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.

You are advocating the starvation of children from families who were too short-sighted to stop at two children

And spend your time making utterly pathetic plays on words about posters names

Tells me all I need to know really

agree wholeheartedly ISNT

This whole attitude and the encouragement of this attitude by government is appalling.

if any of you want to join my protest thread, please come and share ideas on how we can make a more visible protest against this

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1057521-so-if-we-really-are-all-in-it-together-let

Some Muslims have larger families and so do some Catholics but you don't mention them, do you complimentary as they're not 'foreign'.

I don't think it's a bad principle. Only have the children you can afford to support. But in reality of course there are so many other factors involved in the end result. It's not simple.

"To think that global population growth isn't a problem is sticking your head in the sand IMO."

Yes

Shirleyknot I'm dreadfully sorry, I have now realised the errors of my ways, in pointing out Muslims have larger families, along with the feckless, please forgive me! ....Now where are my fairtrade biscuits?[I cower in corner at the bollocking I'm getting]

Complimentary - Yes you're right. I think the way the US treats its citizens is shocking. Women generally take just a few weeks maternity leave, healthcare isn't free, and people have much less job certainty than here. I'm very proud our country isn't like that.

Complimentary: that's what people used to say about the Irish. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. I would also like to see your evidence for this.

The wider point is surely that the welfare state exists precisely to protect the products of poor choices and/or unfortunate circumstances. Yes, I get annoyed with men and women who continue to have children when they can't afford them, but cutting benefits is not going to help the children they do produce. Vicious cycles in such familes are bad enough: do you eally think that massively cutting back benefits is going to stop this? It never has and it never will.

are you actually drunk? because that would be awesome.

can you answer my question about babies in ladies tummies and what we're going to do if those ladies are Muslim Benefit Scroungers please?

Heres my pennys worth. I am not interested in the population debate. The main issue here is not that we have an aging population but we have an aging population which have no savings/pension to support themselves. Also increasing retirement age, reducing the gold plated pension plans etc will go a little way to resolve this. My issue is that there has to be some social and economic accountability to having a child sure have another child but your benefits stay the same and you have to work with that
Capping benefits at £25000 or whatever the figure is, is the sensible way to do this as it puts everyone on a level playing field as if you were working your employer is not going to give you any more money just because you have another child why should the goverment. Set the benefit cap at a sustainable level so we dont put people in a situation of poverty and hunger but also recognise that having another child has a financial implication for everyone

Shirleyknot I must point out to you that I am a lot more preetier,sane,intelligent and wittier than you, (sorry, self praise is no praise at all) I can answer the question about babies in ladies tummies, cause I've had two! Have you ever had a man? Have you ever had a baby? Is that why you are asking me about babies in ladies tummies? Why are you calling Muslim ladies 'benefit scroungers' very racist of you I would say! Going back to the first question, find a man who is willing to help you find out where babies come from, then tell me what he said, that would be 'awesome'(an awful American term). Waits....

" if you were working your employer is not going to give you any more money just because you have another child why should the goverment"

because we really are in it all together. Those children are part of our society, they will grow up and help us all in the future. We support them because we need them.

Im not 'all in it together' speak for yourself.

I am working a 12 hour night shift tonight so that I can take my children to school during the week, so i can pay my bills, and make our lives better.

Not so that I can help pay towards people who are choosing to stay at home. Why should I be responsible for everyone elses children, Im just doing the best I can for mine, why cant everyone

Blanche. Irish families in this country do not have large families, most of the Irish have returned to Ireland. The Irish had large families many years ago in Ireland, my father was one of ten! So I do have some knowledge in this respect.

Just to go back to the earlier comments - comparing the approach to UK child poverty, with the approach to reducing poverty in the developing world.

When it comes to overseas aid - it's commonly agreed that just giving out food and money does little to improve the medium and long term prospects for those in poverty. Their best hope to be enabled to look after themselves.

I'm pretty angry that after 3 terms (and shed loads of money) the last government didn't do more to enable those in poverty in the UK, to become autonomous and economically active.

Oh, right, not drunk, just an absolutely staggeringly massive moron.

I'll answer your questions.

(I'm going to ignore the bit about being preetier than me, because...what?)

Q - Have I ever had a man?
A - No. I have never had sexual intercourse or looked at a man even. I am a nun.

Q Have you ever had a baby?
A - Yes, I have had lots of babies, 7 actually and 5 dogs and also I once had a budge called Jim.

Q - Is that why you keep asking me about babies in ladies tummies?
A - Yes, I missed the day we did "where babies come from " at school, and I've waited 25 years for you to come along and explain it to me.

I am a massive racist it is true.

Can you answer my question now that you've been so hugely witty and intellegent now please. I'll ask you again.

Q - What are you proposing will happen to a person on benefits who gets pregnant?

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

Sounds fascist to me.....

What if a family have 4 children, do not need any support from the state to raise them but then the person earning the most money leaves the family.

What then? Surely welfare covers a huge range of circumstances.

mosschops30, how many of these people are really choosing to stay at home? There is a shortage of work, and too many people chasing too few jobs, which is why people have to work ever longer hours for ever less pay. If we nationalised a few industries, stopped shipping our jobs abroad, then there would be more work for everyone. They are creating a divide and conquer society, where they set one part of teh populationup against the other. That way nobody looks at the policy that has created the lack of work in the first place - globalisation and global finance.

We are all responsible for everyone else, that's why we have a National Health Service. When you are old and need care, you will be grateful that these young people will be there to look after you. That's why we in turn have to support them now, so that they can support us in the future.

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

electra, you are exactly right, it is fascist. The green agenda is propagated by the elites - Jonathan Porritt, Lord Melchett, Zac Goldsmith et al.

Many of the elite, as ever, think that ordinary people are "feckless scroungers", just like the nobles thought of the serfs in olden days.

The current green party is a result of the People's Party which was co-founded by an ex-conservative and Teddy Goldsmith.

Look into the origins of the green movement in Great Britain, and you will see that the early British pioneers in the 1930s were admirers of Hitler. Hitler was a green, he was a vegetarian and anti-smoker. He was all for "nature".

Claig I agree we do need children and I am not saying the govt should provide no support but I think there should be a limit.
Is it right that people should produce children indiscrimately and expect the government to support everyone. People have to be aware that having 4+ children is their choice but not their right and that if they go down that route then maybe they will not be as finacially well off as if they had only had 2. Of course I am not suggesting povety and hunger basic human needs should always be met but this is the way of the world there is only so much money to go around and if you want something eg another chld you have to go and earn it.

really you believe that these children of non working benefit culture parents will be out contributing to the economy????

Wake up, they'll be doing what they know, which is to stay home and get money off the state because you can, not their fault, but thats how it goes. We are now going into a 2nd generation of this.

we've only got this situation, because successive governments have destroyed our manufacturing industry in their adherence to globalisation. They let the market decide and threw our jobs to the wind.

The British people aren't scroungers, they never have been. They created the Industrial Revolution taht was the engine of the world. They have been starved of jobs, that's why they are not working. Start creating local jobs in local factories and they will all be back doing what they have always done throughout history, contributuing to our society.

I really CBA to get wound up in yet another thread about it.

BUT I love that Tutu quote.

I didn't think Hunt's statement was unreasonable and I agree with tasmin. Most people take stock of their income when considering how many children to have. If there is a limit to income from the state it's no different to being on a salary.

I'm sure part of the decision is that the more children you opt to have, the bigger the downside if you were suddenly unable to work.... it's a calculated risk.

There are always anomalies - sheer 'bad luck' for one - and I think a good system would take into account exceptional circumstances and emergency cases. Otherwise, a level playing field is a good place to start.