to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

[jellysandwich]

In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.

I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

No more out of order than the Lt's rash and quick dismissal of another poster for thinking differently. And what have I 'failed' at exactly?

The point is that there are many different types of people in the country with different view points, telling someone they can't be a decent foster carer because they don't match your view point is absurd.

Unbelievable

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

True and planning enough Primary school places to ensure a good start on the education path way would be a good place to start with this.

Filee,

Having such strong view points against the very children you would be adopting and the type of financial backgrounds they come from is a huge huge problem.

Pp didn't give any viewpoints about children. She said that adults shouldn't be given financial incentive to breed, which might be unpalatable for some to hear but is a perfectly valid point and certainly doesn't prevent someone from being a good and loving foster carer

jellysandwich

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Crisis is now, Yes ?

Reduced birth rates in say 1 years time once the government has supposedly come up with a way to incentivise and therefore achieve lower birth rate. Reduced numbers needing a school place in 6 years time is no help to the current crisis.

Unfortunately we have a previous government to blame for the ostrich like mentality about the knock on effect on schools/hospitals of their slack immigration policies.

She's not 'spouting' anything about families though, she has mentioned that she doesn't think people should be given financial incentive to breed, that is a political standpoint. I can't see how in any way shape or form it affects someone's ability to be a caring parent or Foster carer.

rattlemeheaties, there are people who have kids just to get benefits and choose not to work, an ex neighbour was proud of the fact that i was indirectly working and paying taxes so she could fund yet another kid with another scummy partner who disappeared before the baby arrived. 7 kids by five different fathers? how the hell can you defend that behaviour? she has never worked a day in her life - so she told me - and didn't intend to if she was better off on benefits, makes me spit, feel sorry for the decent families who draw benefits for the right reason and at least try to look after their own kids without relying on every other poor sod to do it for them, full respect to them always.

MrsDeVere She doesn't know the reality of what she's saying. Holding these sorts of views makes me uncomfortable about children placed in her care. Vulnerable children.

Indeed there is a lack of foster carers and adoptive parents, it shouldn't matter whether someone wishes to give a child a decent home because they can't have children, or because they feel compelled to, we should encourage anyone who can give a child a loving home to do so. Not shun them.

mrsfuzzy So a handful of people take advantage (although I have to wonder what has happened in her life to lead her to that mindset) so therefore everyone must be punished.

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Cause then the Gov and LEAs could prevaricate for another 4 years - and these DC could go throughout the school life being catered for in bulge classes as short term mesaure and there could be an unforeseen crisis when they reach secondary?

It could be the OP is worried about/ or hasn't got a place at local schools or any school because the places have been taken by siblings of DC already at those schools who come up higher in admission criteria? Hence the larger families being an issue for OP.

I whd say the families that do that consciously mrsfuzzy are rare.

And what about the scummy bugger who has sodded off leaving her holding the baby. She is at least providing care for them far more cheaply than than the care system could.

No it isn't right but what is the alternative?

Shove the baby back up?
Leave her and te children to starve?
Remove the children if she has no means to support them?

Sadly the cheapest option will always be to give her some benefits to support them in the knowledge that once they are 16-18 she is on her own with no benefits and a poor old age.

You just don't get it filee not everyone with a home to give is suitable to be a foster carer or adoptive parent.

Push people into poverty and then punish them for being poor.

Copied from my previous post www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

This makes very interesting reading. Some posters seem to want to spread the myth that many women have children just for the benefits, popping out babies left right and centre with their hands held out "gimmee gimmee gimmee" whereas in reality less than 8% of ALL benefits claimants (including pensioners) have 3 or more children.

A direct quote from the article: Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children

yes but people are making themselves poor by bad family planning and not taking responsibility.

what happened to working, saving, meeting a decent reliable partner (not a boy) then having a family.

I agree with giving some benefits but someone said earlier in the thread about women who keep having children with unreliable partners and timing it so they can remain on benefits. I know this is probably not the norm.

I don't know that anyone has said anything about 'bad blood' and in any case, I might (for example) foster a child whose mother was a serious drug addict, my hatred of drugs would not mean I made that child 'feel ashamed' or felt they came from 'bad blood'

Some people have a true wish to be maternal and if adoption fulfils that, As well as offering a child a loving home out of the children's home environments that I know well, then that's a good thing, not a bad.

That link does not include tax credits, which are a huge part of this debate.