Jeremy Hunt: "Don't expect us to pay for your children"

[LadyBlaBlah]

I know lots of people agree with this in principle (especially going by the Daily Mail comments)

If you can't afford a child, don't have one. Simple.

But it really is not that simple-like all these things that make judgements on those on benefits

Where does this policy end up - eugenics and enforced sterilisation?

Based on what criteria?

Starving children?

And this is all in the context that Nick Clegg was bleating on increasing international aid to lift children out of poverty in his conference last week - "look at me and how good I am to the little starving children in Africa". The hypocrisy staggers me. By the same rules, Africans should stop having children too. That should be policy rather than giving them aid - right?

Desmond Tutu said "My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." I love that quote. It is simply a reflection on us how we chose to treat other human being.

This poor bashing is really really depressing me. It is daily It is worse than I imagined it could be.

But as was pointed out on PM on Radio 4 last night, that the Every Child Matters policy has backfired in that the well-intentioned philosophy of believing that economic wellbeing of children would raise them out of poverty has led to children being viewed by some as, if not cash cows, then definitely as more advantageous than participating in the workforce.

And there has been no positive effect on "moral poverty" - social mobility, educational outcomes etc have worsened.

I wonder if what they really mean is "if you can't afford to put a child into childcare and go out to workthen don't have one".

They want to do something about the feckless fathers for a start. I know tht not all relationships which break up end up with dads being crap but a huge majority of dads do just walk away and not give a toss.

Complimentary Don't be such a racist twat.

These are Porrit's words

'I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.'

and that is what lies behind the government's messages and the bashing of benefit scroungers with large families. In the end, little by little, the message will work, because people don't understand what is behind the message.

complimentary - so much shit in your post, such little time and I actually can't be arsed, but here we go.

Please explain the following.

What will happen if a Benefit Scounger Johnny Foreigner (I'm lumping the Scots and the Welsh in with this as they're not ENGLISH) gets pregnant? Enforced abortion followed by sterilisation?

Gramercy I did not hear the Radio 4 programme last night, have you any links on this? It sounds interesting.

Fine. Don't expect my children to pay for your old age...

All our children will pay for our old age, that is why we need more children.

In Scotland we need Johnny Foreigner to have children as we have a dwindling population.

It's all very well trying to tackle the 'benefits culture' but you need to provide jobs for people to go to.

There are no jobs where I live.

As far as I understand it, from an economic perspective we need more children (to pay for our ageing population) wheras from an ecological perspective we need less. The two are in direct opposition, but I can't see many mainstream politicians putting ecological before economical, so i think we'll always have some support for those having children.

Obviously there might be a few families on benefits who keep having kids to get more money but what happens if a normal hard working family with 4 or 5 kids that they had when they could afford to suddenly hit hard times/lose their job etc? do they suddenly become benefit scroungers as well? will they be judged without people knowing their circumstances?

i think the previous scheme to get unemployed parents back into work prob cost more per week than paying the out of work benefits as they were giving grants for new work clothes and would pay for the childcare every week which iam sure would be a lot more than the average weekly benefits.

personally i wouldnt have any more children as i cant afford them

I agree, Dueling. A man can father way more children than any one woman can produce. And all too often, men walk away and are not being held in any way financially responsible for the children they were part of creating.

Pootles2010, the ecological perspective is a lie.

"I can't see many mainstream politicians putting ecological before economical"

unfortunately, I can, that is why people like Porrit were "the government's leading green adviser". It is a long campaign, but they will do it. Who ever thought we would see people congregated outside pubs, shivering and smoking in the cold? Anything is possible, and they will do it.

the 'divide and conquer' policy is really working out for dave and george. well done you!

Claig. People do understand what's behind the message. It's not exactly cryptic

it's just the message is the ultimate social engineering and hypocrisy to the max

oh, and it doesn't work - check out the eugenics programme in the states. Only finished in the 60s

It would be better for people to have no more than two children, really. The problem of an aging population in the west can easily be solved by more immigration, after all. It's also not very good for women's health to have lots and lots of babies.
But this does tend to be fairly self-regulating - the education and empowerment of women leads to smaller families on the whole and the few who are genuinely keen to have lots of DC tend to be balanced out by those who only have one or those who prefer to remain childfree. So I don't like the idea of government coercion to have fewer children - and all this ranting about 'cutting their benefits' is bullshit because, as others have said, you can budget and plan all you like but you still might lose your job and the whole class of jobs you can do. Or one parent might become ill or have an accident that means not only can s/he no longer work but the other parent can't work either because of the demands of caring for the sick/injured one. WHat are people supposed to do in those circumstances - sell their DC? Abandon them?

I don't blame people like complimentary. She is not alone, millions are taken in by the message that it is about their taxes and benefits for scroungers. That is why the message focuses on that, and there are no messages about the billions of our taxes spent on Trident or any other number of wasteful projects. People don't count, they are scroungers, but other government projects are necessary. if people really understood what Porrit was saying and intending, then they wouldn't go along with the scrounger message.

Shall we just ignore Complimentary? Go back to the Spongers thread, dear.

"It would be better for people to have no more than two children, really. The problem of an aging population in the west can easily be solved by more immigration, after all. It's also not very good for women's health to have lots and lots of babies."

That is exactly the message that the progressives have always wanted people to believe. It goes hand in hand with the message about scroungers that complimentary believes. SGB's message is intended for progressives and the scrounger message is intended for complimentary, but they are two sides of the same coin.

Out of interest, I just did the benefits calculator using 2 and then 10 kids, as a single mum.

I changed the housing cost from the max for 2 kids to the max for 10 kids, and everything else stayed the same.

For 2 kids, I would get £378 per week.

For 10 kids, I would get £1,011 per week.

Interestingly, if I took part-time work, (assuming two kids) that would pay £90 per week for 15 hours, my actual better off position would be only £19 - hence the benefits trap I guess. I would have an effective rate of payment of just over £1 per hour worked.

Prolesworth Of course poor people would have to be helped, you are twisting the question. I don't see why services should be cut in other areas to fund people who are on the dole for years and have larger, and bigger familes. Why cut respite care for disabled children, when Mr. and MRs X need them and theirs looked after? Just encourage the feckless and take away care for the needy? I have worked in these areas for years and I know what happens, when services are cut.
Fanjo If anyones a twat it's you! It is not racist to state the facts, foreigners and in particular 'some' Muslims have more children thus taken up more of the money, NO? If we are on the subject why should hard pressed British people pay for those who have large familes and want a better life in the UK? My cousing lives in the USA and could not get benefits for her or her three children for seven years. It's a good job, as she would no doubt be scrounging from the day she set foot on USA soil! I rest my case.

CAig. I don't misunderstand the message, many support Trident, as they see it as important to defence, what they don't support is getting up every day at 7am to support the neighbors next door.

Sorry Craig.

Complimentary - so what difference does it make that they're muslim?! Some muslims have large families, some British have large families - so what difference does it make? What does your 'cousing' have to do with anything?