Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Bruce Wayne]

Hardly anyone would have children if everyone waited for an ideal time financially. A large percentage of the country are living month to month and have been for years. For them there may never be an ideal time to have children.

As the page I linked says, you don't need to be well off, but you need to show you can support a child financially. I find it incredible that we appear to be merrily advocating a couple creating a life in the expectation that someone else is responsible for then raising that child.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

As the page I linked says, you don't need to be well off, but you need to show you can support a child financially. I find it incredible that we appear to be merrily advocating a couple creating a life in the expectation that someone else is responsible for then raising that child.

You could also argue that poor people shouldn’t be excluded from the right to have children as well.

 

[Tin-Tin]

Why?

Adoption

We are no longer taking any new adoption enquiries

www.actionforchildren.org.uk

Look at the things that are looked for when you're adopting a child. They include a sufficient income, a stable relationship, a room for the child. Again, my missus works with families across London, and you'd be amazed how many don't have any of those, and decide to have more children. Heck, they even say that you can't adopt if you smoke, yet again, my missus works with numerous families who do a darn sight more than just smoke around their kid/s, including several who took all sorts of drugs while pregnant, leaving their children physically and/or mentally disabled as a result.

When does personal responsibility for creating a life kick in?

So your saying only well off people should have children? 2 potential loving parents shouldnt be allowed to have children as even though they both work hard, they are in low paid jobs. Money doesnt equate to love.

What about people who could afford them, then couldnt? Sudden Job losses, disabilities, divorces, single parents? Death, illness? Pandemics, massive rises in inflation?

If people planned for all of the above when having children, there would be very few having them.

Even if* people just had them when they couldnt afford them, why should that child be punished? How evil do you have to be to know a child is hungry but your firat thought is well its on the parents.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You could also argue that poor people shouldn’t be excluded from the right to have children as well.

I don't believe having children is a right. A privilege perhaps. A responsibility certainly. A right no. Again, my better half sadly has to deal with quite a number of abuse cases whereby children are taken from their parent/s for their own safety and protection. Rights don't come into that conversation.

So your saying only well off people should have children? 2 potential loving parents shouldnt be allowed to have children as even though they both work hard, they are in low paid jobs. Money doesnt equate to love.

What about people who could afford them, then couldnt? Sudden Job losses, disabilities, divorces, single parents? Death, illness? Pandemics, massive rises in inflation?

If people planned for all of the above when having children, there would be very few having them.

Even if* people just had them when they couldnt afford them, why should that child be punished? How evil do you have to be to know a child is hungry but your firat thought is well its on the parents.

No, I'm not saying only well off people should have children. We're commenting on a dinner lady saying how children are being sent to school without the means to get lunch. You're clearly saying that's the fault of the state and/or society. I'm just saying that the parents will have known the score and yet sent their child there regardless.

And regarding your last point, that's cheap. Children in this country get an absolute tonne of support, and often far more than many other countries. Does that excuse adults creating a human life that they know full well they can't care for? Is that somehow society's fault? As men, is it right that only around half of fathers pay child support? Is that society's fault as well?

 

[Agent Blue]

My other half works with families with young children, and will tell you that the majority who are currently in poverty were in poverty before they decided to have children (or indeed more children). The number of people who were doing okay and then misfortune befell them is pretty small. Heck, we've got several people in our family who were in a bad situation and still felt fit to have a child/children and then complain about how hard it is. It's not the state's responsibility to raise "your" children.

I agree with the point you make Bruce, in fact, it is this very reason why I only have 1 kid.

I like cars, fishing and fishing holidays far too much!

I do feel though that with an ageing population and a declining birth rate we could be storing up problems for the future ie paying pensions and worker shortages. Maybe we should tax the rich and the corporations a little more (250K pa and up) to take people out of poverty after all it is these people who have been thriving since 1979. We shouldn't be taking from the poorest in society to make rich people even richer, that is trickle up economics.

There has been a radical redistribution of wealth going on for the last 40 years, but in the wrong way, for instance, football clubs used to dream of millionaire owners but now such owners would be looked upon as smalltime.

Surely these billionaires could afford to pay better wages to the people they employ and so raise their living standards, then the state wouldn't have to subsidise
poorly paid workers with tax credits etc . Having said all that, these kids are here now and need feeding and keeping warm as are the old and the disabled.We need a plan.

Not holding me breath tho.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree with the point you make Bruce, in fact, it is this very reason why I only have 1 kid.

I like cars, fishing and fishing holidays far too much!

I do feel though that with an ageing population and a declining birth rate we could be storing up problems for the future ie paying pensions and worker shortages. Maybe we should tax the rich and the corporations a little more (250K pa and up) to take people out of poverty after all it is these people who have been thriving since 1979. We shouldn't be taking from the poorest in society to make rich people even richer, that is trickle up economics.

There has been a radical redistribution of wealth going on for the last 40 years, but in the wrong way, for instance, football clubs used to dream of millionaire owners but now such owners would be looked upon as smalltime.

Surely these billionaires could afford to pay better wages to the people they employ and so raise their living standards, then the state wouldn't have to subsidise
poorly paid workers with tax credits etc . Having said all that, these kids are here now and need feeding and keeping warm as are the old and the disabled.We need a plan.

Not holding me breath tho.

Oh for sure, most of the "developed" world has a pretty significant demographic problem. Ironically though, pretty much everywhere around the world the wealthier (and more educated) people become, the less they have children because the costs are greater. It is hard though, no doubt. If you go back 100 years I'm sure people though "free education, that'll do the trick", then it became "unemployment benefits", "free healthcare" and "free housing", each time no doubt thinking that it would crack poverty. More and more is given for free and yet it seldom seems to make much difference. I fear we like to think of the state as some kind of omnipotent power that can fix everything, or indeed believe that it can create equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. I've no doubt that in time things like universal basic income will become more commonplace in the belief that a guaranteed minimum income will solve poverty. It would be lovely, but equally I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.

 

[Tin-Tin]

I don't believe having children is a right. A privilege perhaps. A responsibility certainly. A right no. Again, my better half sadly has to deal with quite a number of abuse cases whereby children are taken from their parent/s for their own safety and protection. Rights don't come into that conversation.


No, I'm not saying only well off people should have children. We're commenting on a dinner lady saying how children are being sent to school without the means to get lunch. You're clearly saying that's the fault of the state and/or society. I'm just saying that the parents will have known the score and yet sent their child there regardless.

And regarding your last point, that's cheap. Children in this country get an absolute tonne of support, and often far more than many other countries. Does that excuse adults creating a human life that they know full well they can't care for? Is that somehow society's fault? As men, is it right that only around half of fathers pay child support? Is that society's fault as well?

I didnt say it was the fault of the state or society. Parents dont choose to send their kids to school, its not a free daycare, kids are required to go by law.

So your answer to children innocent children being born to these adults is to just suffer? Regardless of how you feel about the adults, innocent children should never suffer.

 

[Walken]

If this is true..

Worth having a little read through the old thread, peoples determination to have definitive dogmatic views on subjects they have barely researched always amazes me.

Also, tubeys lack of knowledge on just about every subject on the planet always amazes me

Current Affairs - Shemima Begum

That's more disputed than it is in the Letts case. You're doing that thing again where you are trying to creative a narrative for some outrage. I didn't mention race and you jumped straight on to race. Check the post I was replying to that you subsequently replied to.

www.grandoldteam.com

 

[Walken]

My other half works with families with young children, and will tell you that the majority who are currently in poverty were in poverty before they decided to have children (or indeed more children). The number of people who were doing okay and then misfortune befell them is pretty small. Heck, we've got several people in our family who were in a bad situation and still felt fit to have a child/children and then complain about how hard it is. It's not the state's responsibility to raise "your" children.

nice one chairman mao

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I didnt say it was the fault of the state or society. Parents dont choose to send their kids to school, its not a free daycare, kids are required to go by law.

So your answer to children innocent children being born to these adults is to just suffer? Regardless of how you feel about the adults, innocent children should never suffer.

I didn't say they choose to send them to school, I said they choose to send them to school thinking that they can get lunch knowing they don't have the money for it.

 

[coollino]

Worth having a little read through the old thread, peoples determination to have definitive dogmatic views on subjects they have barely researched always amazes me.

Also, tubeys lack of knowledge on just about every subject on the planet always amazes me

Current Affairs - Shemima Begum

That's more disputed than it is in the Letts case. You're doing that thing again where you are trying to creative a narrative for some outrage. I didn't mention race and you jumped straight on to race. Check the post I was replying to that you subsequently replied to.

www.grandoldteam.com

whilst taking at you, of course.

 

[Agent Blue]

Oh for sure, most of the "developed" world has a pretty significant demographic problem. Ironically though, pretty much everywhere around the world the wealthier (and more educated) people become, the less they have children because the costs are greater. It is hard though, no doubt. If you go back 100 years I'm sure people though "free education, that'll do the trick", then it became "unemployment benefits", "free healthcare" and "free housing", each time no doubt thinking that it would crack poverty. More and more is given for free and yet it seldom seems to make much difference. I fear we like to think of the state as some kind of omnipotent power that can fix everything, or indeed believe that it can create equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. I've no doubt that in time things like universal basic income will become more commonplace in the belief that a guaranteed minimum income will solve poverty. It would be lovely, but equally I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.

UBI would be a fantastic opportunity to steady the ship and create a more equal society, but even if it were adopted I fear that it would probably be introduced in the meanest way possible in order to minimize the financial burden. Negating the very reason for its introduction.

I think that the welfare state, housing and health were all more of a social contract between the government and the people after the two world wars, WW2 in particular. After WW1 the men and women who had given so much to their country returned home to the same problems that they had faced before the war, slum housing, unemployment, poor education and there were riots. After WW2 we saw the foundation of the welfare state, decent housing, healthcare and education as part of a massive societal upgrade from a grateful state, who had asked the nations families in a time of great need, to make the ultimate sacrifice. In some cases people had fought through both world wars.

We must look after the NHS, council housing, welfare and education as they were too hard won and could be too easily lost.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Worth having a little read through the old thread, peoples determination to have definitive dogmatic views on subjects they have barely researched always amazes me.

Also, tubeys lack of knowledge on just about every subject on the planet always amazes me

Current Affairs - Shemima Begum

That's more disputed than it is in the Letts case. You're doing that thing again where you are trying to creative a narrative for some outrage. I didn't mention race and you jumped straight on to race. Check the post I was replying to that you subsequently replied to.

www.grandoldteam.com

lol First page usual suspects. Like moths to a lightbulb

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I don't believe having children is a right. A privilege perhaps. A responsibility certainly. A right no. Again, my better half sadly has to deal with quite a number of abuse cases whereby children are taken from their parent/s for their own safety and protection. Rights don't come into that conversation.

I think it’s an inevitability unless you want forced sterilisation/abortion/adoption.

The problem I have always thought is inherent chaos. Generations being brought up in extreme stress and chaos without any order and this gets replicated as the norm. People are taught to live day to day or week to week. Having kids without thinking of support, different dads etc. All comes with the life. But if you start saying they shouldn’t have kids you enter a problematic area of discussion.

I’ve worked many times with parents who’ve had their kids taken off them and live in high stress chaos. Also worked with many low income families who give more love and care to their kids than many middle class families.

It’s a contentious discussion but blaming parents doesn’t help in my opinion.

 

[summerisle]

Putting out a fire with a water pistol.



Meanwhile :




And of course, nothing to see here, move along now :