To wonder how exactly the tories want you to prove you where raped?

[ghostyslovesheep]

In order to get CTC for a third child

I am utterly speechless at this

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/government-third-child-tax-credits-proposal-budget-rape

barley - you and I both know that was not the intent of my words.

I get that people don't think there should be any kind of cut to benefits. Personally, I think if cuts have to happen, they should be decided according to income, not according to number of children. But given this is it, there has to be exceptions. That's only right. The bit about proof was journalist spin.

I hate him..I hate his foul little grimacing face doing his evil little jig in the commons.

How is it spin? To me, it's a logical conclusion. Some proof/declaration that the child is a product of rape will be needed, it's not like there's a way of "just knowing". So how are they going to go about getting a woman to prove that she has been raped? These are logical things to ask after they just throw that into the budget.

You really think the gov will just accept that a child was conceived due to rape on a woman's say so Stitchintime1?

I can't imagine the government will be processing the claims. That's not their job.

I think there has been some mad frothing on MN since the budget. Doesn't anyone think anything is good? The living wage for starters?

I don't think it's a logical conclusion at all. I think it's a look at this, what's the worse case scenario we can imagine. Or spin.

I hate him..I hate his foul little grimacing face doing his evil little jig in the commons

Sorry meglet but you really are going to have to narrow it down.

Which one do you mean: Gideon, Dave, IDS, Grayling, Loughton, Shapps...?

Fat Eric has been a bit quiet lately. Maybe he's in a sweatbox in a clinic.

It's not a living wage, though. It's a new minimum wage that will only be coming in gradually, will be hugely offset by the loss of tax credits, and doesn't even apply if you are under 25.

What a con.

It's not a living wage

The highlighted part of the statement said nothing about justifying anything. It talked about protecting. If they hadn't brought it in, that would have been much more worrying.

I agree with the living wage. What I don't agree with is setting the new min wage below the living wage, re-branding it the 'living wage', even though it's not, and leaving out whole swathes of people, and capping public sector pay at the same time.

Okay. Sorry. An increased minimum wage is a good thing surely.

Let them eat an increased minimum wage?

It's what? Two pounds an hour more than the current minimum wage?

The current living wage is higher than the one Gideon announced. So in five years time, people will be earning slightly less than what they should be earning now, to have a halfway decent standard of living.

I'm not sure there's anything good to be seen in that.

I don't understand the objection to an increased minimum wage. I understand that Tory voting business owners hate it. They'd probably prefer sweatshops. But I always assumed anti benefits cuts voters would be in favour of it.

By 2020 £9 is not going to be worth what it is today.

Stitch, do you think the increase happened today? Do you not understand the timescale, along with the loss of tax credits?

How much should the minimum wage be?

It's what? Two pounds an hour more than the current minimum wage?

Initially 70p, if you are over 25. I don't know if they've specified a timetable for further increases.

What the calculated living wage was BEFORE the loss of tax credits.

Okay. i'll go and google this.