|
Post by Count de Stockport on Jul 24, 2024 20:06:47 GMT
Just watched PM Questions from earlier today. Starmer looks very assured. Very impressed. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 2 children benefit cap remaining, taking children out of poverty was the spin, time will tell. Starmer's response was mostly whataboutery and blaming the SNP for tory austerity. I still think it's a bad look for Labour, doubly so because they (reportedly) rejected a similar amendment from one of their own. That little detail makes it seem to me like an engineered opportunity to be seen to get tough on the left, knowing the likes of RLB would vote in favour of the SNP amendment, at the expense of impoverished children
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 20:16:37 GMT
Just watched PM Questions from earlier today. Starmer looks very assured. Very impressed. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 2 children benefit cap remaining, taking children out of poverty was the spin, time will tell. It's controversial. My opinion on this will lose me some old friends and gain me TVOR as a new one I'm afraid. Not that I have a firm view but I've always held the opinion that you should only have children if and when you can afford to do so. Which is not to say that I think it's that simple as I know it isn't. In terms of the programme, they can't do everything and this, for me isn't as big a priority as some other things. In terms of those MPs who have come under sanction. Then sometimes you do have to hold your nose and just do what the boss orders you to do unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 24, 2024 20:19:48 GMT
Just watched PM Questions from earlier today. Starmer looks very assured. Very impressed. Can't say I'm thrilled about the 2 children benefit cap remaining, taking children out of poverty was the spin, time will tell. On the face of it it's awful but I'm waiting to see what other measures they bring in to lift kids out of poverty, I don't care if the parents are feckless, the kids haven’t chosen to be in these families and they deserve all the support we can give them, the breakfast clubs are a good start but we need to see much more.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Jul 24, 2024 20:29:42 GMT
Can't say I'm thrilled about the 2 children benefit cap remaining, taking children out of poverty was the spin, time will tell. It's controversial. My opinion on this will lose me some old friends and gain me TVOR as a new one I'm afraid. Not that I have a firm view but I've always held the opinion that you should only have children if and when you can afford to do so. Which is not to say that I think it's that simple as I know it isn't. In terms of the programme, they can't do everything and this, for me isn't as big a priority as some other things. In terms of those MPs who have come under sanction. Then sometimes you do have to hold your nose and just do what the boss orders you to do unfortunately. I do agree that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them, one of many reasons I don’t intend on ever having any of my own, but this benefit cap punishes kids - and if there is anyone who is blameless in the birth of a child it’s the child themselves. I didn’t ask to be here, and neither did they, they’re here and should be looked after. I think the reason it’s seen as a priority by a lot of people is that it would be a relatively inexpensive and simple change and would markedly improve the lives of a lot of children who are living in poverty. Your opinion won’t lose any friends though, sorry about that 😉
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 24, 2024 20:37:45 GMT
It's controversial. My opinion on this will lose me some old friends and gain me TVOR as a new one I'm afraid. Not that I have a firm view but I've always held the opinion that you should only have children if and when you can afford to do so. Which is not to say that I think it's that simple as I know it isn't. In terms of the programme, they can't do everything and this, for me isn't as big a priority as some other things. In terms of those MPs who have come under sanction. Then sometimes you do have to hold your nose and just do what the boss orders you to do unfortunately. I do agree that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them, one of many reasons I don’t intend on ever having any of my own, but this benefit cap punishes kids - and if there is anyone who is blameless in the birth of a child it’s the child themselves. I didn’t ask to be here, and neither did they, they’re here and should be looked after. I think the reason it’s seen as a priority by a lot of people is that it would be a relatively inexpensive and simple change and would markedly improve the lives of a lot of children who are living in poverty. Your opinion won’t lose any friends though, sorry about that 😉 Exactly, it's like saying to a kid who hasn't had a proper meal in days you shouldn't have been born because your parents can't afford you and no you can't have the heating on.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 20:45:38 GMT
It's controversial. My opinion on this will lose me some old friends and gain me TVOR as a new one I'm afraid. Not that I have a firm view but I've always held the opinion that you should only have children if and when you can afford to do so. Which is not to say that I think it's that simple as I know it isn't. In terms of the programme, they can't do everything and this, for me isn't as big a priority as some other things. In terms of those MPs who have come under sanction. Then sometimes you do have to hold your nose and just do what the boss orders you to do unfortunately. I do agree that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them, one of many reasons I don’t intend on ever having any of my own, but this benefit cap punishes kids - and if there is anyone who is blameless in the birth of a child it’s the child themselves. I didn’t ask to be here, and neither did they, they’re here and should be looked after. I think the reason it’s seen as a priority by a lot of people is that it would be a relatively inexpensive and simple change and would markedly improve the lives of a lot of children who are living in poverty. Your opinion won’t lose any friends though, sorry about that 😉 I agree that kids are blameless. I also believe that too many parents are, at best irresponsible, and at worst an absolute crock of shit. Therefore even more important, I think, that they somehow legislate to assist kids outside of the immediate remit of their parents. Any parent irresponsible enough to have kids they can't afford is also apt to treat the welfare they are assisted with irresponsibly also. I agree with the focus being on things such as breakfast clubs for that reason. I'm in favour of retaining the two child cap, but helping in other, better, ways. Ways in which assistance bypasses the parents. And I know that not ALL parents of multiple children are irresponsible by the way and that for some, circumstances can change disastrously. But this idea helps ALL children out regardless.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,302
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 24, 2024 20:46:32 GMT
People's circumstances change anyway. You don't have, say, 3 kids and then everything stays the same or pans out exactly as you envisaged over the next 18 years. Let's remember that some people are going to work to earn their poverty.
'If you can't afford more than 2 kids you shouldn't have them' is in the same wheelhouse 'they just spend it on drugs', 'if they're so poor why have they got mobile phones?' and the like.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 20:53:11 GMT
I do agree that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them, one of many reasons I don’t intend on ever having any of my own, but this benefit cap punishes kids - and if there is anyone who is blameless in the birth of a child it’s the child themselves. I didn’t ask to be here, and neither did they, they’re here and should be looked after. I think the reason it’s seen as a priority by a lot of people is that it would be a relatively inexpensive and simple change and would markedly improve the lives of a lot of children who are living in poverty. Your opinion won’t lose any friends though, sorry about that 😉 Exactly, it's like saying to a kid who hasn't had a proper meal in days you shouldn't have been born because your parents can't afford you and no you can't have the heating on. I am inclined, and do want to agree. But handing more cash to already irresponsible people doesn't solve the problem is my concern. They still won't put the heating on. They'll just spend the extra money on themselves. I think there might be better solutions than just throwing more money at the parents.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,302
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 24, 2024 21:00:12 GMT
Exactly, it's like saying to a kid who hasn't had a proper meal in days you shouldn't have been born because your parents can't afford you and no you can't have the heating on. I am inclined, and do want to agree. But handing more cash to already irresponsible people doesn't solve the problem is my concern. They still won't put the heating on. They'll just spend the extra money on themselves. I think there might be better solutions than just throwing more money at the parents. Can you explain how we determine their lack of responsibility? Is it means tested in some way? I need to know how we're going to define the deserving poor. The Victorians had their methods so I'm wondering how we're updating it for contemporary Britain. I don't disagree that we need to create an economy that means this happens less, as well, but until you've done it, you're perpetuating the conditions that create the problems we can't afford to pay for...
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 21:04:16 GMT
People's circumstances change anyway. You don't have, say, 3 kids and then everything stays the same or pans out exactly as you envisaged over the next 18 years. Let's remember that some people are going to work to earn their poverty. 'If you can't afford more than 2 kids you shouldn't have them' is in the same wheelhouse 'they just spend it on drugs', 'if they're so poor why have they got mobile phones?' and the like. Working to earn poverty - a slightly different subject (albeit linked) but hopefully this administration will begin work on tackling that. I'm not advocating starving kids or even leaving the kids to live in poverty. I simply think that with planning and lateral thinking that there are solutions here without simply handing more money across to parents. I still, in my gut, think that too many (not all, perhaps not even a majority) of parents are irresponsible and in some cases reckless. By throwing more money at the parents of such children you achieve nothing. And, as such, you're failing those particular kids with your kindness.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 21:06:52 GMT
I am inclined, and do want to agree. But handing more cash to already irresponsible people doesn't solve the problem is my concern. They still won't put the heating on. They'll just spend the extra money on themselves. I think there might be better solutions than just throwing more money at the parents. Can you explain how we determine their lack of responsibility? Is it means tested in some way? I need to know how we're going to define the deserving poor. The Victorians had their methods so I'm wondering how we're updating it for contemporary Britain. I don't disagree that we need to create an economy that means this happens less, as well, but until you've done it, you're perpetuating the conditions that create the problems we can't afford to pay for... I'll turn that round. Do you think that the type of parent I'm describing doesn't exist? I'm not remotely advocating for a means tested, 'deserving poor', based system. I think you may have misunderstood me (perhaps I've not conveyed my thoughts clearly enough). I'm talking about the right help getting to ALL children, not less.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,302
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 24, 2024 21:15:47 GMT
Can you explain how we determine their lack of responsibility? Is it means tested in some way? I need to know how we're going to define the deserving poor. The Victorians had their methods so I'm wondering how we're updating it for contemporary Britain. I don't disagree that we need to create an economy that means this happens less, as well, but until you've done it, you're perpetuating the conditions that create the problems we can't afford to pay for... I'll turn that round. Do you think that the type of parent I'm describing doesn't exist? I'm not remotely advocating for a means tested, 'deserving poor', based system. I think you may have misunderstood me (perhaps I've not conveyed my thoughts clearly enough). I'm talking about the right help getting to ALL children, not less. You're saying they shouldn't get the money because they're irresponsible parents. So you're lumping them all in together, along with trotting out a trope beloved of the RW media, as I alluded to earlier, that you give these parents money and they piss it away. Do I think those parents exist? Yes, of course I do. Do I think they're the majority? No. Do I think we should be seeking better ways to ensure people don't find themselves in a position where they have families and can't afford to eat or heat? Yes, of course I do. Do I see that since 2010 this country has cut back on the support networks that were there to help people? Yes. Do I think you can reinstate those immediately when you've spent the last 14 years doing what has been done? No.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 21:26:20 GMT
I'll turn that round. Do you think that the type of parent I'm describing doesn't exist? I'm not remotely advocating for a means tested, 'deserving poor', based system. I think you may have misunderstood me (perhaps I've not conveyed my thoughts clearly enough). I'm talking about the right help getting to ALL children, not less. You're saying they shouldn't get the money because they're irresponsible parents. So you're lumping them all in together, along with trotting out a trope beloved of the RW media, as I alluded to earlier, that you give these parents money and they piss it away. Do I think those parents exist? Yes, of course I do. Do I think they're the majority? No. Do I think we should be seeking better ways to ensure people don't find themselves in a position where they have families and can't afford to eat or heat? Yes, of course I do. Do I see that since 2010 this country has cut back on the support networks that were there to help people? Yes. Do I think you can reinstate those immediately when you've spent the last 14 years doing what has been done? No. Nearly right. I'm saying irresponsible parents shouldn't have more money handed to them. Because, guess what? They're irresponsible and it won't reach the kids. You've accepted those type of people exist, so basically what you're advocating is that THOSE particular kids can freeze or starve but at least we'll help some kids. Hmm. And yes, that means you are bypassing great, responsible, parents fallen onto hard times or working for poverty as you put it earlier. But their children STILL benefit. Whereas your way leaves a percentage of kids (and we can argue what that percentage would be, but you've accepted they do exist, right?) in precisely the same situation. As I said earlier by using a blanket, one size fits all solution (ie. throwing the panacea of more money at people) you're literally starving and freezing some kids with your kindness. I just don't think it works. I think there's a better way. And, when I listened to Starmer earlier, I got the impression that alternative way is what they are investigating.
|
|
|
Post by nelly on Jul 24, 2024 21:33:50 GMT
I do agree that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them, one of many reasons I don’t intend on ever having any of my own, but this benefit cap punishes kids - and if there is anyone who is blameless in the birth of a child it’s the child themselves. I didn’t ask to be here, and neither did they, they’re here and should be looked after. I think the reason it’s seen as a priority by a lot of people is that it would be a relatively inexpensive and simple change and would markedly improve the lives of a lot of children who are living in poverty. Your opinion won’t lose any friends though, sorry about that 😉 I agree that kids are blameless. I also believe that too many parents are, at best irresponsible, and at worst an absolute crock of shit. Therefore even more important, I think, that they somehow legislate to assist kids outside of the immediate remit of their parents. Any parent irresponsible enough to have kids they can't afford is also apt to treat the welfare they are assisted with irresponsibly also. I agree with the focus being on things such as breakfast clubs for that reason. I'm in favour of retaining the two child cap, but helping in other, better, ways. Ways in which assistance bypasses the parents. And I know that not ALL parents of multiple children are irresponsible by the way and that for some, circumstances can change disastrously. But this idea helps ALL children out regardless. I got made redundant in early 2009 from a reasonably payed job. I had 3 Children and was worried sick about paying the mortgage, bills, food etc. Tax credits saved the whole family from poverty and for that I am truly thankful. Didn't feel guilty because I'd payed my taxes over the years. It was also the first time I'd been unemployed.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 24, 2024 22:09:42 GMT
I agree that kids are blameless. I also believe that too many parents are, at best irresponsible, and at worst an absolute crock of shit. Therefore even more important, I think, that they somehow legislate to assist kids outside of the immediate remit of their parents. Any parent irresponsible enough to have kids they can't afford is also apt to treat the welfare they are assisted with irresponsibly also. I agree with the focus being on things such as breakfast clubs for that reason. I'm in favour of retaining the two child cap, but helping in other, better, ways. Ways in which assistance bypasses the parents. And I know that not ALL parents of multiple children are irresponsible by the way and that for some, circumstances can change disastrously. But this idea helps ALL children out regardless. I got made redundant in early 2009 from a reasonably payed job. I had 3 Children and was worried sick about paying the mortgage, bills, food etc. Tax credits saved the whole family from poverty and for that I am truly thankful. Didn't feel guilty because I'd payed my taxes over the years. It was also the first time I'd been unemployed. I've never been in that position but always had the fear of it. I'm not sure how I would have coped. I'm glad that you were assisted. I've gladly paid my taxes and not once, ever, complained from age 21 precisely because I support a social safety net. And of course 'there but for the grace of God go I'. You know that I'm not advocating against YOUR children being fed and kept warm right? Or indeed any children being fed and kept warm. I do think people get angered at the very idea that there might be alternative, but perhaps better, ways of cracking a particular nut. My hope, theory (or call it whatever you will) is that MORE kids would be brought out of poverty by tackling the issue more tangentially, rather than less. For example, if there are nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Throw money at the situation and there will...still be nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Some children in this ridiculously hypothetical scenario will get left behind. If you bypass the parents and expressly look towards helping the children in a more direct way, you ensure that ALL children of ALL ten families get looked after. That's what I'm advocating.
|
|