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

Do you realise these people are humans?

Because you talk about them like they arent even life forms.

im not talking about how they will 'end up'. I am talking about them as children, do you care about their childhoods? and whether they spend their childhoods in poverty?

I feel desperately sorry for any child born into hopeless circumstances.

Just because people don't support extreme views does not mean that they are a Conservative. it also doesn't mean that they don't care what happens to children.
The limiting children thing is clearly ridiculous and doesn't deserve any more serious credence than it is getting. But some soppy old cow writing her lefty opinions in a lefty tabloid rag is hardly an intelligent way to try to "educate" the stupid people who don't agree with you.

and qasi, I will say it again IT'SA THE GUARDIAN!!! May as well be the Sun stating their views for the balance offered.

My view is that children are not damaged by lack of money. It is not nice to have to scrimp and watch every penny or to have to rely on charities for food, etc, which is what more and more people will be having to do as the cuts bite.

Children are damaged by living with an abusive/alcoholic/drug addicted parent. No amount of benefits can cushion children from this. I think the Tory moves to get rid of early intervention services will cause more damage and distress to children than limiting benefit payments.

theo it is not a 'point of view' it is a description of how life is for some people

nancy 'desperately sorry'? desperately? are you sure? and you still think the benefits should be cut? leaving them in worse circumstances?

i propose that you dont care about them at all? because they are nothing to do with you?

not opposing that the tax you pay, be used to help support them, is the very least you could do if you felt desperately sorry for them

I think things like breakfast clubs for children in deprived areas are a lot better than doling out more and more money in benefits. I knew a Headmistress years ago who thought the same thing. The money doesn't always get spent on the children.

They want to limit the number of children born to poor parents and they also want to lower the time limit for abortions. Do people in Government communicate with each other?

This policy won't work and and as some have said it will cost the country just as much, if not more, as children will be pushed into the care system.

The Tories naturally want to win the next election outright and this is difficult for a party in power (albeit in coalition) in an economic climate such as this. So, a range of policies are being proposed to uplift their vote enough to push them into a majority. They'll have done plenty of polling and research to see whose buttons this policy will push (in itself or alongside others) enough to vote blue next time round.

For me it's very simple.

The welfare system is not some magic money tree from which we support everyone from without limits. Surely placing some limits on how much support one family can receive is entirely logical?

If a woman is going through such a bad time that "...their lives were just too hard. Too chaotic. Beset by too many problems for even the best-intentioned, hardest-working teams of social workers, health visitors, doctors and psychiatrists to solve." then I really find it hard to believe that the best answer is to just give them more money and say "Oh well..."

The welfare state is supposed to be there to help people in their temporary time of need. It is not there to fund a particular lifestyle choice.

For me, as I've said in another thread the sensible thing to do is draw a line as you enter the welfare system. And that's what you get benefits for. If you have more kids, no problem...you dont get more money though. For me this is fairer and less dangerous since you don't have the government in effect setting an approved number of kids.

That said if it's a choice between the status quo and a benefit limit of say 4 kids then I'd opt for the latter.

vivienne i have read somewhere that under the new Universal Credit system, 300,000 (i think) children will loose their eligibility to free school meals

i agree, that there are probably more effective methods of ensuring the money is spent on what the children need....but the government are not proposing any raft of alternatives in that way are they. They dont want to give them money in a more effective way...they just dont want to give them money.

they dont just give them money and say oh well niceguy

"They want to limit the number of children born to poor parents and they also want to lower the time limit for abortions. Do people in Government communicate with each other?"

Well exactly.

They also want to cut housing benefit for under 25s, at the same time as making people downside once their children leave home.

They say they support small businesses, at the same time as planning to make it much harder to set up a new business once Universal Credit comes in.

They say that they want to make going to work pay, when in fact Universal Credit will mean that many part-time workers will find that they would be better off without a job.

"The welfare state is supposed to be there to help people in their temporary time of need. It is not there to fund a particular lifestyle choice."

Being continually raped and abused by violent partner (as is mentioned in that article) is not a lifestyle choice.

FFS, have you any idea how offensive that is?!

I'm lost partridge. Are you arguing that the entire policy is ridiculous because a handful of women suffer abuse and that as a result the government are dutybound to pay out an unlimited amount of cash to everyone who can have a child in case their partners later turn out to be abusive rapists?

If they were proposing alternatives I would have no issue with capping benefits.

But they arent. There is no alternative for some people.

Its also ludacris to impose benefit cuts "to make work pay" at a time of high unemployment.

niceguy I was talking about your comment.

You alluded to the article (which mentions women getting pregnant as a result of rape and abuse) and then said "The welfare state is supposed to be there to help people in their temporary time of need. It is not there to fund a particular lifestyle choice."

I was pointing out that your choice of the words "lifestyle choice" were offensive in that context.

Do you see that?

As to the government paying out money, I think it is morally wrong to suggest a change in policy which is bound to push thousands of children further into poverty.

Let's look at this from a selfish point of view for a minute. What do you want to spend your taxes on? I firmly believe that if we push thousands of people into poverty and also in some cases homelessness, then it will cost us all more in the long term. Prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure. The social cost of more poor and homeless people in our society will affect all of us and cost us money, in higher health care bills, higher crime rates, less tax creation (as people with fewer opportunities won't generally earn as much in the long-term) for a start. I firmly believe that cutting people's money to the point of poverty will do nothing to solve their problems, it will make things worse for them, and for the rest of us as a result.

Where are the government's plans for job creation? How about getting people off welfare (and into paying taxes) by investing in the future?

An expansive program of building social housing would be an immensely beneficial investment for example. It would be an investment for the government as we would get the cost of building back in rent payments. It would create jobs. It would bring the benefit bill down as the HB bills would be lower for rent-capped social housing rather than high private rents, and anyway the rent would be coming back to government instead of going into the pockets of private landlords. It would help address the poverty trap as people with lower rents would find it easier to come off benefits. It would be a boost to the building industry and to our economy as a result.

Why is this not happening?

Exactly partridge, there aren't any jobs for the 'feckless' to enable them to defeck themselves! There's no back-up plan with this government. Cut benefits to make people go back to or get jobs that currently don't exist.

I think this government would struggle to join the dots on a 1-10 dot to dot for toddlers.

From my point of view (by no means the only reason, because I do care about children suffering) it is a good idea to invest in welfare and education because both of these increase empathy.
The child that grows up hungry and uneducated today is more likely to end up as the young person with a knife at your throat so that they can get money for the next hit.

For their next hit.

Despite surface appearances, they're not stupid, they know what they're up to.

Here are the clues ... they have talked about wanting us to be able to compete with countries like China. They're also encouraging us to sign away our workers rights (e.g. the right to challenge unfair dismissal).

They want to create a workforce so desperate for jobs we will be grateful to take anything. Big business, not society, will benefit as they can make more profit from us. This profit will not be reinvested in the country.

That's what they're up to IMO.

They are however hoping that their supporters "would struggle to join the dots on a 1-10 dot to dot for toddlers" and it would seem that many are falling for the rhetoric hook line and sinker