to think David Cameron is a bit daft?

[Ewe]

"I was on a radio phone-in in Kent the other day, and a young man rang up and said that he had got his girlfriend pregnant, and he wanted to move in with her, and together to bring up that child and give it the best start in life, but he had found out that if he moved in with his girlfriend, she would lose her benefits, and be much worse off, so he couldn't do it. What sort of crazy country sends a signal like that to people who want to do the best for their families? That?s the change we've got to bring in this party, that?s the value that we aspire to." From his speech at Spring Forum.

OF COURSE her benefits are cut, he will be (hopefully) bringing a wage into the household, as he should! There is no way anybody (and certainly not the tories) are likely to have a system where he could move in, along with his salary and the woman in this scenario could keep all her full benefits - that would be nuts.

It just doesn't make sense! Or am I missing being entirely unreasonable and missing something really obvious? (quite possible, even likely!)

I knew he was a bit datft when, shortly after being elected leader, he said how much he liked billy bragg adn the Smiths.

My eye, david.

It'd be interesting to know how he means to change that.
It does seem a shame when couples are living apart for financial reasons re the benefits.

I think he means that a system that rewards a couple with a child more money if they live apart than together is flawed. He has a point,imo.

Surely, they aren't actually better off apart though, given that they will be paying, rent x2, council tax x2, electricity x2, gas x2 etc etc.

Unless the man is living at home with parents. There isn't a way that it can't be like this though, even if they were eligible for marriage tax it wouldn't be equivalent value wise and would mean them getting married (potentially) for the tax break at possibly a not great time in relationship i.e. having never lived together, unplanned pregnancy.

Well, if the man on the phone-in in said his partner would be worse off, then I guess he meant that, net/net, the benefits are worth more than the savings they could make moving in together. Depends if you think the man had done the sums right or not. Dunno.

Agree that marrying solely for a tax break is not a good idea, and financially probably negligible, but, on the other hand, given the figures about marriage being better for kids, it would be refreshing to see a bit of carrot rewarding behaviour society seems to approve of.

He annoys me. He is just a PR man. Although in saying that I have no idea who I will vote for in the next election because Brown annoys me too.

Brown can't even light his own farts! His great Clunking Fist just can't handle the Swan Vestas. He will have trashed the office just in case Cameron wins. It will take a toughie to get in ther and clean up all the merde. Cameron will be the lesser of 2 evils and it will be a poisoned chalice he inherits.