AIBU to think that people like this are the reason the Tories will win a majority?

[Smileyaxolotl1]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7769875/Couple-seven-young-children-open-GoFundMe-having-benefits-slashed.html

I know people don’t like Daily Mail links but I was reading this and that was my immediate thought. That people working earning average wages are pleased that people like this are not earning more than them just because they are able to produce vast amounts of children.
To those of you against universal credit/the cap, do you really think that people should just be able to have lots of children with no thought of supporting them themselves? Although there may have been some change of circumstances the father had previously been a waiter so not earning enough to support 7 children.
I know this is not the norm and most families have only 2 or 3 children and I also know that it’s complex once children have been born as it’s not heir fault their parents are irresponsible.

I agree with the cap on numbers of children that benefits should pay for, in the main.

I don’t see why one of them can’t work?

I do think people should be able to support the kids they have which means for most average earners not having lots! It's part of the reason we will probably stick with 1 child. Of course people do need safety nets in case they have an unfortunate change in circumstance, but unless you are a high earner with good job stability it isnt very sensible to have 7 kids surely? I don't know the right answer to discourage this but also not leave families in poverty. I will never ever vote Tory if it helps.

I'm doing a lot on ancestry at the moment. Amazing how just a few generations back they were having 8, 10 or even more children. And they suffered. Lots didn't survive. They had no choice.

Now we do. It's hideously irresponsible to have lots of children. Not least for the planet. But if you can't afford it, reckless. We stopped at two for financial reasons and are both high earners.

thegooglemum
Totally agree. The problem is that with benefit caps etc sensible people will have less children but reckless ones won’t do either the cap has to be lifted or the innocent children have to suffer.

You're probably not wrong, but that's because people are too riled up by the few people who take the piss from benefits and conveniently ignore the tax dodging super rich.
These people aren't costing you more than corporations dodging their taxes, but it's easier to point the finger at them.

Seven children by 25/26 ? How did they think they would afford to have 7 children when they’re so young .
Sadly yes the tories will probably won’t because of people like this . Poor children !

Are we talking about Boris Johnson here?

Win

There will always be people who have loads of kids with no plan for how they will support them, whatever government is in and whatever policies are in place. I know thats not what you asked but I just wanted to get that in before the people wanting to blame labour for this arrive!

foxfoxsierra of course there will be. It’s got nothing to do with conservative or labour but as suggested so far by this thread conservatives will probably make it a less desirable lifestyle choice.

Yes I completely agree and no doubt the media will manage to use families like these to get others to point the finger and vote tory

Yeah, drive people into poverty and have them rely on food banks and payday loans in order to attempt to punish the few who cheat the system- that'll learn em.
Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart hippie but I've really lost the taste for trying to sort the deserving from the undeserving in poverty.

A) people don’t have children for benefits and they certainly don’t have 7.

B) the draconian measures harm the child/children who had no say in whether they’re born and the circumstances into which they are.

People have lots of children for lots of complicated reasons and we’d be better off investing in education and social mobility for those born into poverty rather than punishing them further.

I’d never vote Tory. I was housed and clothed thanks to the welfare state, and I’m definitely of the opinion children shouldn’t pay for the ‘sins’ of their parents.

The problem is when you’re just about making ends meet, feeling broody but know deep down you can’t afford another child, and then you see your peers who are living in seemingly similar circumstances hoping to avoid all the hard work and heartache you have to do, you want to deny them this. You want to deny them their easy ticket, why should they have what you cannot afford?

The other day we had a thread on here by a mum wanting to go on benefits so she she didn’t have to pay extortionate childcare, and moaning that she didn’t want to put her baby in childcare. There is obviously a mentality out there that benefits is a lifestyle choice and not a safety net. That bothers a lot of people who don’t want to to work and use childcare either but do so because they have no choice.

Scroungers have a face you can easily blame. We’ve all met one or two in life. It’s not so easy to picture the large multinational companies avoiding their fair share of tax.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the government (any government) brought in measures to tackle these companies and pay them a fair wage.

As for the children, don’t know what the answer is, why should innocents suffer for their parents sins?

They could both work, one full time in the day and the other could do a couple of shifts in the evening or weekend or both. You have to do what you can to get by. It's not fun I know.

Froth like the daily mail is the reason people vote tory.

You can't claim benefits for any child after your second, any more.

I don’t believe a cap on physically the number of children is right, monetary amount received is different.. but I have family who work with agencies helping people claim benefits and the rape clause is disgusting. Fortunately one of their organisations refuses to ask people but will fill it in if someone disclosed the information, could you imagine being asked if you were raped and that’s why you’ve got 3 kids by a stranger.

I also think it should be a hell of a lot easier to get sterilised. Contraception fails, waiting lists at gp’s for it or a referral for an abortion are well over 6 weeks here. So you might be ok with an early medical termination but not be able to get an appointment until you’re 12+weeks, which might be too much to cope with mentally.

I haven’t a clue how it should work with amount vs number of dependants, but I feel for families who have more than 3 either have a relationship break down or redundancy after genuinely being able afford their previous lifestyle.

A few years ago I worked at a hospital that was featured in a Daily Mail story. The story referred to the hospital as being "filthy" because the sad-faced complainant (who was WELL known to the Trust for various reasons) had found one bit of fluff under a bed. The type of fluff that you'd find if a jumper was shedding. The Mail had the obligatory sad-faced photo of the individual and their parent and a picture of the piece of fluff.

The rest of the ward was spotless.

The hospital had many faults. Being "filthy" was not one of them. Up until then I'd never been entirely sure quite how bad the journalism in the Mail was. After that I always made sure I had a VERY large container of salt on hand should I have the misfortune to be in the vicinity of that paper. Their treatment of refugees and their (previously expressed) adoration of the opinions of Katie Hopkins is another example.

Unfortunately most people still seem to believe the stories on its pages and not to go and check the facts for themselves.

As well as giving the Daily Mail away free in very conspicuous airport locations for just about every early morning short-haul flight I've ever taken, the company also owns the Metro, which is dished out free everywhere you look. They have also just bought inews - www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/29/daily-mail-owner-buys-the-i-newspaper - they will now be controlling just under ONE THIRD of the country's newspaper output.

One of the problems for me with the Mail is that it is a tabloid masquerading as an ultra-respectable ex-broadsheet. The type of paper that dear old Hyacinth (would have) loved as she thought it made her middle class.

I also loathe their utter hypocrisy. Their treatment of certain celebrities over the years is a case in point - utterly sycophantic when their stars are on the rise, and then rip them apart when some of their less salubrious activities come to light. I know of some writers who will not write for them on principle despite their being one of the better payers out there. I particularly loved the "How Daily Mail are you" feature on Facebook a little while back.

Anyone who thinks we are not being manipulated by the Mail and the rest might like to go and read Orwell's 1984....

It does have to make you wonder why a non-dom owner who chooses to live in Europe should be quite SO invested in English politics, really. Not to mention owning papers where they are SO keen on the idea of Brexit...

On the subject of people having too many kids, a friend of mine got pregnant with twins a few years ago. She and her husband already had one child. They could have afforded one more very easily; however twins ran on both sides of the family. They kept the twins although it almost destroyed them financially. (Husband worked in a financially low-paying job which contributed in no small measure to the quality of life for elderly folk with SEN in their area.) I always wonder which one of the children they should have got rid of....

I agree, people shouldn't pop out lots of children they can't pay for. And some will be born to parents who can more than afford them.and through no fault of their own ended up in crap situations ........but at the end of the day these children exist and shouldn't be punished for being born. And they are being.

My sister actually stayed at a Travelodge over the weekend,, as she was checking in a woman and four children arrived hauling an assortment of binbags and carrier bags. One of the DC was also disabled. They got talking and not only were they homeless, they'd been homeless for 6 months and this had been their life. This was a decent family, my brother in law asked if they'd eaten and offered money for a burger king or.something but the mum said no. They obviously had some pride if nothing much else. Absolutely heartbreaking to think children are living like this when there are literally streets full of empty homes in that city. (( Liverpool )) no matter how what the basic need of a home should be met. And.in cases where families are struggling to manage rent they need to revert back to the old, much better system where it went directly to the landlord from housing benefit. Landlords should have a duty to find properties.cor families if they decide to just sell up or want to hike up the rent as has happened to people I know.

Does anyone recall the benefits program 26 and counting it was about a family who had 26 kids, lived in a six bedroomed house, with an approximate benefit income of £70,000 a year.
It still makes my blood boil surely this can’t be right on any level.

Pixxie let's face it the vast majority of the UK won't have or want 26 kids. Or 6 kids for that matter.......so to punish children and destroy the futures of the majority who are a normal sized family that have hit the skids is just wrong........I honestly think we're going to hit done sort of crisis when this current generation grows up. Hell, rates of suicide are already through the roof.

This story is what whips people up into a frenzy. This type of family are a tiny proportion of people on benefits, although by reading the Daily Mail you would think they are the majority when most people on benefits are decent people who struggle. I used to work in welfare rights and only once saw a family like this, a single divorced mum with 7 kids who was obviously in dire straits after the benefit cap kicked in.

The story was a bit garbled. It didn't make it clear when the cap applied from, it mentioned dad working and cleaning cars for electric money and being a waiter and then mentioned dad being an alcoholic.

Whatever is going on they need to get one or both of them working, if dad is an alcoholic then it won't be helping the finances and he would probably be unfit for work till he gets it sorted out. Would dad be responsible enough to look after 7 kids, including twin babies, while mum worked. Where would mum find work, presumably having kids at a really young age means few qualifications and no experience.

YANBU, and as the DM are ardent Tory supporters that's exactly why they have published it. Reading it though it seems that their money is lower this month as they had an advance, so it will go back up. They should get jobs, and contraception that works. How many working families could afford 7 children? I absolutely agree that you shouldn't not be able to have a family if you don't have much money, but supporting 7 is always going to be expensive, expecting others to pay is wrong. But it is the children that suffer, rather than the selfish parents.

Also isn't the cap just for children born after April 6, 2017? It doesn't look like they'd be affected by that? If he is an alcoholic and spending money on booze then he should try and get help and spend the money on the children. Articles like that are deplorable (although they have asked for it to promote their gofundme no doubt), as as has been said the vast vast majority of claimants don't take the piss.

No, the cap applies to everyone no matter when children were born, it is around £16000 outside London.

The 2 child limit came in 2017, meaning they would get money for the second twin but not the first. In reality they would already be at the level where they were capped before those babies were born so would not get any money anyway.

The sotry makes less sense the more I think about it. The cap came in 2013 so why would it only affect them now?

The figures also don't make sense. £1666 (maximum benefit)-675 for rent leaves just under £1000 a month.

The whole story is full of holes so probably some truth in there but also a hell of a lot of nonsense.

The advance would be paid back over 10 months, not in a single month.