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?

If you pop out 5 kids in your 2 bedroom Council House, you’ll be given an ‘upgrade’ to atleast a 4 bed
Firstly
Why do you think being on benefits impacts on the efficacy of your birth canal?
How does that work? If you are a Hard Working Decent Woman you spend hours in labour and pain giving birth. If you are a Feckless Lazy Trollop you open your legs and pop out children?
Balls and bollocks to your lazy stereotyping and cliche ridden nonsense.

Secondly, you can have as many kids as you want living in a council flat and you will not get an 'upgrade' round here. You wouldn't get a move unless you went private and the housing benefit is capped below the market rate.

Your post makes you sound unimaginative and unintelligent.
Are you?

@notreallyarsed I worked for a London Council in both Housing and benefits. Over crowding is a priority for re-Housing. Overcrowding by 2 bedrooms is the highest priority below emergancy homeless so I’m not talking rubbish. As you can see from the other poster who replied to me who was given a bigger house for having more children.

I’m not having a pop at any one in social housing/benefits, As I said before I think it’s a necessity and vital service to those who need it. What I don’t agree with is that people can continue having more children than they can afford and will be paid more and given bigger accommodation to cover it. It’s not right, if the average working family can’t afford more than 2 kids, why should a non working family be able to?

Everybody in the UK uses "benefits" provided by taxes. Roads, the army, schools, hospitals, housing benefit, the government, child tax credit, child benefit etc. Some benefits come in the form of cash to individuals, others are resources that we all use and benefit from. That's what taxes are for and why we use them.

If people really want a society that has NO benefit "wasters" or "scroungers" then we're talking about either: some kind of ruling class wealthy enough to support themselves and run the country (quite probably for their own benefit), OR anarchy.

We actually live in a society with a broad range of public benefits that support our society. Yes, there are some people who gain more than others, but I would argue that the wealthiest people who have their land protected (by police/law etc), their voices heard by govt, and are able to pass wealth down through the generations, probably benefit far more than someone in a council house with 10 kids.

There are forms of "benefitting" from society that are less visible than others. That doesn't make them less valuable.

And it doesn't even touch on companies that don't pay tax, or high-ranking executives who avoid tax, or any number of scenarios where wealthier people appear to milk the system every bit as much as the stereotype of "wasters on benefits".

However: the planet is overpopulated, and no-one "should" have 10 kids. Equally, I would hate to see any enforcement of restricting the number of kids a family has.

I disagree with it because it’s propagating the myth that people on benefits are feckless and irresponsible, it doesn’t take into account people who have lost jobs/become disabled or a carer/had to flee DV.

I disagree because it would be far more helpful to put strategies in place to help those who can work to find work (without zero hour contracts and no job security) and to support that.

I disagree because the sums are no longer relevant since the cap came into force and I disagree because he’s taking a small minority and demonising benefits claimants in general.

Putting to one side the usual silly Toryboy rhetoric, and taking the idea at face value, there are various difficulties here.

1. How and by whom would this policy be enforced?
2. Vasectomies don't always work. What do you do then? Compulsory abortions? Take any further children into care?
3. Once you've decided that a certain segment of the population is to be more less compulsorily sterilised, who will be the next segment that you target?

The point about it is this. You are never going to eradicate the professional pisstakers, whatever system you have (and particularly not the present one). It's human nature. Look back through history - you can find what are recognisably the same sorts of people mooching off the monasteries before the Dissolution. Consider the "sturdy beggars", whose activities much exercised the minds of those considering poor relief throughout the Middle Ages. And if you were to get rid of the entire welfare state tomorrow, there would still be people finding ways to get hold of things to which they were not entitled.

The question is whether all this is a price worth paying to have a tolerably-civilised society that makes some attempt, however inadequate, to look after those who are less fortunate for whatever reason. Personally I think it is, and I am firmly of the view that the genuine pisstakers are far fewer in number than the right-wing media would have you believe.

I don't think many people could comfortably support 10 children unless they had an independent source of wealth. You don't need a crystal ball to know that 10 children will be impossible to support if you hit a financial blip - even if you don't, it would be way too expensive for most ordinary working people to consider.

Can someone point out to me where Ben Bradshaw advocated forced sterilisation? He said 'vasectomies are free', which is a fact. I saw nothing about forcing poor people to have them, just that the choice to have 10 kids could not be explained by not being able to afford adequate contraception.

@Timeforanamochango I'm currently a Carer.

I have worked and paid rent, yes, in social housing and private rented. Even had a mortgage.

I intend to work again. It's currently not feasible.

Unless anyone who loses their job shouldn't get help with housing costs?

Notreallyarsed I've read your 3 points of disagreement but am struggling to find any link between the concepts which you disagree with and Bradshaw's statement.

What points of Bradshaw's statement do you actually disagree with?

@Timeforanamochango I never said it wasn’t a priority, I said it was highly unlikely to happen. You work in housing in London and you’re making out that homes are being handed out left right and centre. Good grief.
You have no idea why Bishop has a bigger house or whether it’s fully covered by housing benefit or not. Mostly because it’s none of your business.

My friend worked in Housing for Reading Council and left before a breakdown because the system is not working for those who need it, it’s not working at all.

I cannot believe that you work in London housing and are making out getting whatever property you want is as easy as pie. It just isn’t.

What points of Bradshaw's statement do you actually disagree with?

That people on benefits have lots of kids, that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits, and that vasectomies and sterilisation are the solution.

Vasectomies may be free but you can't just go and get one.
You have to meet strict criteria.
Being on benefits isn't one of them.
So whilst it may be 'fact' is isn't entirely accurate is it?

Notreallyarsed
What points of Bradshaw's statement do you actually disagree with?

That people on benefits have lots of kids
So you disagree with his statements that "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 "It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage... just because they have 10 kids", is that correct? What evidence do you have that these two statements of his are factually incorrect?

that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits
You disagree with this based on what evidence?

that vasectomies and sterilisation are the solution.
He didn't say they are the solution. He made a comment that for those families who cannot afford children, a vasectomy would ensure they don't have any more. Do you disagree that vasectomies would prevent further pregnancies then?

ivymaud you can get sanctioned even if you have DC, yes. Depending on the age of your child(ren) you have to spend a certain amount of hours a week looking for work, which you have to log in your book. Although in theory you could just make it up. I don't think it would affect other benefits, although under the new UC system I wouldn't know.

Luckily I found work before I had to move on to JSA.

that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits
You disagree with this based on what evidence?

The benefit cap, do keep up.

It may surprise you Flower but I don’t derive enjoyment from getting all het up about what my taxes pay for. I don’t have any opinion on benefit claimants other than they don’t deserve the shit they get online and in the media. I also don’t have to prove anything, it’s an opinion ffs.

Why are you so angry???

Timefor I work NOW covering four London boroughs and I am telling you that having five kids in a two bed wouldn't get you a move.
You would be accepted for housing and allowed to bid thus meeting the boroughs legal responsibility.
That doesn't mean you have a chance of a council property and if you worked in social housing in London you would be very well aware of that.

Why do people think they can write any old shit and no-one is going to know better?

Things are changing though ,gone are the days when people can have child after child without working with the tax credit limit and benefits cap etc I worked for 20 odd years as a nurse and then my child was diagnosed with autism and learning disabilities so I'm a carer now dh works full time but we do get a fair bit in benefits as ds1 gets DLA .

I totally agree that stories are sensationalist - I hope that the vast majority of people want to work and do not take advantage of the benefits system - it should be a safety net not a way of life - long term/permanent disabilities excluded of course. Children are a choice - not a right.

Speaking personally I have one daughter and my DH and I would have loved a larger family. I fell pregnant a number of years ago. Unfortunately at this point by DH lost his job. I contacted tax credit (as was) and was told that due to the earnings we have received last year we were not entitled to any tax credit even though the only money we had coming in was my part time wage which did not cover even half of the mortgage. There was no support for us at all apart from the minimal JSA my husband received whilst out of work. At this point a decision was made that in order to do all we could to keep a roof over our heads, my only option was to have a termination as we couldn't guarantee our financial situation in the future and felt that we needed to do all we could to ensure our existing child was secure.

I was amazed at the level of support available when we really needed it and hit a hurdle - despite paying into the system for 20 years.

I am not saying that everyone should have or would have made this decision but we all need to take responsibility for the children we do have - and put their needs first over our desire for a bigger family.

Why do people think they can write any old shit and no-one is going to know better?

Because telling the truth wouldn’t get the same frenzied frothing and self righteous outrage.

Those of you disagreeing that things need to change need to understand that it’s the vulnerable people that you’re acting like you’re trying to protect who are actually the ones suffering because of the people who abuse it.
People who needed help rarely got it and the families who had generations of getting a Council property, not working and having several children usually ended up ok.