Great to be seeing your content again now I've signed up. There was just one mistake I spotted in your article. You say that only Boris knows how many children he has - I really don't think that's true.
That piece can be summed up nicely by Mhairi Black's statement that 'Scotland didn't abandon Labour, Labour abandoned Scotland'. Substitute 'the working class' for Scotland and tell me you don't get the rationale behind the Scottish independence movement (not you, AAV, I know you get it!).
Interesting and factual, I see the other side. Single parent mothers are allowed to claim Income support without any checks or requirement to seek employment until the child is 5 years old.
The folklore within the department is that at 4 years and 6 months the mother becomes pregnant again and has another 5 years of life without checks, this goes on to the third and in some case the fourth child.
I unearthed the stats from a local office and asked a colleague in Nottingham to check their stats. Interestingly the stats substantiate this with locally 86% of cases having children 5 years apart and in Nottingham 92% of cases.
Digging deeper, these same mothers are more likely (48% of cases in Nottingham) to have an intervention or have a child removed from the household.
As your storey notes freedom to procreate is a right, but the flip side in some cases is that it is simply a ploy to claim benefits for anything up to 20 years without any checks or intervention from the DWP.
How many, out of the billions of people living in the UK do, or are likely to do, this?
Stigmatising *all* women or mothers, just because of a tiny, not even 1%, portion of mothers, is exactly what the Tory party are doing in the first place.
“Universe 25" Came from the American scientist John Calhoun. One doesn’t have to Agree with him or indeed approve, simply be aware that there may be other factors to consider when trying to draw a conclusion.
Susie, there are not billions of people living in the UK (roughly 63 million) billions is a word for world population.
It is certainly not my intention to stigmatise ‘all’ women, my point was simple there maybe reasons (I don’t say they are good or bad reasons) why a government may consider adopting a stance.
We should all have our minds open to all possibilities.
Yes, I meant "millions" - sometimes my brain gets a bit carried away.
Anyway, you can't trust a Tory government to not stigmatise, either, which they *always* do. Money for them, fuck the rest! If there are freeloaders, anywhere, it's them.
If I were a Conservative or other supporter of this policy (I'm not) it would be easy to counter much of this argument. Firstly, the number of children Rees-Mogg and Johnson have is irrelevant because they are all financially supported by their parents not the state. Secondly, framing it as eugenics is quite bizarre because families can still choose to have as many children as they like. In fact it is a limiting of state support which is designed to appeal to voters who don't rely on state support and therefore feel aggrieved at 3, 4, 5 + children of the same family being subsidised through their taxes.
It is another shameless ploy to encourage voters to punch downwards. It has disastrous consequences for children who are entirely blameless, parents who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control and who need help and support, not vilification and isolation
Considering how much BJ spent of tax-payers money just to refurbish the damned flat in Downing Street, are they *really* still using mummy & daddy's money?
not entirely true; both these chaps have incomes from the State. And in any case. my understanding is that we are short of workers - so if we aren't going to let immigrants work, we will have to produce our own to cater for the future.
I am the oldest of four children, born in '81. My mother & stepfather weren't hugely well off, but enough that they were able to purchase their three-bedroom council house in the late 80s/early 90s. Only my stepfather worked at that time, my mother being the "stay at home" type, doing odd jobs.
Now, no single person, let alone parent, can afford to purchase a property, let alone an ex-council properly.
Great to be seeing your content again now I've signed up. There was just one mistake I spotted in your article. You say that only Boris knows how many children he has - I really don't think that's true.
That piece can be summed up nicely by Mhairi Black's statement that 'Scotland didn't abandon Labour, Labour abandoned Scotland'. Substitute 'the working class' for Scotland and tell me you don't get the rationale behind the Scottish independence movement (not you, AAV, I know you get it!).
let's not regress to re-introducing the poorhouse
Along those lines https://open.substack.com/pub/frederickrsmith/p/population-control-of-the-peoples-964
Interesting and factual, I see the other side. Single parent mothers are allowed to claim Income support without any checks or requirement to seek employment until the child is 5 years old.
The folklore within the department is that at 4 years and 6 months the mother becomes pregnant again and has another 5 years of life without checks, this goes on to the third and in some case the fourth child.
I unearthed the stats from a local office and asked a colleague in Nottingham to check their stats. Interestingly the stats substantiate this with locally 86% of cases having children 5 years apart and in Nottingham 92% of cases.
Digging deeper, these same mothers are more likely (48% of cases in Nottingham) to have an intervention or have a child removed from the household.
As your storey notes freedom to procreate is a right, but the flip side in some cases is that it is simply a ploy to claim benefits for anything up to 20 years without any checks or intervention from the DWP.
How many, out of the billions of people living in the UK do, or are likely to do, this?
Stigmatising *all* women or mothers, just because of a tiny, not even 1%, portion of mothers, is exactly what the Tory party are doing in the first place.
“Universe 25" Came from the American scientist John Calhoun. One doesn’t have to Agree with him or indeed approve, simply be aware that there may be other factors to consider when trying to draw a conclusion.
Susie, there are not billions of people living in the UK (roughly 63 million) billions is a word for world population.
It is certainly not my intention to stigmatise ‘all’ women, my point was simple there maybe reasons (I don’t say they are good or bad reasons) why a government may consider adopting a stance.
We should all have our minds open to all possibilities.
Yes, I meant "millions" - sometimes my brain gets a bit carried away.
Anyway, you can't trust a Tory government to not stigmatise, either, which they *always* do. Money for them, fuck the rest! If there are freeloaders, anywhere, it's them.
Susie, pretty much spot on.
Interesting. The real solution to child poverty is not benefits but strong marriages and parents (especially fathers) in well-paying work.
Many outside the UK were not aware of this!
If I were a Conservative or other supporter of this policy (I'm not) it would be easy to counter much of this argument. Firstly, the number of children Rees-Mogg and Johnson have is irrelevant because they are all financially supported by their parents not the state. Secondly, framing it as eugenics is quite bizarre because families can still choose to have as many children as they like. In fact it is a limiting of state support which is designed to appeal to voters who don't rely on state support and therefore feel aggrieved at 3, 4, 5 + children of the same family being subsidised through their taxes.
It is another shameless ploy to encourage voters to punch downwards. It has disastrous consequences for children who are entirely blameless, parents who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control and who need help and support, not vilification and isolation
Considering how much BJ spent of tax-payers money just to refurbish the damned flat in Downing Street, are they *really* still using mummy & daddy's money?
what about our money spent on his legal defence?
Yes, that, too!!
not entirely true; both these chaps have incomes from the State. And in any case. my understanding is that we are short of workers - so if we aren't going to let immigrants work, we will have to produce our own to cater for the future.
Tory/Labour, openly mirrored cheeks to the same status quo ARSE. Unashamedly weak with no clear vision.
I am the oldest of four children, born in '81. My mother & stepfather weren't hugely well off, but enough that they were able to purchase their three-bedroom council house in the late 80s/early 90s. Only my stepfather worked at that time, my mother being the "stay at home" type, doing odd jobs.
Now, no single person, let alone parent, can afford to purchase a property, let alone an ex-council properly.
Labour under the Starmtrooper has totally abandoned all pretence of decency, let alone love. As for fairness or justice - forget it!