General politics discussion thread

[Yoghurt]

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

 

That sounds like an excellent suggestion to me! But I'm guessing people might shit on me for that

 

Yep, there is no moral or ethical issues it is quite a simple concept.

[Chris B]

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

 

You're always good for a bit of a laugh, Happ.

 

Why don't we just impose something similar to what China have, except only on those who earn under a certain amount per year? How does that sound?

 

Suggesting something is disincentivised does not = outlawing.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Chris B

[soretooth]

People in the third world haven't got access to contraception and abortion. Not to mention the welfare state. Having children is a necessity there if you want to be cared for in your old age. In developed countries like Britain, that is not the case.

Yeah because all those people working in hospitals and old folks homes in this country were grown in test tubes.

[matbro1984]

I don't know why Happ Hazzard is getting any grief over that comment. It's a perfectly valid statement.

 

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem. Two of my friends work for the council and by and large, they report that new claimants tend to be single mothers, almost exclusively teens or very early twenties.

 

That's not some regurgitated hyperbole from the Daily Mail, that's just an honest assessment of the status quo from two people in their mid-20s who are in gainful employment - taxpayers with no children - who supervise the free provision of houses (as good as or sometime better than they can afford on their salaries) to girls who are barely out of school, bugger all in the way of meaningful academic qualifications, so whose only tangible achievement in life is to pop out a child solely for the purposes of securing a home for themselves at the taxpayers expense.

 

I don't advocate the Chinese approach to population control, but by all means lets take away the perks to parenthood and lets see how many young mums are willing to bring Junior into the world if they're picking up the tab themselves.

Edited February 23, 2011 by matbro1984

[soretooth]

I don't know why Happ Hazzard is getting any grief over that comment. It's a perfectly valid statement.

 

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem.

So why are these young girls getting pregnant? Is it to deliberately rob us hardworking taxpayers of our money and get free houses, plasma TVs and so on? Or is it because they come from broken homes, workless families, they have no aspirations, no self-respect, they are under-educated and have no real hope for the future other than that free council flat?

 

So how do we stop their kids from turning out the same as their 16yr old mums and their 32yr old grandmothers? By investing in their futures through child benefit, Sure Start, Bookstart, child tax credits, free activities in libraries, investment in schools, health education, and so on. These are the very things the coalition are taking away. They won't make things better, they will just perpetuate the problem.

 

Human beings won't stop having children, no matter what carrots or sticks you try. All we can do is try to make sure those children have a better future

[David]

That's not some regurgitated hyperbole from the Daily Mail, that's just an honest assessment of the status quo from two people in their mid-20s who are in gainful employment - taxpayers with no children - who supervise the free provision of houses (as good as or sometime better than they can afford on their salaries) to girls who are barely out of school, bugger all in the way of meaningful academic qualifications, so whose only tangible achievement in life is to pop out a child solely for the purposes of securing a home for themselves at the taxpayers expense.

 

I don't advocate the Chinese approach to population control, but by all means lets take away the perks to parenthood and lets see how many young mums are willing to bring Junior into the world if they're picking up the tab themselves.

What you said before that statement maybe wasn't regurgitated nonsense from the Daily Mail letters page, but what followed certainly was.

 

Get a grip.

[matbro1984]

I don't know why Happ Hazzard is getting any grief over that comment. It's a perfectly valid statement.

 

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem.

So why are these young girls getting pregnant? Is it to deliberately rob us hardworking taxpayers of our money and get free houses, plasma TVs and so on? Or is it because they come from broken homes, workless families, they have no aspirations, no self-respect, they are under-educated and have no real hope for the future other than that free council flat?

 

So how do we stop their kids from turning out the same as their 16yr old mums and their 32yr old grandmothers? By investing in their futures through child benefit, Sure Start, Bookstart, child tax credits, free activities in libraries, investment in schools, health education, and so on. These are the very things the coalition are taking away. They won't make things better, they will just perpetuate the problem.

 

Human beings won't stop having children, no matter what carrots or sticks you try. All we can do is try to make sure those children have a better future

 

Deliberate or not, robbing is exactly what it is IMO. What you're doing here though is changing the argument. I don't oppose investment in schools and Bookstart and the like. But, we should be able to make sure kids have a better future without giving young girls a reason to have them in the first place. You say yourself that they have no hope for the future other than that free council flat. Do you not agree that this scenario is itself the problem? Take this away (i.e. the benefit to the parent, not the child), you take away the incentive to have kids if you are ill-equipped to care for one.

 

What you said before that statement maybe wasn't regurgitated nonsense from the Daily Mail letters page, but what followed certainly was.

 

Get a grip.

 

Does that mean you disagree with my assessment? Please elaborate on how I've got it wrong. I genuinely don't believe I've overstated it, even if my displeasure at the scenario is apparent.

[JNLister]

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem. Two of my friends work for the council and by and large, they report that new claimants tend to be single mothers, almost exclusively teens or very early twenties. [/quote[

 

Surely single mothers in their late teens/early 20s are inherently going to be most in need of affordable housing because they are least likely to be able to get a job that pays enough for private housing and childcare?

[soretooth]

You say yourself that they have no hope for the future other than that free council flat. Do you not agree that this scenario is itself the problem? Take this away (i.e. the benefit to the parent, not the child), you take away the incentive to have kids if you are ill-equipped to care for one.

But that was my point, I don't think free flats are the reason that young girls get pregnant. Ignorance, low self esteem, poor education, boredom, bad family background, living in a bad area, no prospects - these are why they get pregnant. Once they have that child, our society has a responsibility towards it, which means giving the child a place to live along with its mother if needed, and supporting and educating him or her. If you stop helping people, even people you don't think deserve it, and just abandon them and their kids, what hope is there for the kids to break out of that cycle.

 

If free council flats didn't exist, young girls would still be having children, except those children wouldn't have anywhere to live.

[mikey]

Or alternatively, they'd live with their families, as they did for generations before the welfare state...

[soretooth]

Or alternatively, they'd live with their families, as they did for generations before the welfare state...

Not really, in the past they used to have workhouses, orphanages, Magdalene laundries and all sorts of horrible things that would happen to unmarried mothers and their children. Thankfully our society has moved on since those days.

[Van Dammer]

You and I might be perfectly comfortable, but the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS and the marketisation of all our public services comes at a massive cost to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the single mothers, children, the mentally ill and countless others.

You mean in instances such as this?

 

About 1.6m children in the UK are living in severe poverty, Save the Children says.

 

The charity, which found the highest levels of child poverty in Manchester and Tower Hamlets, in London, said the figure was a "national scandal".

 

And it said more children would be tipped into poverty by public sector job losses and changes to benefits.

 

The government said it was "fully committed to the goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020".

 

Of the UK nations, Save the Children found Wales had the highest proportion of children living in severe poverty (14%), followed by England (13%) then Scotland and Northern Ireland (9% each).

 

It found 29 authorities across the UK had more than one in five children living in severe poverty.

 

Manchester and the London borough of Tower Hamlets had the highest rates of children living in severe poverty at 27%.

 

The London borough of Newham had 25% in severe poverty, Leicester and Westminster (London) had 24%, Nottingham, Liverpool and Birmingham 23% and Blackpool and Hackney (London) 22%.

 

In Wales, the local authority with the highest rate of severe child poverty was Blaenau Gwent at 20%.

 

In Scotland, Glasgow City had the highest rate of child poverty with 18% living in severe poverty.

 

The charity based its regional breakdown of child poverty on statistics from the New Policy Institute.

 

It defines severe poverty as those living in households with incomes of less than 50% of the UK median income (disregarding housing costs).

Sally Copley, Save the Children's head of UK policy, said: "Children up and down the country are going to sleep at night in homes with no heating, without eating a proper meal and without proper school uniforms to put on in the morning.

 

"No child should be born without a chance. It is a national scandal that 1.6 million children are growing up in severe poverty.

 

"If these children are to have a future, we must acknowledge their desperate need and urgently target government help towards them."

 

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "Over the last decade vast sums of money has been poured into the benefits system in an attempt to address poverty, this approach has failed.

 

"Our radical welfare reforms will benefit the poorest in society, helping 350,000 children out of poverty, and targeting support at those who need it most to make work pay and break the benefits trap.

 

"We know that work is the best route out of poverty."

 

 

I always find this definition of 'severe poverty' very trivial. Just like a woman who was interviewed on Sky News said the other day when asked to define what she thought someone living in poverty was and her answer was 'someone that has to eat chicken nuggets and that.'

 

Using this definition, there will ALWAYS be people living in 'severe poverty' when I think I would only put homeless people in that bracket. Isnt it true that the UK also has the strictest definition of 'poverty'? Meaning more people will be classed as being in poverty?

[Chris B]

I'm not in favour of withdrawing benefits for many people, but I could see an argument for single people or childless couples paying less tax, on the basis that they use less. That could work as an incentive not to have children. Admittedly, this is off-the-top-of-my-head thinking, because taxing those with less disposable income makes less sense. Although there could be long term benefits, in terms of savings. Mind you, it's not like there are easy answers.

[Loki]

Yeah, for me poverty is being homeless or starving. On the Beeb the other day they did a report on the same subject as Dave's article above, and interviewed a mother of two who was "living in poverty". She had a much nicer sofa than I do, plenty of nice looking cushions and kids cuddly toys, a widescreen tv, plenty of jewellery on her fingers and was comfortably overweight.

 

I don't somehow think she'd have inspired George Orwell to write Down and Out in Paris and London, put it that way.

[Yoghurt]

I do get the impression the poverty line is a tad high, seems like it's used to browbeat discussion of any issues regarding teenage mums and people who can't look after themselves, let alone kids.

 

I do hope with medical and psychological progression we can someday have a legitimate test for peoples readiness to look after and support children. Nobody wants to address the overpopulation problem so we need to find alternatives.