If you're an unemployed waster then you should have a vasectomy!!!

[sirlee66]

Ben Bradley, an MP, wrote in a blogpost, 6 years ago, that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.
This is what he said:

''It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!).

People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill!

Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means it’s not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!''

So What to do you think? Do you agree with Ben Bradley or do you think he is being unreasonable?

Not to mention the people IN WORK having to claim benefits In other words benefits for the corporations.

blackheart I think your missing the point that the PP was making which is that they are working hard and doing all the 'right' things, struggling along and see others not trying as hard as they are and having an easier time. When your boiler has broken you haven't had to find £2k to get it fixed. You haven't had to figure out where that money is going to come from. Your council repairs group take care of that for you. It's not cost you a penny more in rent.

When your boiler has broken you haven't had to find £2k to get it fixed

Because people who live in council housing or private rented properties don’t work, do they? All of them. Every last sodding poor person is just scum in your eyes, right?,

@Want2bSupermum but in a rented home the landlord would cover repairs without charging the tenants so the fact it’s council/HA is irrelevant.
I’ve been a council tenant and the standard of housing is appalling, the repairs are few and far between, and the streets are not paved with gold as people seem to think.

I’m now a homeowner and if my boiler breaks it’s covered by home insurance. I don’t grudge anyone claiming benefits, I don’t grudge anyone in council housing. Because it’s not the life of Riley everyone seems to think it is, far from it.

I'm not sure, use your mental gymnastics to beat up the tories while defending Blue Labour.

I am not sure why you choose not to address the root cause of the societal shift started by Thatcher. There is an argument that Blair was a continuation, but he didn't start this mess we are in today.

It was an ideological shift.

Once again most fail to acknowledge looking after children as work. Feminusm gasnt got us anywheee.

100 years ago many people had large families....rich and poor. What has changed?? The pill i guess and jobs for women. Im not sure if that is progress if it means people are slagged off for having large families.

I went for for a job interview this week which was a low skilled school hours position. The director of the company told me that over 50 people applied for the job, all of them were women and most of them with children. People DO want to work, but not everyone has the qualifications/skill sets to do certain jobs.

I worked in care homes for many years. 8-8 or split 8-2 2-8 is standard, I’ve never heard of any doing flexible hours.
Ditto community care work, the times are set.

I applied for a job in the local shop the other day and because I’m restricted to 3 hours in the morning was turned down.

Zero hour contracts are soul destroying, there’s no guarantee of money each week and before anyone suggests saving, it’s all but impossible on MW.

'I worked in care homes for many years. 8-8 or split 8-2 2-8 is standard, I’ve never heard of any doing flexible hours.
Ditto community care work, the times are set.'

I looked into it just now out here but they all wanted flexibility. And were all zero hours.

Exactly notreallyarsed. The landlord still has to cover the cost of a boiler repair etc in a private rent so why is a Council house any different. But council tenants are seen as scum bags.

And I work. Full time in a minimum wage job, live never been able to further my career because I’ve been looking after my son with special needs and the other dc while thier dad gets to to fuck a new woman, start a new family, force me to sell the house I jointly owned with him and buy a brand new house with this woman and further his career

At least a homeowner has money tied up in a house if they choose to sell, it will be owned outright if you choose not too and your kids will have an inheritance.

My kids will have fuck all. I’d ratherhave my own house any day, And a homeowner really should have insurance to cover a boiler breakdown,

@expatinscotland even care homes are zero hours now? God that’s depressing. When DP was on zero hours I stockpiled food like mad just in case. To make any kind of decent wage he was out of the house 70+ hours a week.
I hate that people are sneered at for not working, but no consideration is given to job availability, childcare options/cost and job security.
It’s not like you can just not pay rent or bills on a quiet work week, but many on here conveniently ignore the actual reality of their politics. They’re too busy battering stereotypes that they’ve convinced themselves are all benefit claimants.

Dehumanising people and removing a safety net without creating opportunities is an appalling indictment of society. It makes me ashamed.

'There's no obligation to work at all with a child under one so non working people can simply go ahead and reporoduce knowing they will instantly gain financial support.'

They don't gain additional financial support for over two children under UC and don't know under tax credits if the child is born after 1 April, 2017.

'If one person works full time at NMW there's no requirement to have the other adult working'

Yes, there is. The couple both have to prove they are seeking work.

But none of this fits with your well-known agenda of believing the UK is full of women staying at home on tax credits so don't let that stop you.

And a homeowner really should have insurance to cover a boiler breakdown

Spot on! blackheart and I bet nobody ever looked down their nose at your bastard ex did they? The one who screwed his own kids over and left you to pick up the pieces. You’re a bloody hero, he’s the one who should be justifying himself. Not you.

penalising everyone on benefits is draconian, literally everybody who has any claim at all is paying for the transgressions of the minority

This is perfectly true, but still doesn't explain how we weed out the minority which many insist isn't as small as we might wish. Upthread I mused about more rigorous proof being required or perhaps more frequent interviews, but no doubt others have better ideas ... ?

I agree with Lady, too, about the risk of innocent children being harmed by any potential crackdown, but isn't it also vital to consider all those future children who may be be born into a background of fecklessness and terrible deprivation if reforms aren't made? Some may well suggest that we just go on funding them, but it doesn't seem to me to be the full answer

Nobody pretends this is easy, but ignoring the difficulties and somehow hoping they'll resolve themselves hardly seems sensible either

My main concern is for the vulnerable members of society, I have watched programmes on people on benefits ( don't believe it's a true depiction of the majority on benefits) who get sanctions removing their ability to pay rent, food etc . Would it not solve this by ensuring that rent and utilities were paid directly and food/ clothing was paid in vouchers (a card which could not be used against tobacco or alcohol ) extra money to spend on non essentials could be earned by voluntary work or attending education courses. This would only apply to those fit to work not on disability. Surely this would mean that all would be cared for but not used as a lifestyle choice. Education and work experience would increase employability. What do you think as an idea?

My partner is disabled and can't work, we have a baby on the way. So he's stay at home parent and I'll be working so no this is totally ridiculous x

This is perfectly true, but still doesn't explain how we weed out the minority which many insist isn't as small as we might wish

But you can’t. That’s the point. Either they cut the system so everyone suffers for the actions of a minority (what is currently happening), or we swallow it, punish fraud where it’s found, and write it off to losses.
It’s not right, not at all, but it’s a hell of a lot better than pushing millions into worse poverty because the government can’t get their shit together.

Kinda reads “poor people shouldn’t have kids”

Sounds a bit like a bit like handmaid’s tale to me!

I say don’t judge untill you’ve been in their shoes. There will always be people taking the piss no matter what walk of life you’re from. Each case should be treated individually, you can’t paint every groups of people with the same brush.

'@expatinscotland even care homes are zero hours now? '

All the ones I've been trawling here are, and these includes ones on islands. Hence, tons of vacancies! Community ones all require full UK driving licenses and own car. A good friend was doing community for years but stopped because she started to lose money on it all and not be paid MW after not being paid in between clients/travel time. She just got the 37p/mile and was covering many miles due to the vast area of our council. So she had to quit and work in a cafe, which was also zero hours but at least she didn't have to clock miles on her car so much.

gillybeanz,you can get benefits sitting on your arse all day,
my ex son in law does this, he is 41 has 2 children with partner now, and 3 with my daughter, and 2 to 3 three other kids, and has not had a job for 15 years claiming lots of benefits.

I am not sure why you choose not to address the root cause of the societal shift started by Thatcher. There is an argument that Blair was a continuation, but he didn't start this mess we are in today.

There isn't an argument, it is plain to see in many of today's issues - house prices/low wages/zero hour contracts (although thats not as big of an issue that its made out to be)/ devaluation of degrees/testing long term benefit claimants, the list goes on.

The root cause is neoliberalism, that is true, but throwing back to the non existent good times of the 70's is not the answer, Mcdonnell, Milne are not wanting the best for the working man. People project onto Corbyn what they believe he is, rather than understanding his background and comments, much like your pro-eu, pro corbyn stance.

'Kinda reads “poor people shouldn’t have kids” '

Quite. Or, I couldn't do it so no one else should, either. Never mind all the tax dodging and scrounging dickheads in Parliament or the royal family.

Full UK licence and own car expensive too!

37p per mile is ridiculous, but in rural areas even more so.

Zero hours contracts are evil imo, they’re designed to benefit the companies and employers while keeping a boot firmly on the neck of the workers.

But all Tories will see is “but there’s jobs! Nobody wants them!” Never mind the fact they’re about as easy to manage as harnessing a unicorn.

You see, DS2 has been working but has stopped to concentrate on studies. He'd be happy to do occasional shifts when needed, or holiday cover after the exams, but his company no longer do zero hours contracts. So they can't keep him on the books even though they,d like to.

It's not zero hours contracts that are the problem, it's bad management and misuse of zero hours.

The whole system is royally wrecked, and needs a full overhaul. As a series of governments have all been trying to do, with sod all success.

'37p per mile is ridiculous, but in rural areas even more so. '

And no other payment for travel between clients. Only when with the client. So ends up being less than MW so they don't get people able to do the job and who is going to run up miles on what is probably their banger for 37p/mile? Especially when the price of fuel is higher out here.