Jeremy Hunt: "Don't expect us to pay for your children"

In the UK there are still really strict branches of Christianity, and I'm not talking about Catholicism, that ban contraception and even abstenance. So the poor women churn out child after child, year after year. In the 21st century - I ask you!

I agree men should be forced to contribute. There are some women who are having more children than they choose due to men's behaviour.

But there are also women who want large families and I don't think any decent government in a free society should try to stop them and threaten them by saying "don't expect us to pay for your children".

What it really boils down to is that these rich and powerful people don't want the poor to have lots of children. Tony Blair has 4 children, twice the average UK amount, and good luck to him and his family. But I don't think that a poor person should be told that they can't have 4 children like him. His children are no better than the children of the poor.

They introduced the census in the 19th century to keep track of the masses. The elite were pissed that the "undeserving" masses were having lots of children. I don't think the elites have changed much. They still think that the poor are where they are because they deserve it and they think that they are superior to poor people.

And in the developed world, some women are still having more children than they would choose to because of men's behaviour, the men who won't use contraception either because they reckon their imaginary friend doesn;t approve, or because they don't like condoms and therefor won't use them. Yet it's the women who get blamed for being single mothers when it's the men who impregnate and run who should be held to account a lot more than actually happens.
OK the idea of trying to force people into maintaining couple-relationships is just as wrong as trying to force them not to have more children, yet making sure men contribute financially to their DC's upkeep even if they are not desirable partners for the mothers is one that should be pursued more strongly.

yes I agree with that, in the third world. But we are talking about here.

Claig: one big problem is that a lot of women are having more children than they want to have. Everywhere aid agencies are concentrating on empowering women, helping them to get an education and some independence, they are choosing to have fewer children.

It would also have to be done on a regional basis which would complicate matters further

unemployment rates are shite.

I'm on benefits - but not "unemployed" - as I'm on IS. I'm also not "seeking work"..........despite the fact that I look on a weekly basis at the 3 sources of jobs in town..........

Shirly,

"I would quite like to know where all these jobs are for the Benefit Scroungers to get off their arses and do, because last time I looked the job market was looking a little...bleak."

How about if unemployment benefit was pegged to unemployment rates.

During times of full employment - there would only be a small, short term unemployment benefit available. When unemployment was high - rates would be increased and timescale lengthened.

An idea for IDS ?

Jeremy Hunt, rhymes with............

These families will be restricted to £26,000 in benefits and will be told that they have exceeded their allowable "carbon footprint". Bureaucrats will tell us that these families are threatening the "sustainability of the planet". The sad thing is that millions of people will believe it and applaud the bureaucrats.

They'll soon create an enviroment where people with large families will be socially unacceptable and will be abused in the street for not being "sustainable" and will be falsely accused of being scroungers. The media can whip the public up any way they want. There'll be a Big Brother "two minute hate" against scroungers with large families. It will be a bit like the opprobrium towards people driving gas guzzling cars.

One of things that annoys me most is comments like "don't expect me to pay for your children" (I'm paraphrasing, but saw this recently on a CB thread). What seems to escape these people is that those children are the taxpayers of the future, and the ones that will be paying for their pension and their NHS treatment.

However - and this is where the logic becomes muddled for me - there clearly is a point where it becomes ridiculous. For me, any more than 4 children is getting silly. But who am I to say that? How exactly does one define the number of children that is "sustainable"?

So exactly how many children are people "allowed" to have before they become scroungers? I work and receive CTC for 2 children - am I a scrounger? Some people appear to advocate having no children at all until you can support them without recourse to any tax credits whatsoever (I've seen it said on here). Where does it end?

"the first and most important and effective way to stop people having more children than is sustainable"

I don't think any government official should decide what is "sustainable" and should try to stop any woman having as many children as she wants. I believe in freedom, and I think it is nothing to do with bureaucrats. I've only got one child, but I support mothers who want large families. I think we should support these families, whether they are on the dole or not. The UK's birth rate is now 1.94 which is below sustainability, which is why we need immigration. We need a higher birth rate.

"that nonsense about large families in the olden days being 'poor but 'appy', the reality was mainly malnutrition, eviction, domestic violence,early death, backstreet abortions, overcrowding and all the related health issues"

maybe that was the experience of your family, but it's not the experience of mine. My mum was one of five sisters and her mum was one of 6 children. They weren't as well off as we are today, but they didn't suffer what you mentioned.

I doubt many of the ones that have baby after baby have ever been anywhere near a church.

Personally my religion had sod all to do with the fact that I had children. DS3 was whisky and wine and a failed MAP (which after the initial shock I was bloody delighted about as exH said he didn't want anymore - but I did), irrc DS2 was just wine and a failed pill.

Actually, the first and most important and effective way to stop people having more children than is sustainable is to empower women and free them from bloody religion. Most women, given the chance and the choice, would rather not wreck their bodies by having baby after baby in the full awareness that they can't really afford to feed and care for them all, but in places where man-made superstitions both prohibit contraception and insist on men's right to fuck women whenver they want, women often have to have far more children than they would like.
Oh and sod off with that nonsense about large families in the olden days being 'poor but 'appy', the reality was mainly malnutrition, eviction, domestic violence,early death, backstreet abortions, overcrowding and all the related health issues...
(Yes, all the shit that's coming back now. Hopefully with the exception of the backstreet abortions unless the new Government follows the example of the last lot and gives the myth-peddlers priority...)

yes, to start a family, but not to procreate as much as you want.

the right to start a family is a human right according to the UN. (but I know what you're getting it)

Fair enough if you wind up on hard times with a large family, it happens.

But honestly, quite a few folk here have a lot and whilst on benefits.

By a lot, I mean 8, 6, that sort of thing.

Granted, several don't have them as they've been taken off them.

But still.

I don't disagree with not paying out more benefit if you have children whilst not working and claiming.

And I completely thing much much more needs to be done to compel non-resident parents to contribute to the support of their children.

It's not a right to have children, it's a privilege.

well these days with jobs loss, and probably interest rate rises I think we can safely assume that anyone can end up there quite easily.

Whispers...aren't people born into low economic status more likely to end up there?

some families have children regardless of available contraception and the knowledge that there's no benefits to support them. Several in exH's family that did it, and I knew others out there too.

"By the same rules, Africans should stop having children too. That should be policy rather than giving them aid - right?"

Huh?

Not really. First, I'm guessing no African family ever thought "It's ok, I can afford another child because my aid payments will go up". Whereas there are some in the UK who will decide that they can afford to have another child based on the resulting benefit increase.

Second, promoting birth control and family planning in Africa is already policy. Many families in developing nations would choose not to have more children - precisely because they can't afford them - if only they had access to free contraception and they could be reasonably sure their existing children would survive to adulthood. Both of which, luckily, we have in the UK.

It's not just "bum wiping". Older people with dementia tend to spread it everywhere and eat it as well.