Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

aibu in thinking that the couples on the news

363 replies

TheUsefulSuspect · 02/03/2010 22:43

shouldn't have had a first child, let alone a second if they think there 1 Bedroom flat is insufficient.

Why do they think they deserve to be rehoused?

OP posts:
ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 03/03/2010 07:34

Lauriefairycake

Only in this spectacularly narcissistic western society can we even contemplate this - couldn't happen anywhere else.

That's just NOT true. The urge to procreate is so strong that people will always have children they have no means to support - no more so than in the developing world!

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 07:34

" which means I cannot get income support or income based JSA, and therefore I don't qualify for housing benefits"

I think perhaps you need to look into things a little more carefully - perhaps contact CAB - because even people who work (but are on a low wage) are usually entitled to some housing and council tax benefit, you can also apply for CTC even if you're not on IS/JSA

rainfatclouds · 03/03/2010 07:38

"i don't think wanting a child is good enough tbh. .even poor people can take responsibility"

I'm going with wot Custardo says. A baby isn't about what you want it's about the baby too and how you can care for it. Doesn't mean only rich people can procreate.

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 07:42

sorry I disagree - in a non-welfare state, with no govt assistance, education that has to be paid for, medical care that has to be paid for you ARE basically saying don't have children - be cause for someone on a miniscule wage that does't even cover their living costs having a child isn't a realistic financial prospect.........yet many of them DO still choose to have a child because they want one - what you're saying is - well you can't look after it properly so don't have it.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 03/03/2010 07:45

Mongolia you have that wrong. If you are on a low income you may be entitled to some housing benefit. It is not a linked benefit, but based solely on your income. We claim some HB and they add up my wages, DH's income, and tax credits and work out how much we are entitled to that way.

Things are slightly different for council and private tenants though so if you are council/HA the threshold is usually a lot lower.

rainfatclouds · 03/03/2010 07:45

Yes, I am actually, in the UK, I am saying that. It's different elsewhere. I too have experience of Third World countries.

rainfatclouds · 03/03/2010 07:49

Don't forget that in the UK there is an alternative, which has prospects. Often elsewhere, there isn't. It's not a case of waiting until you can eg give a child his or her own bedroom, or buy the car big enough to fit in with the seat belt laws. It's never going to happen.

In the UK you can wait -- get an education, work at something else until you can afford it or are in a position to be able better to afford it.

You aren't comparing like with like, if you've lived and worked in a poor country you should know that.

Tortington · 03/03/2010 07:49

there just aren't the houses, why is it right to assert an entitement of a bigger house becuase ouwant another child? i don't think this is right.

no it's not, get the benefits, get a house that safety net is there quite rightly.

if you wanted another child then expected a bigger house and expected everyone to accomodate your needs, then i think this is wrong.

i think this is wrong becuase we all have an ndividual responsability to assess where we are at in life before bringing another human being into it.

"Is it, possibly, that you like to feel entitled to all the stuff you get, but to criticise those who get something else?"

you like to ask personal questions don't you? This makes it personal, not always a good strategy for debating on mumsnet i have found, especially when my life is pretty much out there to research, the last 9 years of it. You are making assumptions about me and in those assumptions is the implication that if i have more money, my opinion is less valid. which i think is unfair.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 03/03/2010 07:54

You don't need a big house to raise children anyway. In DH's country nobody has their own bedrooms, IL's house has 2 tiny bedrooms and a large salon, there are 7 adults and a baby living there, perfectly normal and they don't expect to be given a bigger house by anyone....

I don't think it's about housing, I think it's about the standards you expect. ILs were poor when their kids were growing up, lived in a one bedroom flat, 5 kids, but MIL made FIL's wages stretch to feed them all and they all slept where they could. Nobody feels they had a deprived childhood.

GibbonInARibbon · 03/03/2010 07:58

Custardo has put my point of view across so well she has saved me mucho typing.

rainfatclouds · 03/03/2010 07:59

In fact TandF you seem to be saying the existence of the welfare state precludes the need for personal responsibility. Everyone can afford to have as many children as they want because other people will pay for them, so it's not being irresponsible to indulge your desire.

That's very depressing though, and I'm starting to wonder if a lot of people think along the same lines. That's the culture of dependancy right there, complete failure to imagine that anything might actually be up to you.

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:03

but you are assuming that every childless person is always going to be able to get a good education and a decent paid job - that just doesn't happen. Even childless people end up in badly paid dead-end jobs.

So you're still saying "you're not bright enough", or "You don't have a good enough job" so you can't have children.

I just don't understand how you can say to one group of people

"yes, you've fallen on hard times/already have children so you can take advantage of the govt assistance that is available"

but to another say

"no you shouldn't have children and use any of this assistance"

Where do you draw the line? Are the unfortunate, educated couple where one of them has become ill and the other is now their full time carer excluded from having children because they will have to rely on state benefits? Or is that ok because the chances are they'll still be good parents and still encourage their child to grow up and find work and not follow the same "lifestyle" (grr I hate that term) as them?

The problem isn't the people - it's the lack of social housing, and reasonably priced (and accessible to those who claim HB) private rentals.

If previous govt's hadn't sold off huge quantities of their housing stock, and allowed the private market to become so ridicuosly out of control in many areas in the last 20yrs this would be nothing like the issue it is now...........it would be like the issue it was 20,30,40,50yrs ago - even before the Welfare state as we now know it existed.

"Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness" - these were the 5 "evils" that Beveridge said they should try and eradicate when he wrote his report nearly 70yrs ago.

These things are not new issues - "want", "ignorance" "idleness" - do these things not all apply to the people being talked about in this thread?

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:08

rain - if that's how you want to read my posts - fine go ahead - it's not what I'm saying at all (especially in relationship to 3rd world countries where no-one else will pay for the child) - but you are "right" and I am "wrong" in so there is little point debating it with you.

rainfatclouds · 03/03/2010 08:09

Excuse me: are you saying that we should pay for people to have children because they can't do anything else? I'll read the rest of your post later, sorry. Got to change beds.

Hullygully · 03/03/2010 08:15

We need to reorganise society so that those who want to have children can do so, contributing in whatever manner they are able, not necessarily financial. Capitalism is not a healthy modus and discriminates against huge swathes of human beings.

Vive la revolution.

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:17

no I am asking if (for example)

an educated (and working) couple have the unfortunate (and unthinkable to many of us) situation of one of them becoming ill and the other having to become their full time carer - should that then mean that they are no longer allowed to have children?

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:18

and hell if I'm currently being "paid" to look after my children I want a wage increase - I'm damned sure it works out below the minimum wage for the number of hours I put in

Tortington · 03/03/2010 08:19

i;m with ya hully,

brave new world.

it's a brave new world
With just a handful of men
We'll start - we'll start all over again - all over again - all over again - all over again.

I've got a plan!

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:21

lol Custard - might disagree with you - but you still make me

MumInBeds · 03/03/2010 08:23

I don't think the issue in this case is as simple as size of property, it is more about wanting to stay in the council house system. There is a distinct difference in housing 'rights' between the council and the private systems and I think that needs to be balanced better.

If council housing came with (say) a 5 yearly review when you could be moved to a smaller property in the same area if it became in excess of your needs and if private landlords had to give longer notice periods then it would go some way to balancing it.

Hullygully · 03/03/2010 08:24

I have lots of single parent friends who work bloody hard, as hard as they are able, in jobs that are undervalued but the only ones they can take because of schools. They didn't necessarily start off as single parents, there were fuckwit husbands, illnesses etc etc life in general, but they ended up thus. Some were desperate for another child, often so that their child had a sibling. It's ludicrous that as a society we can't make this possible.

Tortington · 03/03/2010 08:25

T&F, so now we are onto disabled people?

if anyone dare say that disabled people shouldn't have children i'll eat my own arse!

i think the likleyhood of your scenario happening is so small that it wouldn't be much of a burden on the country or society.

ChoreDodger · 03/03/2010 08:27

That's my situation Hullygully. Nobody stands around disparaging my x though, he with his profession and nice car, house, career prospects. His status in society {quick boak} is unaffected by our split.

ToccataAndFudge · 03/03/2010 08:28

you know I'm sure we could start off by saving millions (if not billions) from the budget by getting rid of totally ridiculous and unnessecary stuff that doesn't actually benefit any of us.

Then with that...........ooo we could buy back/build a load of social housing, so there are the stocks that used to exist - you know in the days when anyone could apply for it and most people stood a chance of getting housed?

Oh yeah, and we can make sure that places that support homeless people/those in crisis aren't closed (like the only homeless centre in our town has since the council withdrew it's funding),

and while we're at it can we create "exclusion" zones for the twats racists, homophobes, generally ignorant people that believe stereotypes portrayed in the media - so that everyone else can live nicely togheter

oh sod it - said I wasn't going to get into any more of these big debates on MN - I'm back off to my "where to go" (in the summer holidays) threads for more advice.

Tortington · 03/03/2010 08:31

agree T&F, the govt wastes millions on crap every year.

however i stil think that there needs to be personal resonsability.