George Osbournes knobbish ideas part 2

[Quasimodo]

Lucy Mangan

just read this, and think everyone who agrees with limiting the number of children you can claim for, should also read it

If knowing that popping out another kid is not going to lead to any more money then it might - just might- make someone think twice.

Assuming the pregnancies were planned. A fair chunk (possibly up to 40%) of pregnancies amongst the better off socio-economic groups are unplanned, that figure gets higher amongst poorer groups.

To me the article is pointing out that preventing increases in benefit isnt actually addressing the root causes of the problems that these women face. Infact, it will make their situations worse.

I dont agree with this government at all. But I dont deny that the pot isnt bottomless. No, people shouldnt get more money for more children.

But taking the money away will cause more problems than it will solve.

If a woman is in desperate circumstances, I hardly think it would help her in any way to have an even larger family to look after and worry about. Sorry I am failing to see the logic here

They are not choosing to have more children. For whatever reason they are unable the effectively utilise contraception. They are not doing it for the money (in the most part). They lead sad desperate lives that you do not want to imagine.

Refusing to help these children will not stop them being born, how could it? It will just mean that they and their families will live in poverty.

how many children is too many?

"If a woman is in desperate circumstances, I hardly think it would help her in any way to have an even larger family to look after and worry about."

Agreed. No one is saying it's a good idea to have more children if you're in desperate circumstances.

What the article is saying is that some women are continuing to have children because of their desperate circumstances, not because they actively want more children.

For example, they may be in an abusive relationship which they feel unable to escape from, where their partner does refused to let her use contraception. Or she may be using contraception but her life is too chaotic for her to remember to take a pill every day.

Taking away money from women in these circumstances will not stop them having children, it will only serve to make their lives harder.

Can you understand that?

it isnt logical vivienne....people as described in article are not thinking logically, for reasons described in article. No nancy you do not understand their position..they cant just develop a sense of responsibility, for reasons given in article...it would be bloody great if that was all the impetus that was needed-but its not, is it

aufanie - I think some people choose not to understand

i doubt any of the pregnancies are planned.

Thats the point nancy

I still think there must be a cap on benefit cash. And the money put to better use. Sorry if that sounds harsh. A woman in an abusive relationship with a violent man, will not be helped by more cash to have more children. That's my opinion.

I think if you have one child and a violent husband you are in a better position than if you have six children. The money could be better used in educating women that they don't need to put up with this and there is an alternative.

throwing money at the problem clearly hasn't worked though.

Ask any social worker, teacher, dr, lawyer whether the feckless underclass has grown or shrunk in the last 20 years and see what they say.

Time to change tack maybe?

Do you think these abusive men will think "oh no, I must stop raping my partner because we cant afford another child?"

Or that he will stick around when theres no money to buy his drink/drugs?

Yes vivienne, but withdrawing money aimed at helping children out of poverty is not where we should start. It's immoral IMO.

Where are the plans for kickstarting the economy? For getting people off welfare by job creation?

Austerity is not working. Borrowing is going up.

Plans like this will not get us out of recession, but they will cause suffering, to families already struggling.

The Tories are bringing them in for ideological reasons. Making children grow up in poverty will not help our society. It will make it a poorer place for all of us.

Yes, Wannabe. yes i do. that's exactly what I think will happen. Well done.

Nancy you are deluded.

Are you really saying that violent, abusive men will stop before raping their partners and think "oh, if she gets pregnant we won't get any benefits, I'd better not do it."?

That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard on mumsnet.

I was being sarcastic.

Then what will happen?

The woman will be left with numerous kids she cant feed or clothe. The state will step in and take them into care. How much will that cost? If its even possible to do, as care services will be at their limit.

The kids will grow up either in poverty with a mother who cannot cope or in the care system. They will grow into damaged adults and the cycle begins again.

Where is that helping society except to save some money in the short term.

The problems need resolved. But cutting benefits will not do that.

the ideology of the situation matters not....what do you think will happen to the children who will continue to be born into the situation? vivienne or nancy? when the benefits are not available to the parents...its all very well saying the money could be put to better use...have you no interest in or concern for the kids that will be born into poverty?

and...do you not think any benefits 'saved' by not paying the families will be negated by the cost of SS intervention etc? or do we as a society was our hands completely? leave them to it and hope they die out eventually?

you cannot erradicate 'feckless people'

there will always be people who cannot thrive, for whatever reason. Some people can work their way out of dire situations, but some people just cannot. It does not make them less human

I dont have any faith, but it surprises me to find tories who claim to be christian..was Jesus not born into poverty?

I think you stop throwing money at a problem when money clearly isn't the solution.

I'm not a Tory and I'm an atheist.

I do however support plans to not endlessly fund the lifestyles of people who will never contribute to society.

Throwing money.

Dont make me laugh. Benefits are barely enough to scrape by on. The term "throwing money" implies these people are living it up.

I do however support plans to not endlessly fund the lifestyles of people who will never contribute to society

ok nancy, so i repeat my question-what do you think will happen to the children who continue to be born into the situation?

Quasimodo, I dont think she much cares.

I suspect the majority will end up like their parents - as they have been doing for years now.