Just been on a course about new benefit system

[buggyRunner]

Christ it's a big shake up.

I say this as someone who won't be personally affected- it is harsh.

Basically if you claim any benefits other than child benefit you're probably going to have a loss.

We've already seen, in the Tottenham riots, what a colossal sense of entitlement to other people's earnings does.

You're so right, oh wait. The Tottenham riots were caused by the Met's belief they should be allowed to shoot an unarmed man and have massive disregard for the truth.

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Orwellian, I wouldn't disagree with it depending on how it was done. If childcare was free/more heavily subsidised, people wouldn't need the childcare element of WTC anyway, and if early years education/extra-curricular clubs etc were freely available, some of the CTC wouldn't be needed either.

However, it would be a mistake to, for example, fund only early years education and use it as justification for cutting CTC entirely, because children from 5-15 still need childcare and extra-curricular clubs - in the case of the latter, probably more so since many activities are free for the under 5s anyway.

Dahlen

I think you missed my point. I think the spending should be going into schools, libraries, sure start centres, maternity services, free extra-curricular clubs for children so that membership fees aren't required, free buspasses for children so that they can get to these places without relying on parents. That sort of thing.

And that spending doubled under Labour. Education, NHS, Welfare spending all doubled from 1997 to 2010. And our problem is worse than it was in 1997. We now have something like 3 million institutionally unemployed people. As I wrote before, it's not money that's the problem here - nor is it sure start centres or welfare-to-work-schemes or schools.

Can we please remember that both Natalie Nice and Waynetta Slob required male partners to create their children.

Any incentive to stop the poor reproducing smacks of eugenics needs to focus on male attitudes to creating offspring as well as female access to contraception.

Eugenics is about improving the genetic composition of the population. It's got the same scientific basis as aromatherapy. I don't see limiting child benefit to 2 children to be equivalent to eugenics although I'm certain that some will view it that way.

I don't think 'education' about contraception is the problem either. Everybody knows what a condom is. It's the women who have to stand up here and say 'no'. They're the ones who will have to do all the work and give up their futures for their children.

So in theory, Woman 2 - with the right support, education and opportunities, could produce 20 taxpayers over 6 decades
Woman 1 ? only 6, who may turn out to be largely tax avoiding wbankers (have nicked that from someone up thread!)

The nature/nurture argument has always fascinated me. As far as I am aware, genes will only ever dominate where environmental factors allow them to do so. Phylogenic inertia v. adaptation.

What do we actually know about the extent to which experts (people who have turned their lives around from benefits to tax-paying) have been involved in the proposal formation? What were the key influences in their change for the better? The only people who really know the answer to this are those people themselves and those working with them to achieve this. For anyone else, it is guess work.

Where can I get some kids? I want Sky+, lots of booze and fags, holidays and cars!!

I was about to have a big rant about refusing to support Cartoon Waynetta's multiple children - who gets helped by starving children? - until I saw the posts above about funnelling the money into childcare.

I've said before that I'd welcome good quality, wall-to-wall childcare provision for every family. As people keep pointing out, it would cost a fucking fortune. Far more than current child-related benefits. Stay at home parents cost less.

Germoline

^o in theory, Woman 2 - with the right support, education and opportunities, could produce 20 taxpayers over 6 decades
Woman 1 ? only 6, who may turn out to be largely tax avoiding wbankers (have nicked that from someone up thread!)^

Haha!

Well, the problem with that argument is that unless you're in the top-earning 40% of the country, your contribution to the tax coffers during your lifetime is lower than the amount you'll take out of it.

Since, sadly, Woman 2's poor background and schooling means she can't get a high-paying job, those 20 taxpayers will always be a 'burden' on the state.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did because then I'd be President Of The Universe.

What do we actually know about the extent to which experts (people who have turned their lives around from benefits to tax-paying) have been involved in the proposal formation?

Well, the key advisors were Philip Green and that A4E woman. Both shining examples of socially responsible capitalism.

The WRB was led by Lord Freud, who clearly didn't know anything about our welfare system (I watched the Lords debate) and who broke Parliamentary rules to weasel his cuts back in after they'd been vetoed and everyone had gone home.

Very confidence-inspiring.

It's the women who have to stand up here and say 'no'. They're the ones who will have to do all the work and give up their futures for their children.

Do you have any idea how unbelievably sexist that sounds?

We do not live in a world where it is the female of the species who has control over sex. Porn featuring violence against women is everywhere and 1 in 9 women will be raped. That doesn't even consider the women taken advantage of or coerced into having sex without using a condom. Research is showing that young men particularly are abandoning condoms and that young women are falling for the justifications they use.

It takes two people to make a baby Both are jointly responsible.

As you say, women face the consequences by suffering financially and giving up their freedom. Why should it be all down to women? Perhaps if more feckless fathers were forced into living up to their responsibilities, they'd be a bit more keen to use condoms. If they knew that they'd be hounded for maintenance for the next 18 years without exception perhaps the men could stand up and say 'no' too.

We keep talking about the bottom 20% (or whatever) needing support as though it's a bad thing. Well, as long as we live in a capitalist society that bottom 20% is always going to exist. You cannot have people at the top or in the middle without having people at the bottom. If you don't want people living in such poverty that they require state support, then you need to have a true meritocracy, which is never going to exist.

Only if you can say that every child is born with the same opportunity to achieve happiness, health and self-sufficiency can you then say that those who fail to achieve it have only themselves to blame and can thus be abandoned.

Great posts, Dahlen.

And Nicholas, re Tottenham - well, yes Another one of those pesky facts. Mustn't let them get in the way of a good old rant, though, must we?

Flatpack - And that spending doubled under Labour. Education, NHS, Welfare spending all doubled from 1997 to 2010. And our problem is worse than it was in 1997.

Partly that was to do with wider economic principles. It's not as simple as saying spending doubled. It certainly didn't double per head of the population.
Much of the spending was on bureaucracy rather than at grass roots level, and certainly didn't benefit those most in need of it. Indeed, if you want to be cynical about it, much of it was aimed at the middle class rather than those in poverty, in a bid to convince them that New Labour weren't card-carrying communists.

Secondly, we have an ageing population and this has massively increased welfare spending. It's not actually the feckless single mothers and the unemployed doing that.

Likewise, Labour made a huge mistake in eduction. IMO they are responsible for the start of the postcode lottery trend in education and their idiotic notion to get everyone at university rather than just the brightest from any socio-economic background has actually reduced social mobility IMO and laid the foundations for the latest massive fees hike.

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Right so some of the youth where i live, looted family run stops to protest about the Police?

how does that work? The police shoot someone, so i get some free stuff?

There;s been a lot in the media about the riots, and the government's own investigation concluded that the biggest problem is a significant minority who feel so removed from society that they no longer see the sense in following that society's rules. After all, what's a pair of trainers or a flatscreen TV compared to the MPs duckponds and second homes claimed on expenses?

When you have people who are angry and have nothing to lose except their freedom, it takes very little to set things off. What then happens of course is that a tiny core of criminals capitalise on the situation and then mob mentality takes over.

Dahlen

Do you have any idea how unbelievably sexist that sounds?

It's funny, but I was listening to a World Service programme about India and how a charity there is teaching women about contraception and how to limit their family size. For the women, it was empowering and set them free.

Why is it sexist in the UK but empowering for poor women in India?

We do not live in a world where it is the female of the species who has control over sex. Porn featuring violence against women is everywhere and 1 in 9 women will be raped.

I'm not sure this is the place to get in to a discussion of pornography and its influence on sex.

That doesn't even consider the women taken advantage of or coerced into having sex without using a condom. Research is showing that young men particularly are abandoning condoms and that young women are falling for the justifications they use.

It takes two people to make a baby Both are jointly responsible.

And sometimes the father disappears and the woman is left alone.

As you say, women face the consequences by suffering financially and giving up their freedom. Why should it be all down to women? Perhaps if more feckless fathers were forced into living up to their responsibilities, they'd be a bit more keen to use condoms. If they knew that they'd be hounded for maintenance for the next 18 years without exception perhaps the men could stand up and say 'no' too.

I'm not saying it should be down to women. I'm saying that, right or wrong, it is. I don't think feckless fathers should be able to get away with leaving a pregnant woman and avoiding any responsibility. I'm saying that they do, so women have to stand together and deal with it.

I'm sorry if you think that's sexist.

Partly that was to do with wider economic principles.

If you mean 'socialist ideology', then I agree.

It's not as simple as saying spending doubled. It certainly didn't double per head of the population.

No indeed. Spending on the poorest, when we take in to account extra money for schools in deprived areas, extra money for sink estates, new hospitals and schools built overwhelmingly in Labour areas, and so on, increased far more than double.

Much of the spending was on bureaucracy rather than at grass roots level, and certainly didn't benefit those most in need of it.

This is true, and a dreadful failure on the part of the government. It was also inevitable, thanks to the very particular ideology of the Labour Party, which is top-down "We can fix it".

Indeed, if you want to be cynical about it, much of it was aimed at the middle class rather than those in poverty, in a bid to convince them that New Labour weren't card-carrying communists.

I agree that some of it was aimed at some of the middle class. Rest assured that in this MN's middle-class Tory stronghold, the precise amount of spending was zip. I understand, though, that Holland Park Comprehensive, the '"Socialist Eton" in Islington, has had a £40m upgrade.

Secondly, we have an ageing population and this has massively increased welfare spending. It's not actually the feckless single mothers and the unemployed doing that.

I agree that there has been, and will continue to be, a hefty burden on the taxpayer to pay for care for the elderly.

Likewise, Labour made a huge mistake in eduction. IMO they are responsible for the start of the postcode lottery trend in education and their idiotic notion to get everyone at university rather than just the brightest from any socio-economic background has actually reduced social mobility IMO and laid the foundations for the latest massive fees hike.

I agree with most of this.

NicholasTeakozy

You're so right, oh wait. The Tottenham riots were caused by the Met's belief they should be allowed to shoot an unarmed man and have massive disregard for the truth.

Duggan was armed.

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Hmm.

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense. It makes no sense to pay people to have children they cannot afford. It also makes no sense to let Topshop and Amazon pay no tax on profits they have made from selling to UK customers. No government will address both ends as all governments have a vested interest in being re-elected and getting party funding.

Dahlen so MPs duck ponds were responsible for looting family run shops?

I thought investigators found no forensic evidence that Mark Duggan was armed when shot by police? The bullet in the second policeman was from the first one's firearm.

Tilly the first night of rioting in Tottenham was caused by the shooting of an unarmed man, and the subsequent lying by the police. The lies that they were returning fire, that he had shot an officer etc. Also, it was a reaction to the callous disregard shown by the Met for the family and the surrounding community. I don't condone looting in any shape or form, but I understand completely why they felt the violent action of the police merited such a response.

Nicholas - so i take it the riots happened on your streets?

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense

I know! Why do people (including those in Parliament) find this so hard to understand??

I thought the Tottenham riots (and those elsewhere) were caused by opportunists who wanted free expensive trainers without having to pay for them with the excuse that someone had been shot by the police?

Duggan was armed but the police were unsure at the time. They released no information and did everything they could to cover their arses. The family did not find out for sure that he was dead until the day after his death. They found out from television reports. The Met finally got around to apologising in February, this year.
We are dealing with the disenfranchised here. People who have little hope and few chances. Flatpack and Jupiter, you only care about your own sorry little arses, your taxes are being used by the feckless. Your taxes are also being used by education services, health services etc. But you're not querying the spending on that, just where you perceive there to be idleness and lazyness. Not everybody on benefits is like that, there are some, but the government is picking up on these to punish the majority, and that majority includes disabled adults and children. In your pursuit of removing the feckless from society, you are including the disabled among them by supporting the government picking on the weak. You are bullies in the same way that the government are.
Like most bullies, you appear to be proud of it.

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense

Also agreed!

BTW flatpack, just because someone finds something empowering, doesn't mean it is. Of course giving women access to contraception in India is a great idea. It doesn't 'empower' them to say 'no' to the men in their lives though, nor get their husbands to acknowledge the information those women have been given or 'allow' them to take the contraception. I would say that as much money should have been spent educating the men actually. Indeed, this is being seen in some African countries where it is now recognised that the aid being given to women to improve their sexual health is being undermined (often deliberately) by the men.