Dave's cuts are going be deep and they will hurt

[FellatioNelson]

I've been hearing this all day on the radio. I can't take the suspense any longer. They are going to affect the lives of 'every one of us'

I feel like a person wincing and clenching my teeth in anticipation of the big fuck-off needle the school nurse is wielding, and I'm next in the queue....

Come on then, what's it going to be?

mamatomany I'm not saying women should be demonised for men's shortcomings - just that we know what they are so it's no good pleading ignorance! A woman cannot be 'made' pregnant without any say in the matter for god's sake! She knows whether BC is being used, frequently she's the only one who does!

If women are left holding the baby then that's usually their choice is it not? (I'm talking about people who were not in stable relationships now).

My point, TCNY, is that there are men who walk away from their fiscal responsibilities.

Why should "the state" take over the role as provider?

Sorry, I don't mean it's their choice to be reject the father in favour of being a single parent, I mean it's their choice to enter into motherhood even though they do not have the ideal set-up to start a family.

And I need to explain myself again here

Yes it is their choice, in as much as they have the ability to control it, the decision to use BC or not, and the decision to have the baby or not.

I didn't mean they are fully entitled to make that choice in the knowledge that they are ill-equipped to provide for the baby without being over-reliant on the state.

All clear now?

Clear as crystal to me FellatioNelson. We are singing from the same hymn sheet.

It is their choice when theya re in full knowledge of the facts

as indeed some are

but a great many don't know their arrsehole DP has another woman, will cancel the wedding and bugger off at the first opportunity, get arrested etc.

And tehrn tehre are those of course where the set up is apprenlty ideal- marrried orr committed, cohabiting etc and it all breaks up and suddenly H turns out to be a waker after all and refuses to pay up.

When woman is in full knowledge of facts absolutely I agree about choice, but not every woman is surely?

Jolly good. Limber those vocal chords up for Monday please. Much singing must be done, if we are to save the world.

Maybe she is not Sancti, which is why I mentioned the crystal ball. Of course very serious things will come to light when it's too late for some people. But that is back to making the man face his responsibilities by paying up, isn't it?

However, far too often babies are the result of a dysfunctional or casual relationship, where she knows they haven't agreed to try for a baby, and she knows he hasn't made any firm commitments to her, (or has just behaved like a knob) and she knows she got lax with BC, and she knows she allowed him to get lax with BC, and she knows she has no way of supporting the baby on her own, and she knows he will try to wriggle out of paying, and doesn't have a regular job anyway. For me there is only sensible thing to do there. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Of course once the message hits home that letting the state taking up all the slack for you is no longer an option, we shouldn't need to be making too many horrid decisions like that, because we will all be being much more careful with our BC, won't we.

Alouiseg - because the alternative is children starving?

Tcny. We already have children starving, we have children being abused, neglected and generally treated like shit.

If the available money could be concentrated where it was needed then we wouldn't have any of these. As it is our resources are spread too thinly propping up people taking the piss rather than people who need genuine help.

Rocky I understand that the idea of VAT on school fees would piss you off, it directly affects you.

None of us are particularly happy that we're going to be worse off through the cuts and tax raises, but we've just got to suck it up, have we not?

Why do you think school fees should be untouchable? If the Education Budget as a whole is going to have to take a massive hit, why should public schools not have to share in the pain?

Don't worry, it won't happen anyway. Dave has no intention of pissing his mates off.

Children won't be lifted out of poverty by throwing cash at parents, a voucher system needs to be implemented so that food, clothing, housing and utilities can be covered without allowing any slack for fags, booze, drugs and flat screen tv's.

Well, there is always the argument that we are paying for our DCs educations twice. No-one is giving us a rebate on the state ed we don't use! However, I agree it's something that should be looked at. Begrudgingly.

(not Rocky but answering anyway!)

Alouiseg you are SO going to get flamed for that. You mentioned the FSTV word.

Alouiseg - re: 17:40 -I can't disagree with you there.

re: 17:43 - well maybe. I'd be willing to see aspects of that tried. I don't know why everyone has such a downer on flat screen tv's though - they are not especially expensive or big. I think a TV is fair enough, especially as it's a one off cost. A Sky subscription less so.

I think the central problem in the system is inertia. There needs to be a way things can be tried, and then quickly reversed if they fail. That requires a simpler system and a streamlined bureaucracy.

Trouble is Alouiseg - that also affects those who have worked all their lives and who suddenly find themselves unemployed. What sort of stigma would that be - walking into a supermarket with welfare vouchers. I work but get additional support due to DS's ASD and ADHD. I would be okay with the idea of housing benefit (not that I am entitled to it) being funded by a voucher scheme but would be highly pissed off if I had to use vouchers for food shopping.

I work in an area of high deprivation and some of the families have dreadful issues. They don't all have flat screen TVs and those who do have usually bought from a catalogue at a highly inflated price which in some cases they never manage to pay back.

What I am trying to say is that in many cases their lives are crap enough without adding the stigma of vouchers to it.

Alouiseg - it's funny- in all my years I have never seen a government, labour included, throw money at poor people. I think the fundamental difference is that they might not automatically think they are scrounging scum because they have a flat screen tv.

There for the grace of god go I (in the most atheist way) because I would hope that you never find yourself relying on the welfare state under a govt that propagates the opinion that you are scum.

Riven - even the smoking ban has saved the country 8 billion per year as heart attacks and other ailments caused by both passive and smoking have been rediuced

so reducing the pollution of cars would also have the same effect

sitting in a car on the road is simmilar effect to smoking with the pollution to the body

Go and see how many cyclists there are on the cycle paths in the nederlands and you can see the effect seperating motor vehicles and cyclists actually does - they don't see it as a waste and it would be interesting to see what there health care bill equals per head to the uk

The truth is Alouiseg the government wants them to smoke and drink and pay the VAT and die earlier but many are too thick to see that. If I was on benefits I'd make a point of being as healthy as possible
Not much that can be done is there.

The argument of paying for education twice doesn't add up though. People without children pay for education too, they can't claim a refund on their taxes either.

Like I say though, I really don't imagine it's even on the agenda, but I certainly think it ought to be a consideration.

Alouise my Q earlier got buried I think

Is the voucher for people on long term IS etc, or all claimants?

Will I be penalised to vouchers becuase of being a carer? What the feck did I do to deserve that?

Alouise - some people cannot work. Yes, some choose not to, but most I suspect have little choice.

What you are missing is that not everyone CAN earn a lot of money. Some people can and do and some earn obscene amounts, and aren't penalised for it because they've 'earned' it apparently - maybe just for being famous, or having a wealthy family.

But people who have worked for a long time then find themselves in the shit, often through no fault of their own, have to go shopping with a voucher and aren't allowed to browse the 2.99 DVDs, in your opinion.

That's just foul.

Alouise my Q earlier got buried I think

Is the voucher for people on long term IS etc, or all claimants?

Will I be penalised to vouchers becuase of being a carer? What the feck did I do to deserve that?