Amber Rudd scraps controversial extension of two-child benefits cap.

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by cerberus, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    23,340
    Likes Received:
    4,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
  2. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,506
    Likes Received:
    828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They're after the labour vote in case everything goes tits up and there's an election....nothing like exciting the tub of lard benefits class with the prospect of yet more handouts....it would be cheaper to pay for them to be sterilised so they stop pumping out sprogs that they can't afford in the first place....in any case why dosen't elmer fudd or whatever here name is just stash all the bullshit and say "look, we're going to have a general election. You lot wobble down to the voting booth, put your wee mark were we tell you to and bingo you'll have a wad of cash....simples!"
     
    cerberus likes this.
  3. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    1,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No one on benefits will vote for the Tories. I am not sure what she was wanting to do - was she wanting to make the third child of anyone signing on starve? I thought she was only doing this to children born after the date she decided on it - so that the parents would know if they did not have an abortion, the State would see to it.

    The sick and disabled are the people who are dying the most. This is way back to 2012


    10,600 sick & disabled people died last year within six weeks of their claim ending

    Was hearing last night the US was considering stopping people without insurance claiming emergency medical help - what do you think the UK will do to try and prove we are just as lacking in humanity?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,506
    Likes Received:
    828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    how'd you pick out that thought from this? Anyway I think the industrialisation of child production for people that already exist on limited resources is rather absurd, if they haven't got the brain power to imagine the financial impact of having yet another brat attached to the tit then bollocks to them - if the only reason that some brain dead tart in leggings can't keep her legs together is the prospect of yet more taxpayers money then they don't deserve the thing in the first place so sod them. I'd rather my tax money was spent on more deserving causes.
     
  5. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    1,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh have I understood it wrong. I understood that only the first two children would receive maintenance. The parents would receive no money to feed, clothe, house and keep warm any extra.

    Well I am sorry that that is how you feel about your fellow human beings. My daughter has 3 children. She thankfully has never as yet had to claim any but universal benefits. However the future we do not know. If the intent is to punish everyone who has 3 children even those who had them before she made this rule then should she become redundant and need to sign on, she would not receive sufficient money to keep her children on minimum standard. I guess the idea would be to take the children into care - away from parents who you look down on so much without even knowing - and of course we used to do this all the time. Ever see 'Cathy Come Home'. Living in Edinburgh in the 70's, we all got a leaflet from the council asking us to go and watch it. We changed then. We didn't agree with taking children away from people some believe are beneath them because they fell on hard times. We have it appears moved back into that.

    Of course the unsaid rule is that no one unless they are unusually rich which I imagine you are should have three children as anyone could find themselves in need at some time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,506
    Likes Received:
    828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At what point does the state cease to intervene in family life indeed is the state now a substitute for the family....in a society where resources are scarce, should we take account of whether people have contributed to their own misfortune?
     
  7. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    1,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think the State has always intervened in family life. Even in the past certainly in the UK we understood that you do not just leave people to die - unless they live in Ireland. It just depends on how you want to do that. You can make them beg, which Universal credit does a good imitation of or you could have the workhouse or you could I guess go back to Dickenson's days and have them stealing on the street and then hang them. It depends on the sort of society you want.

    As it happens I have had a look and people who are refused child benefit on Universal Credit will be able to claim child benefit. People who get the child bit on Universal Credit will not be allowed to get child benefit...so it looks as if there might not be much difference and it may just be another way to subdue those who hate the idea of keeping children alive - and it is that we are talking about. It will cost a whole lot more of taxpayers money to take them into care.

    Well you have a family. You know what yours is like. In this connection we are talking only about the State providing for people who either through lack of jobs or disability or sickness are unable to find work. Now the State is responsible for creating the climate where people may have the opportunity to earn a decent wage to look after their family. Given that food banks are growing exponentially and I keep hearing it is mainly people in work who are using them, I would say our Government is not doing that. Possibly that is because we are a Plutocracy not a democracy and our Government answers to the most wealthy not the electorate.

    Basically you are falling into what the Tories and Labour found out a long time ago. Give the 'don't have a lot' someone to look down on and they will choose to do that rather than working for improvement for all. In that way keep them at each other's throats rather than Government's. The Tories have been extremely successful at this since 2010 but it has been going on a lot longer than that - since the 80's I think where rights which people had worked and worked for have bit by bit been removed.

    I think I have dealt with that above.
     

Share This Page