What is the point of labour ?

[aDONisSheep]

3 minutes ago, Plumpy said:

I can't see what the big issue with this benefit cap, is it a good thing that people who can't afford to bring more kids into their families have them anyway making the family even poorer even if you include the removal of the cap. This isn't even one of those small benefits that have little cost, it's estimated to be £3.4 billion per year, 3% of the total budget for working age benefits.

If it does get removed will there be an alternative restraint of expanding families ? The government or tax/ benefit system didn't put these children into poverty, their parents did, the responsibility must be on them to provide adequately for their children.

Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain.  Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed?

Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work.  If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids?

Yours

aDONis

[scottsdad]

The suspensions are not really a surprise. The first Labour King's/Queens speech in 14 years, the expectation is that nobody votes against them. Abstain, sure. But to vote against your own governing party gets the whip withdrawn. 

Politically, I think this issue is more nuanced. There are a lot of people, including a lot of left wingers, who agree with the cap. They go along with the notion that if you are living on benefits, the state should not support you having loads of kids when working people limit their families according to their budgets. But as @aDONisSheep points out, that isn't always the case. Not everyone starts off in that place. 

That said, I saw on the BBC news a couple with 5 kids who have never worked, complaining about it. The reason they can't work, they say, is childcare. 

The cap will be withdrawn this parliament, I'm sure of that. At some point it'll be done as a big announcement. But the SNP have duped these MP's into changing the story of the King's Speech into this. You have to say well played on that score. 

[doulikefish]

Let's see what sir kiddie starver said 

 

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said:

Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain.  Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed?

A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. 

Quote

Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work.  If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids?

Emotive pish. The case has to be made for why a government (any government) with limited resources to tackle poverty should direct them specifically to large families at the expense of other groups in society: such as single parent households with fewer children; the disabled and long term sick; pensioners; and the large number of working age individuals in poverty. 

Every policy involves those trade-offs and a rational government identifies the most effective and fairest ones to enact. That's got nothing to do with retribution. 

Edited July 24 by vikingTON

[MacDuffman]

Our new fat bint representing Cumbernauld abstained. Not even got the spine to vote against it. Just as bad as voting for it.

[Lukovic]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. 

Judging from your way of thinking, I can imagine some children are accidents.

[ford prefect]

That's extremely short sighted. We need more people having families to deal with supporting an ageing population. We're wedded to a capitalist system so that means we have to support people in lower income groups to have families.

[aDONisSheep]

25 minutes ago, virginton said:

A: Responsible adults should consider those potential changes of circumstance, before consciously choosing to have a third child on top of the two they already have. 

Mystic Meg stuff that.   

[aDONisSheep]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Emotive pish. The case has to be made for why a government (any government) with limited resources to tackle poverty should direct them specifically to large families at the expense of other groups in society: such as single parent households with fewer children; the disabled and long term sick; pensioners; and the large number of working age individuals in poverty. 

Every policy involves those trade-offs and a rational government identifies the most effective and fairest ones to enact. That's got nothing to do with retribution. 

I absolutely agree, but as you describe it, it's a policy decision, but that policy decision has a direct impact on those that have no voice and have absolutely no input into their situation (children of poor families). 

It feels like you're pretending that the government finances are the same as household finances, they aren't.  The government has lots of levers (and resources are not so limited, that we "can't" make these decisions).  It's that we choose not to.  

For example, we (the UK) have just committed to £3.6bn  p.a. of military funding for Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'.  (I don't think this is a bad thing).  But the fact is, we don't have to do that, it's outside of our NATO commitments.

For less money, we could alleviate the curse of poverty for hundreds of thousands of children.  We choose not to.  Just the same as we choose not to impose wealth taxes, or balance out capital gains tax rates, to get more money into the system from the top.

Ultimately, it all leads back to the fact that the people who suffer most, are the poorest in our society.  In the real world, there are more children going to bed hungry (which leads to all sorts of longer term issues), than there would otherwise be, because we (the UK Gov) have decided that they can wait for pink austerity to deliver some jam tomorrow, rather than pulling the other levers available to help them.

Yours, gooooo Labour!  Your thrifty-ness means I will get that bigger fvk-off telly sooner, and that's more important, than some piss-poor childs welfare!

aDONis

 

Edited July 24 by aDONisSheep

[101]

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

[Plumpy]

1 hour ago, aDONisSheep said:

Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain.  Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed?

Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work.  If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids?

Yours

aDONis

Of course circumstances change but that doesn't automatically make me think the government needs to financially back me up because of it.

I've no idea what you mean by that example, none whatsover.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Lukovic said:

Judging from your way of thinking, I can imagine some children are accidents.

It’s not an accident that he’ll ever have to worry about…

[Plumpy]

14 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said:

I absolutely agree, but as you describe it, it's a policy decision, but that policy decision has a direct impact on those that have no voice and have absolutely no input into their situation (children of poor families). 

It feels like you're pretending that the government finances are the same as household finances, they aren't.  The government has lots of levers (and resources are not so limited, that we "can't" make these decisions).  It's that we choose not to.  

For example, we (the UK) have just committed to £3.6bn  p.a. of military funding for Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'.  (I don't think this is a bad thing).  But the fact is, we don't have to do that, it's outside of our NATO commitments.

For less money, we could alleviate the curse of poverty for hundreds of thousands of children.  We choose not to.  Just the same as we choose not to impose wealth taxes, or balance out capital gains tax rates, to get more money into the system from the top.

Ultimately, it all leads back to the fact that the people who suffer most, are the poorest in our society.  In the real world, there are more children going to bed hungry (which leads to all sorts of longer term issues), than there would otherwise be, because we (the UK Gov) have decided that they can wait for pink austerity to deliver some jam tomorrow, rather than pulling the other levers available to help them.

Yours, gooooo Labour!  Your thrifty-ness means I will get that bigger fvk-off telly sooner, and that's more important, than some piss-poor childs welfare!

aDONis

 

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, Plumpy said:

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

Given you highlighted his part about it being the children of poor families, I’m curious to know where the kids working 40 hours a week at an income level that they won’t get working tax credits are at. 

[Cheese]

[aDONisSheep]

6 minutes ago, Plumpy said:

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

 

You say 'victim card' I say, "that's pretty ill informed",

As for, "Fall over backwards to finance your lifestyle".

You do know that nearly 40% of Universal Credit claiments have jobs don't you (well according to the DWP that is) and 69% of children in poverty were in working households.

Single parents (predominantly women) are expected to fulfill the 'Claimant Commitment' in which if your children are 3yrs + you spend 30 hour per week looking for work (or else you get 'sanctioned').

Don't fall into the trap of intolerance and think that poor people are all scroungers, they aren't.

 

The following is from the House of Lords Library on Child Poverty, it's a really good report I recommend that people read it, it's not long or particularly dry. 

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/child-poverty-statistics-causes-and-the-uks-policy-response/#:~:text=It added that this meant,from 36% in 2011%2F12

"1.2 Selected stakeholder comment

In a press release issued following the DWP release, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said the estimates represented a “record high” for child poverty in the UK.[6] The group said the release showed that “100,000 more children were pulled into relative poverty (after housing costs)” when compared with a year earlier. It added that this meant “4.3 million children (30% of all UK children) were in poverty” in 2022/23, “up from 3.6 million in 2010/11”. The group’s press release continued:

69% of poor children lived in working families

46% of children in families with three or more children were in poverty, up from 36% in 2011/12

poor families have fallen deeper into poverty: 2.9 million children were in deep poverty (ie with a household income below 50% of after-housing-costs equivalised median income), 600,000 more than in 2010/11

36% of all children in poverty were in families with a youngest child aged under five

47% of children in Asian and British Asian families were in poverty, 51% of children in Black/African/Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of children in white families

44% of children in lone parent families were in poverty

34% of children living in families where someone has a disability were in poverty"

[Buzz Killington]

34 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Spot the difference

 

[Buzz Killington]

Also a big shout out to the "ThEIr JUst aCtiNg rIghT wINg UntLL tHEy GeT eLecTEd" crew.  Your visit from the wallet inspector is scheduled for next week.

[AndyM]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

Absolutely staggering this cretin is actually proud of that.  

I despair at what Dunfermline has done in electing this forelock tugger.

 

 

 

[HTG]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

When they're posting this shite they'd be as well retaining the instruction from on high that sets out exactly what they've to say and when. There were dozens of these on Labour MP timelines. They'll not need to think for the next 5 years.