the elites who want a class to exploit.

Because your value is more. I’m sorry but it is. You’re providing the future workforce who will be paying your state pension, potentially your additional care. Paying for the NHS. Whilst sacrificing the freedoms you lose being a parent. By having children your are by default contributing to the future. It’s refreshing to see politicians looking past the end of their noses. Had other governments did that maybe we wouldn’t be paying ridiculous energy prices now. To cut net zero they’ve not considered long term energy supplies. Knowing that successive governments will likely take the credit for any initiatives that uou had started.

It was an example of politicians not future proofing society. Do you want a population collapse to happen before they deal with it & then like they have with net zero put in damaging policies in place that see us getting poorer and poorer. I wasn’t saying we don’t need to move to renewables but I’m 45 and the climate was a big talking point yet we have solutions that are not going to work & to hit our own target we now import our gas by more expensive and more dirtier means than drilling our own. My energy comment was making an example about not future proofing against problems they know that are coming.

i didn’t say any ones physical life was of less value, i was on about the value you are providing society. The minute you’re claiming more than you’re contributing. As a person you should be looked after in old age, but the people who’s made that a possibility are the ones having children now. So not only are most contributing as well as raising children now they’ve secured the future providers. I think that’s worthy of subsidy to their income. Trust me they’re still massively out of pocket raising a child.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense economically.

We can at the moment import as many adults as we need to pay tax to cover pensions, we don't need to breed and bring up children for 18 or more years to do that.

There are already too many people on the planet who can't be fed.

The only arguments for a wealthy western country breeding their own are that parents want to have them and, the Reform one, to prevent dilution of the majority culture.

Dropping weight carrying requirement for fire fighters to enable the recruitment of more women.
The Army trialled a fitness test for specific jobs. Some artillery shells for instance are very heavy and must be handled manually at times. If you are not strong enough you don't do that particular job.
I think it was adopted.

It was an example of politicians not future proofing society. Do you want a population collapse to happen before they deal with it & then like they have with net zero put in damaging policies in place that see us getting poorer and poorer. I wasn’t saying we don’t need to move to renewables but I’m 45 and the climate was a big talking point yet we have solutions that are not going to work & to hit our own target we now import our gas by more expensive and more dirtier means than drilling our own. My energy comment was making an example about not future proofing against problems they know that are coming.

i didn’t say any ones physical life was of less value, i was on about the value you are providing society. The minute you’re claiming more than you’re contributing. As a person you should be looked after in old age, but the people who’s made that a possibility are the ones having children now. So not only are most contributing as well as raising children now they’ve secured the future providers. I think that’s worthy of subsidy to their income. Trust me they’re still massively out of pocket raising a child.