The Politics Thread

The rape clause is to claim more benefits for children that have been caused by rape. She's not saying it's a lifestyle choice. It's the cap on child benefits for people with 2 kids that is the lifestyle choice.

The rape clause is there to prove that you have been raped so that you can then obtain more benefits.

I'm not sure where i stand on this. it's the whole people should not have to prove that you have been raped and go through more trauma vs how many people will take the piss and just say they were raped to claim more money. On balance of things they should probably not make people go filling in forms even though the number of women who have more than 2 kids where the 3rd/4th/etc has been because of a rape is probably a very small minority. Then again you would hope most people would have morals and not put in false claims just to claim more benefits and i suspect there won't be too many scumbags who would do this.

 

Just realised i've sort of answered my question that i would probably have scrapped that rape clause.

I am in agreement with the 2 child policy which sturgeon says should be scrapped.

 

First of all it needs pointing out that when this legislation was passed into law back in March, there was no Parliamentary vote for it. Just like with the snooper's charter (and very nearly the activation of Article 50) it's something else that's been bulldozed into law away from any form of scrutiny from or consultation with the public, or to put it another way it's another attack on parliamentary sovereignty which was apparently so important a year ago, but now nobody seems to bat an eye when parliament is taken out of the parliamentary process.

Her exact response when quizzed on it in Parliament was to ask if people needed to decide if they could afford more children


The longer you think about what she's saying the more callous it gets - and that's before taking into account the fact that her response doesn't actually work, given there are plenty of people in employment who are also receiving benefits - but that doesn't fit the Narrative the Tories keep repeating like sociopathic parrots.

 

Trump talks about what he misses from previous life
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39743332

If he misses it that much then there's a simple solution...... **** off back to it!!

 

That is something that they should have voted on and i agree they shouldn't just be able to bulldoze that in.

Yes there are a lot of employed people as well as unemployed people who receive child benefits.

I don't think the government should be paying benefits for lots of kids though. If people want to have that many kids, then there is nothing stopping them as long as they can afford it. In my opinion, just like a nice big house, or going on holiday every year (obviously this doesn't apply to rich people) but in life, you choose what you want to prioritise with your finances.

 

We're little over a week into this election and it appears that the stress has got to Theresa May, as she's started babbling some incoherent conspiracy theories to anyone who will listen: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-brexit-success-eu-tory-leader-a7706096.html

The words "strong" and "stable" do not apply here.

 

It's almost as if those European countries have formed some kind of Union, isn't it?

 

Boris Johnson called Jeremy Corbyn a mugwump yesterday, just to confirm everyone's image of him, I assume.
Theresa May was asked what one was and this is genuinely her answer:
https://audioboom.com/posts/5862107-mugwump

 

The policy amounts to social engineering - the creepy kind which wouldn't look out of place in China (who would be roundly condemned for it though if they did it).
The issue has been reduced to a discussion about financial responsibility and not living beyond your means. So I'm surprised that the government wasn't sold on the idea of the poor not having children at all - and therefore being denied benefits for any children they may have - because that's the ultimate, logical conclusion of the policy.
But it's not so simple anyway.The whole concept raises many questions. Do you punish financially a woman who mistakenly gets pregnant - potentially putting her and her other children into poverty? Do you push another woman to have an abortion because of the financial problems having the child may cause? When a woman has two children from a previous relationship, is it right to tell her she can't expect any financial provision from the state if she has a child with her new partner/husband (and this isn't just about lifestyle/morals etc, the first partner/husband might have died or abandoned her etc).
The "rich" can (and do) find themselves in this situation. Some well known rich people (Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger) love having loads of children. It's only the poor who are judged for it and penalised.

 

And this is at a time when people want to reduce immigration and not touch benefits for old people.
Who's supposed to pay for all of that stuff in the future, exactly?

 

The elderly are a much greater problem. Their numbers will continue to rise significantly year on year. The reality is that in the next couple of decades state pensions will probably become means tested and/or the pensionable age will rise substantially or younger generations will be expected to make their own provision and not rely on the state.
The number of poor women who have three or more children and might receive more in benefits than the government wants to pay them is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

 

Nobody will introduce anything that negatively affects older voters, as they're guaranteed to go to the polls.
It's political suicide.

 

I would argue that having any rules is amounting to social engineering. By doling out money you could argue that you are encouraging children people to have families (i don't really believe this).

Removing child benefit does not mean poor people can't have children. Before welfare, poor families actually have even more children so i'm not sure removing them means poor people can't have them. I do believe there is a balance though. Everyone has to contribute to society if they can and there are those that will need to be cared for (disabled, jobless, young).

 

They will have to in the future.
They are doing already. Pensionable age keeps rising.

 

If you believe the studies (Child Poverty Action Group etc), people on benefits live below the poverty line already.
If people receive no support for a 3rd child, they are likely to be fall even further into poverty.
Some people will manage; some won't. Some will have a different view of "poverty". The Daily Mail will no doubt say these people could live comfortably under a rolled up newspaper and by spending £5 per week on leftover scraps from the butcher if they had to. Or maybe they could go into the workhouse? Or perhaps put the 3rd child up for adoption.
But to tell a small group in society that it's effectively their choice to go into poverty if they have more children is plainly wrong in a society as rich as ours where wealthier people are at liberty to have as many children as they want. The Victorian attitude to the poor is being revived - and it's not pleasant. It's the principle that's wrong. There are other ways the government can tackle public spending and unemployment etc rather than just come down hard on the poor.

 

I must say that made me chuckle. The daily mail is terrible. I don't understand why so many people read that guff.

I guess we just have differing viewpoints. I think there are many people who make a lifestyle choice and i think many people take the decision (i'm talking about those who are on the average salary) of not having as many children as they are not financially able to support their children to how they would like.

In the way that i'm priced out of a nice big house and i'm priced out of owning a BMW etc i see this sort of stuff as entitlement. You would probably think it was unfair if i asked the government to pay these for me. Likewise i think the same about many children.

In an ideal utopia, people would work if they wanted to and everyone could have what they want. In that world machines would do all the things that we didn't want to do, there would be unlimited materials and unlimited space. Every human being (well maybe not those born rich) has had to work one way or another to support what they could. Maybe i'm just being harsh but i was brought up to only do what i could ever afford.

Whilst i don't necessarily always believe these poverty groups who have a vested interest in overstating poverty numbers, i DO agree that we need to be doing more to help people off benefits. I shudder at this current tory administration and won't be voting for them as they are taking too much action on the poor.

The biggest issue they need to get a control of the ridiculous cost of rent, energy and travel.

 

I think you're only seeing the financial implications of the policy, not the social ones, Bobby.
The policy is intended to be a deterrent to a certain group in society so that they do not have more than two children.
The message is unequivocally that if you have more than two children in whatever circumstances (except rape), there will be a financial penalty.
Poor people cannot/should not have more than three children unless they can make some other financial provision for them outside the benefit system or are prepared to live further below the poverty line. That's disturbing to me. I have a number of problems with the social aspects.
Firstly, it denies them a free choice about having children. We don't live in China. Nor is it 1850.
Secondly, it does not take account of people's personal circumstances.
Thirdly, it puts undue pressure on people to make choices we would all expect to be able to make without interference - including a woman having an abortion.
Fourthly, it is designed to intentionally create greater poverty.
Fifthly, it could result in families/children being split up.
The people affected will be a very small group - many on benefits are single or old or disabled or on the employment scrapheap rather than women of child bearing age in families with two children. How many women do you think really churn out kids just to get a little extra in benefits? So there's no real justification by claiming that significant public funds will be saved. A relatively small amount of money is involved.
It's nasty social engineering; if the government said that the true reason was to reduce the numbers of the poor, then I wouldn't be surprised.

 

That can be applied to anything that is of monetary value. Poor people cannot buy organic products. Poor people cannot have their heating blasting out all the time. Poor people cannot afford cars/nice cars and so on. My point is where do you draw the line.

1. I debate it denies them a free choice. There is nothing stopping them from having more children except a financial implication as you have stated. These families are still prioritised for housing, they still get to go to school, they still get health etc etc.

2. You may need to elaborate on the personal circumstance part

3. I don't think that applies to just the working class - i think that applies to the middle class and i don't think child benefit plays a part in that (obviously i cannot speak for everyone and their may be a small minority)

4. How does that create greater poverty? Child benefit is designed so that anyone can have it rich or poor (that's changed now though right? Only if the income of a sole parent is below a threshold?)

5. Why would families split up? in order to reap the benefits of 2 single parents?

That last part would not surprise me either and i agree that the benefits paid out is probably is probably quite low. For me it's the principle. The biggest expenditure this country has is on the NHS. 100 billion wasn't it on that beast?

 

The benefits system should be a financial safety net based on need. It doesn't provide an income which allows the luxuries you refer to.

It shouldn't discriminate based on how many people are in the family.

There are many reasons why there may be a 3rd child - pregnancies are not always planned, families merge or there are second marriages, cultural reasons etc. These circumstances affect rich and poor - it's just that the poor will now suffer a financial penalty and likely hardship.

It creates greater poverty because a family with three children will have to live off the benefits of a family with two children. In many cases, that is bound to cause hardship. If you believe people on benefits are well off and live the life of Riley, I concede I'm wasting my time with this anyway!

Families would split up because a 3rd child could foreseeably have to go and live with other family members if the family does suffer financial hardship. There will be cases where children are given up for adoption, I'm sure. You can't generalise about people, but it's fair to assume that many of those affected will not be the most capable or resilient, will have other problems to cope with and will find that the extra financial burden will be too much to bear if another child comes along.

Of course there will be people across society who will struggle to cope with these types of problems whether on benefits or not, but this is a group in society who have been targeted and sent a clear message that there s a quota on children unless they are prepared to accept financial hardship. That's a questionable policy.

 

We spend less on our health system than anyone else does. Don't worry, it'll be gone soon.