Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

999 replies

avivabeaver · 08/10/2012 11:04

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

OP posts:
Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 18:58

We need hep ladies keeps legs closed

Help feckless fathers pay up

Get people up out of bed and working

And stop the culture of entilement

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:58

fishwife why on earth does it matter who cocked it up??? The point is to fix the bloody thing. And this lot sure aren't.

Glitterknickaz · 08/10/2012 18:58

It's based on individual circs but mine mean that I'll lose £50 a week in the switchover to Universal Credit. I'll also be liable for 14% of my rent as I am considered 'overhoused' under new housing benefit rules (despite medical evidence meaning my housing is necessary) so that's another £34 a week, then there's having to pay full council tax due to cuts at local level so another £27 a week.

The latter two are more on a local basis but others will have similar happening.

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:59

'ladies keep legs closed'

ffs how about 'men keep your pants on and wear a condom'

why is it the main responsibility of the woman?

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 19:02

This is not a debate about sn children this is about women who churn out lots of chikdren with no way of paying

No one minds those who were working when having the chikdren but have fallen on hard times but most mind the type of ladies who insist on having children whilest not working and never had worked

Like i siad i am happy for those who disagree to send money in to the DWP so the familes can carry on adding to their number but i doubut any one will

expatinscotland · 08/10/2012 19:04

'This is not a debate about sn children this is about women who churn out lots of chikdren with no way of paying '

They just magically impregnate themselves. Amazing!

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 19:04

Because there are women out ther like my exs babys mother silly enough to have babies with guys who already have children they dont support

Most on here could name somone we know whose had a baby with a deadbeat in the full knowldge they had other children they never have taken care off or see

Glitterknickaz · 08/10/2012 19:05

It is all the time we get lumped in with other 'scroungers'
We're affected too, or would you rather I shut up as it's unpalatable?

SomethingOnce · 08/10/2012 19:05

flatpack, is it impossible? There seem to be other cultures that don't view children as being the possessions and sole responsibility of their parents. So, while that is not currently our national culture, it's not impossible and is something to which we could choose to aspire.

Viviennemary · 08/10/2012 19:05

That is really difficult for you Glitter. I didn't want to not reply. But the country just simply can't go on paying out the level of benefits. Didn't even labour say the same thing. And I think capping benefits on extortionate rents and not increasing benefits every time somebody has another child is a lot better than taking it from people who have a disability or who have children with a disability or special needs.

Wormshuffler · 08/10/2012 19:06

Something has got to be done though, I don't agree that children who are here now should be cut off, but then again I don't think that will happen. What I do agree with is limiting it for children who arn't born yet. Here is another example......My SinL has a baby, neither she nor the father work and have no intention of, she is now pregnant again, "an accident" . I know that if she didnt have this safety net she would have tried alot harder to not get pregnant. I'm talking the implant plus condoms. We arn't having any more children so have taken permanent action. DH has had the snip.
We have to break this cycle of teenage mums having babies in order to support themselves and then dragging them up to do the same.

flatpackhamster · 08/10/2012 19:06

expatinscotland

No, it isn't. It's about cutting £10bn from the welfare budget as a whole. And it seems to be a very common scenario that a person leaves his/her partner or spouse and their children, then pays nothing towards those childrens' support, leaving the other parent to rely signficantly on the welfare state.

Since this is being targetted, how about targetting people who don't pay to support children they procreate after they leave a relationship as well?

But how could you target them? It's a nice idea, but how could it be done?

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 19:06

If you wont sleep with a dead beat you cant get pregant

Of your the first one then yu cant know how it will work out but i dont feel at all sorry when i meet women who have had a child for somone who has 5,or 6 chikdren whom they never see or pay for

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 19:06

unfortunately Fishwife, your government do not make your fine distinctions.

They don't give a toss what the family's circumstances are... sn child, disabled parent, etc etc. They don't care if it's a benefit-defrauding 23 year old mother working on the side and churning out children year on year, or a man whose wife left him with three kids so he had to give up work, or a family where one parent of 4 children got motor neurone disease and the other had to give up work to care for him/her.

They'll starve out the lot of em. Watch it happen from April, especially in London.

flatpackhamster · 08/10/2012 19:07

SomethingOnce

flatpack, is it impossible? There seem to be other cultures that don't view children as being the possessions and sole responsibility of their parents. So, while that is not currently our national culture, it's not impossible and is something to which we could choose to aspire.

Which cultures?

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 19:07

Vivienne, sigh, they ARE taking it from the disabled and families with disabled children!!

Start reading the papers (not the Daily Mail please for the love of god) :D

Glitterknickaz · 08/10/2012 19:07

Thing is though if they DON'T pay out disability benefits then the costs to put those individuals into residential care are approximately £3 to £6 k a week.

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 19:09

Any way people need to go shopping now good firce debate

Glad to see it didnt go into the usual name calling

Love you all

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 19:09

how does capping benefits on extortionate rents help anything? Why not control said extortionate rents?

Ohhhhh no can't have that can we. It would interfere with the sacred right to profit obscenely from property investment.

So the landlords can all carry on charging silly money and the poor will be driven out of London, Edinburgh etc and can all go and live in the North East where there is very cheap rent. Oh, and no jobs. Funny that.

expatinscotland · 08/10/2012 19:10

'But how could you target them? It's a nice idea, but how could it be done?'

It's an idea that's in practice now in many US states.

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 19:10

cheers fishwife yes you're right, this debate is not nasty and thanks to all for that.

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 19:13

yes Glitter- it's not actually about costcutting, it is headlining in the sacred name of personal responsibility. The new semi-religious creed.

The state will pay more for welfare reform policy in terms of incarceration, children put in care and indeed residential care for those whose families will n no longer be able to look after them.

They dont' care about that. Nor does it seem to matter that they pay double the previous benefit cost to private institutions such as Atos to kick people off benefits only to have 40-70% go back on them again after a costly appeal which must then be repeated months later.

Viviennemary · 08/10/2012 19:14

But this situation shouldn't have been allowed to arise in the first place. People having more children and no intention of getting a job because they would be worse off and have to work and pay travel expenses as well. Benefits should be for the needy who need help. I didn't approve of them shutting down these centres where people with special needs had jobs. I thought that was very wrong. I don't see why they couldn't have kept them going. It wouldn't have cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

SadPanda · 08/10/2012 19:17

SadPanda "Rising levels of autism is a fallacy. Diagnosis levels are on the increase but prevalence studies conducted in the UK since autism was first identifie are consistent. The same number of people have it today as 60 years ago, they're just more likely to be diagnosed now."

Off-topic but what are you basing this on? AFAIK the reasons for the rise in diagnoses is still under debate (prevalence/diagnostic criteria/identification).

The 3 prevalence studies which have been carried out in the UK: Lotter (1966), Wing and Gould (1979) and Ehlers and Gillberg (1993).

Orwellian · 08/10/2012 19:18

I going to demand that my boss increases my salary each month to pay for the baby I'm planning to have. It's my right after all!

Swipe left for the next trending thread