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

" if you were working your employer is not going to give you any more money just because you have another child why should the goverment"

because we really are in it all together. Those children are part of our society, they will grow up and help us all in the future. We support them because we need them.

Shirleyknot I must point out to you that I am a lot more preetier,sane,intelligent and wittier than you, (sorry, self praise is no praise at all) I can answer the question about babies in ladies tummies, cause I've had two! Have you ever had a man? Have you ever had a baby? Is that why you are asking me about babies in ladies tummies? Why are you calling Muslim ladies 'benefit scroungers' very racist of you I would say! Going back to the first question, find a man who is willing to help you find out where babies come from, then tell me what he said, that would be 'awesome'(an awful American term). Waits....

Heres my pennys worth. I am not interested in the population debate. The main issue here is not that we have an aging population but we have an aging population which have no savings/pension to support themselves. Also increasing retirement age, reducing the gold plated pension plans etc will go a little way to resolve this. My issue is that there has to be some social and economic accountability to having a child sure have another child but your benefits stay the same and you have to work with that
Capping benefits at £25000 or whatever the figure is, is the sensible way to do this as it puts everyone on a level playing field as if you were working your employer is not going to give you any more money just because you have another child why should the goverment. Set the benefit cap at a sustainable level so we dont put people in a situation of poverty and hunger but also recognise that having another child has a financial implication for everyone

are you actually drunk? because that would be awesome.

can you answer my question about babies in ladies tummies and what we're going to do if those ladies are Muslim Benefit Scroungers please?

Complimentary: that's what people used to say about the Irish. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. I would also like to see your evidence for this.

The wider point is surely that the welfare state exists precisely to protect the products of poor choices and/or unfortunate circumstances. Yes, I get annoyed with men and women who continue to have children when they can't afford them, but cutting benefits is not going to help the children they do produce. Vicious cycles in such familes are bad enough: do you eally think that massively cutting back benefits is going to stop this? It never has and it never will.

Complimentary - Yes you're right. I think the way the US treats its citizens is shocking. Women generally take just a few weeks maternity leave, healthcare isn't free, and people have much less job certainty than here. I'm very proud our country isn't like that.

Shirleyknot I'm dreadfully sorry, I have now realised the errors of my ways, in pointing out Muslims have larger families, along with the feckless, please forgive me! ....Now where are my fairtrade biscuits?[I cower in corner at the bollocking I'm getting]

"To think that global population growth isn't a problem is sticking your head in the sand IMO."

Yes

I don't think it's a bad principle. Only have the children you can afford to support. But in reality of course there are so many other factors involved in the end result. It's not simple.

Some Muslims have larger families and so do some Catholics but you don't mention them, do you complimentary as they're not 'foreign'.

agree wholeheartedly ISNT

This whole attitude and the encouragement of this attitude by government is appalling.

if any of you want to join my protest thread, please come and share ideas on how we can make a more visible protest against this

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1057521-so-if-we-really-are-all-in-it-together-let

You are advocating the starvation of children from families who were too short-sighted to stop at two children

And spend your time making utterly pathetic plays on words about posters names

Tells me all I need to know really

cor complimentary! or should I say Oscar Wilde! haha!

Can you have a little look upthread for me please and answer my question about what will actually happen when ladies have babies and they are on benefits.

thanks in advance!

xxxxx

shirly Don't tie yourself up in knots, you will get hight blood pressure!

Well, I suppose the riposte is "well, don't expect the children to pay your pension then"

It does seem rather Victorian and punitive. Where is the humanity? Where's the thinking - it seems very Puritanical and shortsighted as well. But mostly it seems stupid.

Let's look at the facts:

We live in a declining and aging populations in Europe - who will foot the increasing pension bill?
The problem is not the amount of children these unemployed people have, it's encouraging parents to work, and providing childcare for a reasonable price, with tax breaks, so that working isn't just a fantasy.

I agree about the carbon footprint - humans aren't the problem, it's wanton waste of limited resources are the problem.

I don't see how a family of 5 with no car who use public transport have a greater carbon footprint than a family of two with a his n hers SUV and two hungry labradors are. In fact research shows that the family pet can have a much a carbon footprint as a SUV.

The carbon neutral pet is a rabbit - but only if you eat it. (Chickens are net positive, in case you're wondering how Henny Penny holds up in the research.)

Larger families also help add social glue to an increasingly urabnised and alienating life.

Research shoes that boys who have sisters are more likely to have better mental health and to be less at risk of criminal behaviour. Larger families are more supportive and cheaper in the long run to the state.

Family size isn't the problem for poorer people who are on benefits, the lack of rational thought and imagination by this recent government is the biggest problem Britain has to face.

This government doesn't seem to have two brain cells to rub together - it is a pity they kept the women out of cabinet posts..

I would hate to live in the Uk now.

"It is not racist to state the facts, foreigners and in particular 'some' Muslims have more children thus taken up more of the money, NO? "

NO

Most communities of very relgious people have larger families. In this area the two main religions are christianity and judaism, and the people who adhere to the stricter interpretations of both of these religions have very large families.

I would agree that your comment is racist/xenophobic/anti-muslim - whatvever - deeply unpleasant.

I don't believe half of the things the Catholic Church says, I'm not even a Catholic. I think the progressives are dangerous, far more dangerous than the Catholics. I think the progressives are just puppets of the elites (people such as Eton educated Porrit and Zac Goldsmith and other puppet masters). We even have progressives like Alan Milburn, Frank Field and Lord Hutton working with the coalition. The only reason I support Catholics is that they are the only opposition to the progressives' plans which will lead to the population control policies advocated by Porrit and the elites. The Church believes that humans are sacred, the progressives believe they cause a "carbon footprint" and are a problem for the "planet". The progressives will eventually advocate euthanasia for the old, and the Church is against it.

The Church is for humanity, I don't think the progressives are.

Poodles. Oh sorry Pootles, (sorry you may pick up on typing error) The example I use with my cousin is clear. Other countries are far, far less 'giving' in terms of benefits to whose who wish to start a new life in another country, such as the USA. This country is extremely generous to all kin and sundry, at the expense of those who work. The example of Muslims illustrates that some foreigners have larger families than others. It is as simple as that.No?

I had a bit of a cry after watching newsnight last night.

The smug smirking tories saying "children are a choice! if you can't afford to look after them don't have them! why should decent law-abiding blah give any money!!!".

Put aside whether we need a larger population or not.

What about the fact that many people on benefits already have large families. They can't change that "choice" retrospectively.

So what the tories are going to do is punish the "undeserving" poor by not giving them enough money to feed, clothe, house their children. It is going to rip these families out of their localities, support networks and extended families, tear their children out of school and dump them in another part of the country, where there are no opportunities, and leave them and their children to rot.

Wha choices are there? They can hand excess children over to social services, or let them starve. We are going to see people dying on the streets.

Oh hold on -that's where big society steps in. So all of the people who have compassion and empathy, all of the people who wouldn't step over a starving child, are supposed to step in for free and sort it all out. Take the place of the state. But what if they don't? What if they can't?

How are people going to feel when the first busloads of "undeserving" poor start to leave the cities? When the first families are living on the streets? When the first children start dying? seeves them right I guess. Basic tory policy from the tory policy handbook.

This situaiton is appalling. What of the extended families left behind? What of the grandparents who were getting help from their children, who are now going to be shipped away? What of the free childcare they were able to provide so that people could work? What about people with mental health problems being removed from their support networks in this fashion?

And this is just the start.

I think theyre being taken by all the people who want to work and dont care what they do.

Move, re-train, do something youve never done before.

I re-trained so I wasnt stuck in some dead end job, plenty of people on my course were single parents trying to make a better life for themselves and their children.

Claig: WHy do you say 'progressive' as though it's a bad thing? Is it just because you are a fan of the Catholic Church, which is the enemy of progress and would rather not allow women full human status?

I think most intelligent people consider each pregnancy very carefully.

Can we afford another child?
Can I give it sufficient time and attention or am I already stretched?
Am I happy with the impact another person would have on the environment?

"folk increasing their families when they are already not in a position to support themselves."

the cost of this is not as great as the media makes out, and these families are doing us all a service, by increasing the birth rate and these children will grow up to achieve things that will help us all. If we stopped shipping our factories overseas, we would have work for everybody. Some of these children may grow up to be scientists and doctors etc. We need more children, not less. The cost of supporting these families is not as great as we are being told, and the benefits of these children are much greater than the cost.

Havent read thread, but the fact is that resposible people do not continue to have 10 kids unless they can afford them.
Me and dh battlked with the idea of no.3.

I am sympathetic towards those who find themselves in a situation unexpected (e.g. lone parents after marital breakdown or death of a spouse) but I think the real problem is non-working couples who just go on and on having kids with the state picking up the tab.

You children wont starve if you get off your arse and get a job! Simples. Thats what everyone else has to do.

Benefits should be there for those who are truly needy, not people who choose it as a lifestyle