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?

GingerIvy By “families like this” I mean families who have children knowing full well they cannot support them financially without state handouts. I in no way meant families who had their children when they were in a position to independently support them but whose circumstances have changed due to disabled children/illness/disability/changed family circumstances, etc. I have a disabled child myself so I know how hard it is. It’s not fair on people who are paying into the system and it’s not fair on the children.

As to how you police this, I have no clue.

All the people who are sating you should only have kids if you can pay for them - i presume you don't claim child benefit, free nursery hours or free NHS treatment for you children? And you'll be educating them privately?

This type of argument always comes up, but it is and has been a fairly standard practice throughout the western world for a fair few decades now.

No one has a job for life anymore, unfortunate but universal, disability is counted for (could do more but that's a different conversation), planning the size of your family on your own ability to look after them is pretty much standard I would imagine. Not sure how to put that in a non goady way

There are so many on here with the foolish notion that 'it wont happen to me' but like the lottery 'it could be you' . Abstinence is the only contraception that's 100% and a Termination is a medical procedure, its hardly the same as taking a dress back to the shop because you spent too much on your credit card. You dont walk way from a life and death decision like that unscathed. Dont get me wrong I'm pro-choice, but that choice is not an easy one to make and people should not pressurised into it by government or anyone else for that matter. I mean I love my baby son with all my heart but life would be easier without him. However if I had got rid of him as some on think that I would have had a breakdown or worse and my other children and husband would have suffered as a result, but that's ok it would have saved the tax payer a few bob so who cares eh.

There are so many on here with the foolish notion that 'it wont happen to me' but like the lottery 'it could be you'

Another meme that pops up regular on these types of threads that try to appeal to emotion and ignores the premise of the argument that you think about how many children you can afford before you have them.

It is not a controversial opinion when taken in context, obviously sterilisation is wrong, the op was 6 years ago and before the cap was brought in, but, the majority of government (across the political sphere) backed the proposal.

Trying this appeal to emotion whilst mixing the pot with those who fall on hard times and those who expect the government to pay regardless is what causes a lot of the arguments.

Those who have children even if they can't afford them won't be persuaded by any cuts. It only punishes those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.

Trying this appeal to emotion whilst mixing the pot with those who fall on hard times and those who expect the government to pay regardless is what causes a lot of the arguments

Perhaps a real world moral tribunal to cull the lower sorts? Does scorn count as emotion?

By “families like this” I mean families who have children knowing full well they cannot support them financially without state handouts. I in no way meant families who had their children when they were in a position to independently support them but whose circumstances have changed due to disabled children/illness/disability/changed family circumstances, etc. I have a disabled child myself so I know how hard it is. It’s not fair on people who are paying into the system and it’s not fair on the children.

As to how you police this, I have no clue.

But you have no way of knowing why any particular people are on benefits. I think people in general have a very skewed idea about people and benefits.

Those who have children even if they can't afford them won't be persuaded by any cuts. It only punishes those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.

So we should just do nothing then? Only deal with one problem at a time maybe?

And I'm not an advocate of the Golem effect,but people are wilfully missing the point that the policy that he was asking for was(disregarding the abhorrent circumcision ) passed by all sides of the government, so its not some demonisation of the poor but a realisation that even if your on benefits that limitations apply when you want to have children. Harsh reality sure, trying to muddy the waters as to falling on hard times is just trying to muddy the waters and make it a partisan argument.

I think people in general have a very skewed idea about people and benefits.

They certainly do, but as with anything politics it becomes the extremes on both sides of the arguments with no side willing to give an inch.

The thing to remember is that the benefits/child cap was pushed through with a majority that included many labour MP's, the fact labour didn't propose any reforms of the benefits/child cap in the last GE means there was an issue that needed to be addressed...

Harsh reality sure, trying to muddy the waters as to falling on hard times is just trying to muddy the waters and make it a partisan argumen

Again leaning on the worthy poor card fell out of favour with Hawthorne didn't it? Are you putting yourself forward as God?

We know a lovely couple.

He has a chronic illness and can't work.

The mum works in a low paid job.

They have two lovely clever children who are being brought up beautifully. These kids will no doubt contribute to society.

By the standards of this thread neither child has the right to exist. Their parents couldn't afford them without state help.

I cannot in any way see how society would benefit from the non existence of these lovely kids. Their parents would be utterly miserable without their kids.

I am so disappointed by the simplistic attitude of many mumsnetters.

Such a lack of empathy.

I have had a charmed upbringing and I am in a well paid job as a result of that. I am currently physically fit (touch wood).

My children are my world and the very thought of not having the right to children because life dealt me a rough deal just sounds like the ultimate cruelty.

I am happy to pay into the pot that allows everyone to experience the utter joy of motherhood.

May the odds be ever in your favour....

Absolutely we should do something. Perhaps going back to the old system where state subsidised low wages isn't the answer. This hasn't been proposed biy any of the major parties either if I'm not wrong. Proper wages, more reasonable house prices are the biggest things that would help but need sorting out. Many families with two working parents are only a payslip or two away from poverty. That cannot continue either. So something definitely needs doing but focusing on just cutting benefits has failed to achieve any real positive difference, it's time to try something else.

Again leaning on the worthy poor card fell out of favour with Hawthorne didn't it? Are you putting yourself forward as God?

I see your ignoring the point where JC didn't want to reverse any of the cuts made to benefits or child cap?

Bertiesgal I disagree - having children isn’t a right. It’s a massive responsibility. And the world is massively overpopulated as it is. Why should they expect other people to pay for them to have children? I am effectively having to work longer hours and see my children less and not add to my family because other people like this decide everyone else should pay for them. Sorry, but it’s just not fair.

Its not emotional, its fact, pure and simple. I know I've been there and had to make that hard decision. I also work with children, many who are from deprived backgrounds, you know 'those people'. Yes there are a very small number of parents who have baby after baby. But there are far more families like mine, doing their best with what little they have and trying to do the best for their children.

They have ambitions, hopes and dreams that their children will be able to transcend their backgrounds and have good jobs and successful lives, but of course no one hears about that because it doesn't sell newspapers.
My stepmum had four children she was dyslectic but went back to study as a mature student as a single mum. ALL of her children went to Uni and have good jobs, and she has a good career too. She always says to me not to worry that I haven't got where I want to be yet as it will happen it took time for her too. My own mum had seven children and we are ALL working with two of us University Graduates. But of course that does not fit the stereo typical narrative does it.

Proper wages, more reasonable house prices are the biggest things that would help but need sorting out

The issue with house prices is its cross party now, to address the situation is political suicide. For every tory who is fuck you i got mine, there is a labour who wants cheaper housing as long as it doesn't personally affect their house price, wage stagnation can be tied directly to the last labour government with the introduction of tax credits, everyone wants a solution that doesn't effect them personally but to correct the issue we either lump it onto our children or we take thie hit now, its shown for whatever political party you support we do not want to take a personal hit.

Wellingtoncat, they didn't "decide" that everyone should pay for their children.

They were dealt blow after blow.

I can't imagine how hard life has been for them.

Sure, they could have decided to get sterilised as soon as he found out that he was sick. That would be simple solution to a complex question.

In reality, they are fellow humans. The desire to have a child can be so overwhelming that we seek out IVF/surrogates and adoption.

Are you suggesting that only the very comfortably off should give in to that desire?

Should the rest of us just accept a life of misery because of what is essentially a system rigged to benefit the very few?

I have had a wonderful life. Both of my parents grew up in council houses. Had it not been for the welfare state I wouldn't be contributing to society in the way that I am.

It's not thenm and us, they are us just with a little less luck!

Many of us have been taking direct hits for years, nothing left to lose. There doesn't seem to be any improvement in the pipeline with this government. Hopefully next one will bring a bit of hope.

Should clarify that the mention of council houses is not a negative thing. They provided warmth and security for my parents.

It allowed my grandparents to focus on putting food on the table and my parents to focus on their studies.

Bringing back proper social housing would be a start!

Earlier someone posted about over population and here the elephant in the room comes to the fore. Most of the population in this country is aged 50+ we have a very large elderly population that need and will need caring for but who is going pay for that as not all of them are rich. But if someone was to say the perhaps they should be ethanased to save taxpayers money there would be an outcry but with children whos taxes as adults will pay for our pensions and care it seems perfectly acceptable to deny them existence. Remember the NI we pay for our pensions goes straight to the current pensioner's we pay for their keep as our children will pay for our keep with their NI contributions that's how the system works.

Reenactor, certainly an idea there, should appeal to some here. A limit of 2 children and 1 grandparent per family (including blended families). Anything more is just entitled.

Bertiesgal If they had children knowing they couldn’t support them without state handouts, then yes they absolutely did decide everyone else should pay for them.

I’m not saying just the “very comfortably off” should have children - just those who have enough to put a roof over their head, food on the table and a half-decent quality of life - without help from the state. If you can’t do that, then in my view you shouldn’t have children.

Yes I understand that some people have a much rougher time of it than others. But that does not mean you have a “right” to have children at the cost of others (and more often than not at the cost of the children themselves). There’s so much entitlement these days. They felt entitled to a child. They didn’t then stop at one, they had another - because they felt entitled to another and they expected taxpayers to pay for that. What if they wanted a third? A fourth? Where do you draw the line?

Trust me, I did not have a gilded upbringing. We lived on the breadline and I grew up in a community with families who couldn’t really be much poorer in this country. And it’s grim and worrying and it’s so hard to pull yourself out of that. In my view it’s reckless to bring children into that sort of life.

And part of the reason why people are struggling so much is because this world is so overpopulated already. The reason house prices are so ridiculous is because of demand. The rate of population increase is not sustainable. Just wanting a child does not mean you should have one.

I would love a third child but I won’t have one because it would not be the responsible thing to do for that child or my existing children. I would love to reduce my hours and see my children more and I would love to save more for my disabled child who will probably need to be supported for the rest of his life. But instead, I am supporting families like the one to which you refer. How is that fair?

Wellington, do you use state education? Do you use the NHS?

If you do, then my taxes are paying for your children.

Should we change the criteria for having to children to only those who can afford everything including education and healthcare for themselves?

If we did then I'd be childless!

I assume you're well off enough to afford everything yourself without any reliance on state schools/state healthcare-lucky you!

I'm happy to pay into a common pot to benefit everyone's children..

Happily, the current government shares your attitude so going by your logic, my kids will have no education or healthcare because I'm so irresponsible!

But I pay for my and my family’s use of the NHS and state schools! Many, many, many times over, trust me!

And besides - everyone can use state schools and the NHS - not everyone is entitled to child benefit/child tax credits/social housing - only those below a certain threshold.

I really do think there is a big difference.

You are paying a small amount of money to benefit from a system that would cost significantly more if it were itemised and unique to the individual.

If everybody had your attitude but took it a little further and decided that parents should be able to support their children with no help from the state then I wouldn't be able to educate my children/have access to health care.

I think that a way to distract from real injustice is to encourage bickering between those who have very little and those who have even less.

I'm sorry that life hasn't been easy for you. I'm especially sorry that you have an unwell child. I'm also glad that your child has access to world class healthcare because of the contributions of an entire nation.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree