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

Riven I hate to point this out, but somebody may be wiping your arse one day, so don't knock older people, who get their bottoms wiped, you may be in need of a little andrex one day!

Crackfox. I understand your point about Porrit and his chums, but why do you say "white rich older men" surely men of all colours have lectured women, the yellow in China, the brown in Iran, the black in Africa. It is not because a man is white that women are subjagated or lectured. It is because the subjagators are men. Would you dare say that black men lecture or subjagate women in Africa? I don't think you would., but it happens. What gets to me is that you use the word "white" as if slagging of white men is acceptable. There are bad eggs in all countries, men and women. I think their colour does not come into it.

bb99, re education, it's only worth what we're prepared to invest in it. Saw Chris Mullin give a talk last night and he said when he became an MP (Sunderland) under Thatcher, only 10 per cent of children in the local secondary got 5 grades A-C in GCSE. After big investment by Labour and the appointment of an inspirational head that was turned round to 70 per cent. Think what a difference that makes to their choices, and their motivation

Agree totally Sancti, never mind what mistakes the parents have made, still have to ensure the children don't suffer, otherwise what kind of society are we?

I'm surprised you still allow your wealthy in-laws to visit your home Riven. They complain about the cold and watch you wait in vain for a hoist for their disabled grandchild and still they don't contribute a penny?

Yup, my sister will be waving too

Although she said Mum and Dad can stay with them.... aslong as they are able to keep house and garden!

Only some Riv; plenty lost their pensions too remember.

I have plenty of sympathy for them.

Riven :(

bb99, I was nodding in agreement to your post. I guess the point is that we all have to try and plan our families responsibly if it's in our power to do so. Of course shit happens, and that is what the welfare state is for.

I think it translates as 'people end up in poverty for lots of different reasons but poverty harms kids and all our futures; think what you might of the adults but don't let it motivate you to harm the children'

I don't quite get it

On one hand we have loads of old people that will need care

On the other we have (according to the media) an apparently fat and dying adult and child population that it would seem will all be dead before they are forty

So that leads one to assume that children are very valuable indeed, no?

In reality a thousand threads afore haven't found an answer becuase world population does have to be balanced against keeping teh whole aging society thing going.

Energies used to polarise people here though would be best used promotinig education and contraception when women actually want it, around the entire world, and chasing the aim of choice for all rather than neglecting the choice of those women then imposing choices on others as well that limit their famillies.

Agree totally santi. Especially with your last paragraph (I think, couldn't understand all of it )

I've taken the Tutu quote for my facebook, hope that's OK.

They're debating this on anohter wbsite as well; my take is A) benefit dependency does not assume you were poor yesterday, only today, and if only we were all blessed with perfect foresight eh?

B) My judgements on a parent are not the point; I want children raised in safety, security and stability. Food, husing, not such pressures on their parent's relationship that they break up.

People say about teh deficit that we need to clear it for the kids; well yes, but the kids won;t benefit from inheriting a society where many were raised feeling outside the state, or suffering from the many isues with poor health and education related to poverty.

The blame-and-slam briagde like to start tegir sentence 'as a taxpayer..'; as a taxpayer I want to make sure the next generation si raised well adn able to take on the burden of paying taxes for their own time.

Yes c - I missed that one, but although people knock (constantly) the education system in this country, it is free, reasonably impartial (ie everyone is offered a minimum standard) and goes on until you're 16 at least.

Surely with the citizenship, pshe, science and all that's in the education system (including those inflamatory acts of collective worship) then people - even the less well off - are educated enough to make informed choices already.

Also being less well off or less well educated doesn't mean that you're daft...I'm sure even poor people are capeable of making decisions about whether or not they can afford another kid.

It could be that the consequences of having children (and I mean ANY children) ar not fully explainned or discussed, so perhaps we are missing the target audience, but not all people are making informed decision.

I know DH was certainly shocked at just how expensive the little blighters are and he's got a university education.

ramblingrosa - think of the child mortality rates in developing countries and the lack of power women have to control their birth rates in these countries (esp if religion is taken into account) I'd have a squillion children if I didn't think I'd see most of them get to grow up just so one or two of them could survive.

We are so rich, even the poorest most destitue of us in the Western World, compared to huge swathes of the developing world.

bb49 you seem to have overlooked my point about the importance of educating people so they are in a position to make informed choices

Riven, sell the other two (pref tall and blond), you'll get so much more for them

"Developing countries with zero state benefits don't seem to have led to families being smaller"

good point. Sounds like he wants to increase the social divide and make the poor even poorer. He is also creating a scapegoat to deflect people's attention away from the cuts and who was ultimately responsible for them.

No the big cats do not take from the state (lets gloss over the billions in bail outs and unpaid corporate tax) they are wealth generators.

No, he probably wants people to take responsibility for them!! I think 'the poor' are easy to loathe as the working folk think that they 'keep' them, whilst big cats that take from the state are 'cheeky/greedy' but not 'scroungers'.

Also, what makes people think that cutting welfare will stop these feckless proles from breeding?

Developing countries with zero state benefits don't seem to have led to families being smaller . Or have I missed something here?

I don't get the logic.

Lots of women try to control their fertility but, actually, no contraceptive is 100% effective. So does Jeremy Hunt want women to terminate any babies above the desirable family size?

related and not related. on newsnight there was much merriment at the idea of 40% tax earning men being alcoholics and or wife beaters. hahaha. we all know it's only the poor who are feckless and irresponsible (braying laughter). was also vile to watch. some people just hate ''the poor''. off to the workhouse with the lot of them.

And I agree with whoever it was earlier who pointed out how dangerous it is to start thinking in terms of "them" (the feckless proles who get up the duff when they can't afford it) and "us" (the good hard working, morally upstanding members of society).

We could be them. Any of us could lose our jobs, have an illness/accident that leaves us disabled and unable to work, become a single parent....things change. Life can be hard. We have a welfare system to protect us all from ending up destitute on the street with our kids when it all goes wrong.

How anyone can not get their heads around that is beyond me.

Being in a society is NOT about being allowed to do exactly what you want, when you want cinnamontoast

It's about co-operation, else I'd spend all day in front of the telly drinking gin...and the children be damned

Being part of a society is an arrangement - society does X and you do Y.

This does largely involve society providing support and back-up (free education, healthcare and welfare if/when you need it plus other soon to be abolished public services) and you are expected to give something back.

Often what you give back is at some time during you life, supposed to be work related and tax paying related.

Just because someone WANTS to have more children than they can afford doesn't mean they have the RIGHT to have more children than they can afford, irrespective of their income or means of support.

They have the RIGHT to make their own decision, based on a lot of things, including the ability to financially support those children - all people have the right to do this currently, and in the future.

However it is short sighted and niaive to think that there is an endless pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to enable people to have as many children as they want to and not suffer for it financially - else each child born would be give £250,000 which I think is the cost of raising one (ATM).

If you want loads of children, the policy of capping benefits won't STOP you from having children, just as if your salary is capped it won't stop you from having more children, it just means an end to what can (for some individuals) be an endless supply of tax payers cash.

Of course when thinking about having children it is the responsible thing to think about whether or not you can afford them, whatever the circumstances of your income.

Also, not sure if anyone's mentioned this already, but the whole idea of people being responsible about having kids assumes that all women have complete control over their fertility and are never pressurised into having unprotected sex or into having larger families than they would want.

There are millions of different reasons why people end up with young children and on benefits - it's just plain stupid headedness to dismiss all of those people as undeserving somehow or as being feckless.

It's all just right wing bullshit of the worst kind.

It actually makes me really, really angry .