Philpott case: George Osborne questions state 'lifestyle subsidy'

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Good George, well done for using the horrific death of children, at the hands of a pretty warped father, as a means to bash people who live on benefits.

Chancellor George Osborne has questioned whether the state should be paying for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott.
Philpott has been jailed for life after being found guilty of killing six of his children in a house fire.
He has been branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by some newspapers.
Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".

(BBC News)

For those unfamiliar with the case –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-22023117 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-22023117)

[brigadista]

no comparison with convicted killers in work then??

nothing to do with being on benefit ffs -

im lost in a world i dont understand these days........

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

He has been branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by some newspapers.

I think we all know what yellow-journalist puke-rags those are.

[LeonJWilliams]

Not quite related but it would be nice to discourage large, irresponsible sized families, 11 children is not being responsible. Not because other people have to pay to help them via taxes but because of it's unsustainable.

I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Not quite related but it would be nice to discourage large, irresponsible sized families, 11 children is not being responsible. Not because other people have to pay to help them via taxes but because of it's unsustainable.

I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK.

My wife would have something to say about that one, she's always wanted 4 kids (we're nearly half way there).

But that's a seperate debate really, I was more interested in George's shameless use of a tragic case to push his anti-welfare ideological stance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not quite related but it would be nice to discourage large, irresponsible sized families, 11 children is not being responsible. Not because other people have to pay to help them via taxes but because of it's unsustainable.

I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK.

Approval of using the bourgeois state to control the reproduction of workers? Are you sure you're a communist?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How many benefits claimants have dragged us into imperialist wars? Duncan Smith's head should be put on a fucking spike already, along with those of the rest of the larcenous and corrupt fuckers he hangs out with.

[LeonJWilliams]

My wife would have something to say about that one, she's always wanted 4 kids (we're nearly half way there).

But that's a seperate debate really, I was more interested in George's shameless use of a tragic case to push his anti-welfare ideological stance.

I expect nothing less from the tories!

'Having a fourth child would make the couple bad role models and environmentally irresponsible.' paraphrase from so called population experts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/population-control-beckham-family)

[LeonJWilliams]

Approval of using the bourgeois state to control the reproduction of workers? Are you sure you're a communist?

It would be the same rule for everyone, working class, middle, elite etc.

The issue is one of sustainability and environmental responsibility.

I wouldn't support a Chinese system where you can have more than 1 child if you are rich and can afford to pay the penalties.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It would be the same rule for everyone, working class, middle, elite etc.

Surely you should know by now that is not how it would actually turn out if implemented? It would be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.


The issue is one of sustainability and environmental responsibility.

There are ways of improving sustainability and environmental responsibility that do not require that kind of state intrusion into peoples' family matters.


I wouldn't support a Chinese system where you can have more than 1 child if you are rich and can afford to pay the penalties.

But that is more or less what will happen.

[hatzel]

'Having a fourth child would make the couple bad role models and environmentally irresponsible.' paraphrase from so called population experts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/population-control-beckham-family)


It is a view that is being pushed by the UK-based Optimum Population Trust, whose chief executive, Simon Ross, is calling for the government to tackle the UK's high rates of accidental pregnancy and to give child benefits and tax credits only for the first two children. "That would send a clear signal that the government will support sustainable families, but after that you are on your own," he said. "There is a big issue there, family planning is cheap, yet many people don't use it properly and accidental pregnancy rates are very high. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish.

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child," he said.

Alternatively: smash capitalism?

I'm confused here that on the one hand you seem to be chastising the Tories for cutting welfare, but also seem to be altogether in favour of it, or - worse still - far more intrusive methods of population control. Feel like making your mind up any time soon?

[LeonJWilliams]

Surely you should know by now that is not how it would actually turn out if implemented? It would be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.



There are ways of improving sustainability and environmental responsibility that do not require that kind of state intrusion into peoples' family matters.



But that is more or less what will happen.

Of course, goes without saying really. Remember all I said was "I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK."

Like when people say... in my ideal world... blah blah blah

[goalkeeper]

Not quite related but it would be nice to discourage large, irresponsible sized families, 11 children is not being responsible. Not because other people have to pay to help them via taxes but because of it's unsustainable.

I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK.

Consider what you are actually saying here in practice:
If a women falls pregnant for a fourth time the state will either have to force her to abort it or prosecute and punish her in someway.

It doesn't really square with the principle of supporting the bodily autonomy of women.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Of course, goes without saying really. Remember all I said was "I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK."

Like when people say... in my ideal world... blah blah blah

It's a load of shit in any world. Especially when you have some Malthusian argumentation for this! The only sensible reason that could apply would be that having too many children could possibly be a bad thing for the kids under some circumstance, a distant mother and father preoccupied with the idea of having children rather than taking care of them well; but this isn't at all something you're concerned of... in a world where in the developed world the fertility rate is just barely enough to sustain positive growth (in some countries not), where the world population is likely to start declining sometime between 2030-2050, there's hardly a valid reason to limit the number of children.

[LeonJWilliams]

Takayuki

So someone with 10 kids can provide for them just as well as someone with (for example) 3 kids?

If you're thinking of having children, make sure you've got a spare £222,000 lying around. That's the latest estimate for how much it costs parents to raise a child to the age of 21, according to an annual study. The cost of education has rocketed from £32,593 to £72,832 per child in the past 10 years – a 124% increase that's come about mainly from spiralling university fees. Childcare costs increased by 61% from £39,613 in 2003 to £63,738 today. The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jan/24/money-talks-having-children-mortgages)

I suppose its very easy to afford when someone else (taxpayers) pays the bill!

In the last 50 years the world population (http://www.google.com.tr/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=global+population+trends) has gone from 3bn to 7bn and the UN (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm) predicts global population will continue to increase (by 2.6bn over the next 45 years-as of 2005).

goalkeeper

I am not debating the specifics of how it would work in practice or if indeed it is possible merely that I, personally, would like to see a limit of number of children per person in order to stop drains on resources.
This would apply to a capitalist, communism or Anarchist society.

Could you imagine in an Anarchist society people deciding to have 10+ kids each? Looking after them would be a full time job, personal care and attention would be reduced and work to produce food, healthcare etc would be a major problem. Anarchism/Communism is progress, not regress.

I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me but to fail to acknowledge there is an issue here is exactly why the 'left' is in such a dire state, particularly in the UK.

[goalkeeper]

Takayuki


I am not debating the specifics of how it would work in practice or if indeed it is possible merely that I, personally, would like to see a limit of number of children per person in order to stop drains on resources.
This would apply to a capitalist, communism or Anarchist society.

Could you imagine in an Anarchist society people deciding to have 10+ kids each? Looking after them would be a full time job, personal care and attention would be reduced and work to produce food, healthcare etc would be a major problem. Anarchism/Communism is progress, not regress.

I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me but to fail to acknowledge there is an issue here is exactly why the 'left' is in such a dire state, particularly in the UK.

Well people having large numbers of children may or may not be a problem (i disagree with you) but I see no way of enforcing some policy of setting an arbitrary maximum of children a woman can birth that is acceptable. Forced sterilisation, forced abortion and other intrusive and horrific policies seems to be the place this can lead.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Takayuki

So someone with 10 kids can provide for them just as well as someone with (for example) 3 kids?

If you're thinking of having children, make sure you've got a spare £222,000 lying around. That's the latest estimate for how much it costs parents to raise a child to the age of 21, according to an annual study. The cost of education has rocketed from £32,593 to £72,832 per child in the past 10 years – a 124% increase that's come about mainly from spiralling university fees. Childcare costs increased by 61% from £39,613 in 2003 to £63,738 today. The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jan/24/money-talks-having-children-mortgages)

I suppose its very easy to afford when someone else (taxpayers) pays the bill!

Shouldn't you be more concerned about the quality of life for children being raised, rather than how much it costs to the taxpayer? Because right now your rhetoric sounds like it could have come straight from the pages of the Daily Mail.

Another problem with your position is that it fails to take into account peoples' ever-changing economic circumstances, and given the distribution of wealth in society that change is more likely to be negative than positive, and furthermore will be down to reasons that are largely beyond the control of the individual. For example, if someone has a job that allows them to comfortably raise four children, do you really think it is right to punish that person for being laid off from their job, and therefore no longer able to fully provide for their children financially?


In the last 50 years the world population (http://www.google.com.tr/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=global+population+trends) has gone from 3bn to 7bn and the UN (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm) predicts global population will continue to increase (by 2.6bn over the next 45 years-as of 2005).

So what? The problem is not absolute population numbers, but the infrastructure and resources available. If there are insufficient resources to guarantee the greatest quality of life for the greatest amount of people, then our task is to find more and different resources, not to start throwing people to the sharks.


goalkeeper

I am not debating the specifics of how it would work in practice or if indeed it is possible merely that I, personally, would like to see a limit of number of children per person in order to stop drains on resources.
This would apply to a capitalist, communism or Anarchist society.

As far as I'm concerned you are looking at the problem backwards. The problem is not too many people, but mismanagement of resources leading to staggering gaps in wealth.


Could you imagine in an Anarchist society people deciding to have 10+ kids each? Looking after them would be a full time job, personal care and attention would be reduced and work to produce food, healthcare etc would be a major problem. Anarchism/Communism is progress, not regress.

Why do you think people have large numbers of kids? Judging from what you're saying here, you seem to think the reason is "just because".

Don't you think their might be more complicated economic and social reasons why people might have large numbers of children? Have you even tried looking?


I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me but to fail to acknowledge there is an issue here is exactly why the 'left' is in such a dire state, particularly in the UK.

No, the left in the UK is not in trouble because of its failure to embrace reactionary neo-Malthusian nonsense.

[LeonJWilliams]

ÑóẊîöʼn

Of course you have some valid points but ultimately you're criticizing my opinion and offering no alternative perspective.

Indeed I am concerned with the children's quality of life, that's why I don't think parents should have 10+.
Exactly my point, people's economic situations are, if anything, likely to get worse, so they are less able to provide for large numbers of children.
I accept your point, if people can afford 4 kids, but if they can't, should they be getting taxpayer support? It's not like disability welfare, having kids is a choice (not including rape of course).
Your example is good and any system can have good and bad times, for example even under Communism there could be a natural disaster, drought etc So people could think, 'It is possible that we could have severe difficulty in the future, maybe I shouldn't have 10+ kids' Maybe it's unfair to ask taxpayers to fund them all. Of course as a supporter of the welfare state we shouldn't abandon people in hard times but if people know that the state can only afford to look after (for example) 3 kids per person then it's irresponsible parenting to have more.

In terms of population that was a direct answer to Takayuki and their post. I accept of course the failings and mismanagement under capitalism of resources.

If I am looking at the problem backwards (and it's possible!) could you explain, under which vision you see having 10+ kids not being a bad/problematic/irresponsible idea?

'Just because'? interesting, not sure where that came from, jumping to conclusions? I reckon there are two major factors, 1 is that these 10+ families generally (don't show me an exception, I said GENERALLY) come from very uneducated backgrounds and 2nd (a distant second) that they know that they will not have to pay for it, free house, allowances etc. Maybe they know this will not offer them a life of luxury as portrayed by the Daily Mail but maybe it is a better life than the alternative for very uneducated people (lumpen prols).

On a slightly unrelated topic, why is the 'left' almost non-existant in the UK?

[goalkeeper]

ÑóẊîöʼn

I accept your point, if people can afford 4 kids, but if they can't, should they be getting taxpayer support? It's not like disability welfare, having kids is a choice (not including rape of course).

Again, what's the alternative? A lot people resent to having tax money used on (the very few) people who have loads of kids with scant regard for how to pay for them, but other than forcing unlucky kid no. 4 to starve or having a policy of forced sterilisation of women after 3 births, what can you do?

It's the same as people who abuse the NHS by constantly harassing doctors with the smallest of complaints demanding medicine. As annoying as it is, what do you do? Enforce a quota for doctor visits per year?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ÑóẊîöʼn

Of course you have some valid points but ultimately you're criticizing my opinion and offering no alternative perspective.

I don't have to provide an alternative to bad ideas in order to criticise them.

Nevertheless, I do have an alternative, more than one in fact; a communist society, or failing that a generous welfare state, including a basic income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) available to all citizens regardless of status.


Indeed I am concerned with the children's quality of life, that's why I don't think parents should have 10+. Exactly my point, people's economic situations are, if anything, likely to get worse, so they are less able to provide for large numbers of children.

Just because something happens doesn't mean that it is right that it happens. I support the welfare state as an attempt to redress such imbalances.


I accept your point, if people can afford 4 kids, but if they can't, should they be getting taxpayer support? It's not like disability welfare, having kids is a choice (not including rape of course).

You don't get my point, actually. Having four kids can be a perfectly rational decision economically speaking, but circumstances can evolve to change that. You can't un-birth kids, so what's your alternative? Let their kids starve? Shame and stigmatise them by offering food stamps instead of cash?


Your example is good and any system can have good and bad times, for example even under Communism there could be a natural disaster, drought etc So people could think, 'It is possible that we could have severe difficulty in the future, maybe I shouldn't have 10+ kids' Maybe it's unfair to ask taxpayers to fund them all. Of course as a supporter of the welfare state we shouldn't abandon people in hard times but if people know that the state can only afford to look after (for example) 3 kids per person then it's irresponsible parenting to have more.

There is more than enough money and resources to look after all the larger families in society, and then some. The problem is that a significant majority of society's wealth and resources are being hoarded and controlled by a small bunch of powerful plutocrats. If it weren't for that then large families would be a non-issue.


In terms of population that was a direct answer to Takayuki and their post. I accept of course the failings and mismanagement under capitalism of resources.

If I am looking at the problem backwards (and it's possible!) could you explain, under which vision you see having 10+ kids not being a bad/problematic/irresponsible idea?

When there are sufficient resources to look after. Which there is.


'Just because'? interesting, not sure where that came from, jumping to conclusions? I reckon there are two major factors, 1 is that these 10+ families generally (don't show me an exception, I said GENERALLY) come from very uneducated backgrounds and 2nd (a distant second) that they know that they will not have to pay for it, free house, allowances etc. Maybe they know this will not offer them a life of luxury as portrayed by the Daily Mail but maybe it is a better life than the alternative for very uneducated people (lumpen prols).

If large families are down to poor education, then the solution is to improve education, not to start treating poor families like over-breeding cattle. If people are choosing to live on benefits rather than work, then maybe, just maybe, that's because working for a minimum wage is a fucking miserable existence which no self-respecting human being willingly embraces. Why should the problem be with the people, and not with a crappy economy that offers nothing but shit-work for the socially disadvantaged?


On a slightly unrelated topic, why is the 'left' almost non-existant in the UK?

Don't know. But unless you have any evidence, I'm dubious that it's because of a lack of neo-Malthusian misanthropy.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Not quite related but it would be nice to discourage large, irresponsible sized families, 11 children is not being responsible. Not because other people have to pay to help them via taxes but because of it's unsustainable.

I'd like to see a maximum 3 children law introduced in the UK.

There's a time and a place, and a thread about a father who murdered his son isn't the place to extol the merits of population control.....

[LeonJWilliams]

Again, what's the alternative? A lot people resent to having tax money used on (the very few) people who have loads of kids with scant regard for how to pay for them, but other than forcing unlucky kid no. 4 to starve or having a policy of forced sterilisation of women after 3 births, what can you do?

It's the same as people who abuse the NHS by constantly harassing doctors with the smallest of complaints demanding medicine. As annoying as it is, what do you do? Enforce a quota for doctor visits per year?

No.

Why would the kid 4 starve? Bit of a jump! Maybe the parents could try to find a job! There are other ways to pay for child 4 than purely benefits.

It's not like the NHS, we as normal people do not know whether out aches etc are serious or not so it's better to get it checked, even if it means going to the Doctor all the time.

[LeonJWilliams]

There's a time and a place, and a thread about a father who murdered his son isn't the place to extol the merits of population control.....

The point is, should people like Mr Philpott be allowed to breed endlessly when the tab is being picked up by UK taxpayers?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

The point is, should people like Mr Philpott be allowed to breed endlessly when the tab is being picked up by UK taxpayers?

Again, this was not the prurpose of this thread, I was highlighting the hypocrisy of our Chancellor who is more than eager to use a tragic case like this to grab headlines attacking people on benefits whilst he has dismissed claims that his welfare reforms mark the end of the welfare state as "shrill, headline-seeking nonsense".
Use another (maybe new?) thread to discuss population control and the breeding habits of the working classes.

[LeonJWilliams]

ÑóẊîöʼn

You don't HAVE to provide an alternative but it helps people to have a better look at the options, maybe learn something, when people have misinformed/stupid/reactionary opinions we, as communists, should try to show alternatives and change their opinons through greater understanding of the issue.
Basic Income is an interesting concept; thumbs up.

I never said that it was right, more of that's the reality. I also support the welfare state but feel there is potential to use the welfare state to help guide people into making better decisions, to help people's standard of living.

How can, in contemporary UK, having 10+ kids ever be seen as a rational decision? Shame and stigmatise them by offering food stamps instead of cash? Sounds like a better idea, money for the children, not cigarettes and alcohol.

Valid point. If it weren't for that then large families would be less of an issue.

So in your fantasy UK, people never make bad decisions? People never repeatedly make bad decisions? Of course it's an awful situation to be in, have 10+ kids or work minimum wage and if a limit of children were to be implemented it should be coupled with supporting policies such as a liveable wage and free education, living expenses while studying etc.

Well as you don't know why the 'left' is almost non-existent in the UK I fully suggest that you dedicate some time to that question and why the 'left' constantly fails to communicate and relate to the British working class (and by working class I mean actual working class, not lumpen).

[LeonJWilliams]

Again, this was not the prurpose of this thread, I was highlighting the hypocrisy of our Chancellor who is more than eager to use a tragic case like this to grab headlines attacking people on benefits whilst he has dismissed claims that his welfare reforms mark the end of the welfare state as "shrill, headline-seeking nonsense".
Use another (maybe new?) thread to discuss population control and the breeding habits of the working classes.

The chancellor is a moron whose popularity since being elected has plummeted.

Apologies for kinda derailing your thread, I didn't realise one comment would get so out of hand!

[hatzel]

Again, this was not the prurpose of this thread, I was highlighting the hypocrisy of our Chancellor who is more than eager to use a tragic case like this to grab headlines attacking people on benefits whilst he has dismissed claims that his welfare reforms mark the end of the welfare state as "shrill, headline-seeking nonsense".
Use another (maybe new?) thread to discuss population control and the breeding habits of the working classes.

But what you seem to overlooking is that Leon is actually the George Osborne of the thread, equally eager to use a tragic case like this to start asking the same questions of the welfare system as the Chancellor is, agreeing in principle, so perhaps this is exactly the thread for it. I mean...


I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state – and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state – subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had.


The point is, should people like Mr Philpott be allowed to breed endlessly when the tab is being picked up by UK taxpayers?

...what's the difference, exactly? The two could be interchanged, each saying one or the other and it wouldn't be at all out of place either way...

[LeonJWilliams]

...what's the difference, exactly? The two could be interchanged, each saying one or the other and it wouldn't be at all out of place either way...

It was a question, not an argument. (notice '?')

Interchanged? You mean Mr Philpott should pay for taxpayers to have 10+ children? lol

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It was a question, not an argument. (notice '?')

Interchanged? You mean Mr Philpott should pay for taxpayers to have 10+ children? lol

Interchangeable means that you and Mr. Osborne in this case makes the exact same argument, basing your resistence upon a sort of populist regarding "taxpayers money" spent on people having children. Do you fancy that there's a great deal of people in the UK who have 10+ children? Outside of a few odd-balls that make it onto those "Huge Families" reality shows, it's not very common, you know. The average is 1.9 children per woman, and this includes higher numbers for recently arrived migrants etc, who due to their traditions and origins sometimes have higher; in other words, these enormous families you are so concerned about, who SUCK DRY THE TAX PAYER COFFERS, as you have been implying, are statistically insignificant.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ÑóẊîöʼn

You don't HAVE to provide an alternative but it helps people to have a better look at the options, maybe learn something, when people have misinformed/stupid/reactionary opinions we, as communists, should try to show alternatives and change their opinons through greater understanding of the issue.
Basic Income is an interesting concept; thumbs up.

Sometimes however there is no need for any alternative, because there is no real problem in the first place, or the source of the problem has been misidentified.

See also this article: A Town Without Poverty: The Canadian Basic Income Experiment (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100)


I never said that it was right, more of that's the reality. I also support the welfare state but feel there is potential to use the welfare state to help guide people into making better decisions, to help people's standard of living.

Which cutting money from people will not achieve, how could it?


How can, in contemporary UK, having 10+ kids ever be seen as a rational decision?

I call it the price of a free society. We can certainly afford it.


Shame and stigmatise them by offering food stamps instead of cash? Sounds like a better idea, money for the children, not cigarettes and alcohol.

Except that you'll just end up creating a black market where items bought with food stamps are traded for "forbidden" items. Well done, you've just created another black market for criminal elements to exploit. That is the exact opposite of creating a fair and stable society.


Valid point. If it weren't for that then large families would be less of an issue.

They wouldn't be an issue at all.


So in your fantasy UK, people never make bad decisions? People never repeatedly make bad decisions? Of course it's an awful situation to be in, have 10+ kids or work minimum wage and if a limit of children were to be implemented it should be coupled with supporting policies such as a liveable wage and free education, living expenses while studying etc.

Creating an ever-growing list of conditions and qualifiers for social assistance makes it less effective, as increasing resources are devoted to policing the system and anti-fraud measures, rather than actually helping people. It also creates an unhealthy professional environment for the workers at the benefits office - I'm sure you've been following the news regarding allegations of Jobcentres having targets and league tables, yes? Turns out they were (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions).


Well as you don't know why the 'left' is almost non-existent in the UK I fully suggest that you dedicate some time to that question and why the 'left' constantly fails to communicate and relate to the British working class (and by working class I mean actual working class, not lumpen).

I find your dismissive attitude towards the lumpen to be most unbecoming of someone who ostensibly wishes to create a more just society. Maybe such dismissal of those with perhaps the lowest status of all, is partly why the left in the UK is in such a shit state.

[human strike]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/domestic-violence-mick-philpott

It's not about welfare, it's about patriarchy.

[LeonJWilliams]

ÑóẊîöʼn

Great link, very interesting.

I might have more support for the lumpen if they weren't so inclined to stab me for the money in my pocket, attacking, physically, the working class.

[CaptainJackJohnson]

This whole argument is ridiculous. In use-and-occupation based economy of possession, you'll only ever earn as much as you can physically produce. If you want to have a large family, its theoretically possible for you to do so, but as you're the one who has to work harder to support them, you won't be dragging anyone else down with you. Alternatively, if you don't want to work as much, you don't have kids.

In capitalism, the reason large families are associated with the lowest and highest earners are because they are subsidised. In the case of low earners, its through benefits, and in the case of high earners, its through exploitation of workers. In both of these cases resources are being stolen from workers to support your desire for a larger family.

In a socialist society, it will not be possible to steal the resources of others and therefore the whole topic of population control is a moot point, as it will be self-regulating. Advocating government intervention in births only takes us further away from this ideal. The only way to actually stop people having too many children is to take away their ability to steal the resources of others through benefits and surplus value.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

And Dave is right behind him...

David Cameron has backed Chancellor George Osborne after he suggested a link between the Mick Philpott case and the need for welfare reform.
The prime minister told the BBC that living on benefits should not be a "lifestyle choice".
Unemployed Philpott has been jailed for killing six of his children in a fire.

Much of the coverage of the trial focused on the fact Philpott, his wife and his mistress had lived with him at the three-bedroom council house in Derby with 11 of their children.
He received more than £8,000 a year in child benefit, as well as the income support and wages paid to his wife and mistress, which went into his bank account.

(BBC News)

[Hit The North]

Takayuki
I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me but to fail to acknowledge there is an issue here is exactly why the 'left' is in such a dire state, particularly in the UK.

A bigger problem for the left is that there are too many, like yourself, willing to see 'the issue' within the assumptions of Tory thinking.

Philpot had 11 kids and killed 6 of them. So what? The average number of children per family in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11960183) is 1.96 and most of them survive their parents. It is this figure that should guide public policy, not the tabloid scare-stories of exceptional cases. So your 'issue', at best, is totally irrelevant. But then the whole logic of this government's policy-making has been based on exceptional worst-case scenarios that have the merit to deliver a number of advantages: (1) tap into the prejudices and insecurities of those groups of workers who have social proximity to the worst-cases, allowing the Tories to gather working class support for the austerity program; (2) play to the prejudices of their middle class constituents; and (3) push public spending downward towards a race to the bottom. The concept of 'Fairness' plied by the Tories is a trojan horse for attacks on the whole working class.

But you seem to like to play the same game - turning this thread into an argument about Philpott's breeding habits as if they were a generalised threat - and your voice becomes indistinct from the grubby Chancellor and his baying bloodhounds in the right-wing bourgeois press. So i don't think 'the Left' needs any guidance from you.

For socialists, the real issue is not whether taxpayers money is being squandered by several thousand scroungers, but why it is being used to subsidise capitalism and the low-wage economy and to support a system where the rich continue to amass greater wealth while millions are condemned to being stigmatised because they rely on benefits.


I might have more support for the lumpen if they weren't so inclined to stab me for the money in my pocket, attacking, physically, the working class.

Is that all you've got to offer to counter NoXion points, your prejudices? I'm embarrassed for you.

[LeonJWilliams]

A bigger problem for the left is that there are too many, like yourself, willing to see 'the issue' within the assumptions of Tory thinking.

Philpot had 11 kids and killed 6 of them. So what? The average number of children per family in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11960183) is 1.96 and most of them survive their parents. It is this figure that should guide public policy, not the tabloid scare-stories of exceptional cases. So your 'issue', at best, is totally irrelevant. But then the whole logic of this government's policy-making has been based on exceptional worst-case scenarios that have the merit to deliver a number of advantages: (1) tap into the prejudices and insecurities of those groups of workers who have social proximity to the worst-cases, allowing the Tories to gather working class support for the austerity program; (2) play to the prejudices of their middle class constituents; and (3) push public spending downward towards a race to the bottom. The concept of 'Fairness' plied by the Tories is a trojan horse for attacks on the whole working class.

But you seem to like to play the same game - turning this thread into an argument about Philpott's breeding habits as if they were a generalised threat - and your voice becomes indistinct from the grubby Chancellor and his baying bloodhounds in the right-wing bourgeois press. So i don't think 'the Left' needs any guidance from you.

For socialists, the real issue is not whether taxpayers money is being squandered by several thousand scroungers, but why it is being used to subsidise capitalism and the low-wage economy and to support a system where the rich continue to amass greater wealth while millions are condemned to being stigmatised because they rely on benefits.



Is that all you've got to offer to counter NoXion points, your prejudices? I'm embarrassed for you.

I assume you mean NoXion's point, I agreed with him in places, countered in other places without solution.
Did you read the posts or just the last one? No need to feel embarrassed for me ;)

Even if such breeding limits would only effect a small minority, shouldn't all nasty people abusing the system be picked up on and rectified? The Queen, the bankers et al?

[LeonJWilliams]

Visions of Idiocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) come to mind.

[Tenka]

Visions of Idiocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) come to mind.

What are you trying to say with this? That if we don't weed out the stupid litter-bearing benefits scroungers, their stupid genetically irresponsible children will take over?

Though I fancy Idiocracy a possibly realistic vision of the future under Crapitalism, it would not come about through the breeding habits of people you find distasteful (even though this was the lame reasoning given in the film), but probably through abuse of technology and mass apathy and whatnot.

[LeonJWilliams]

Responsible people have less children.

[ed miliband]

Responsible people have less children.

were my grandparents who had 9 children irresponsible then? cheers, you twat.

[LeonJWilliams]

more applicable to the current generation, I'm 1 of 3 but my parents were 1 of 7 and 1 of 9

[Quail]

Responsible people have less children.
Actually, it's less about responsibility and often about class and the opportunities women have. Women who are more educated, who have better standards of living, who aren't subject to religious restrictions on contraception and abortion tend to have fewer children.

[LeonJWilliams]

Actually, it's less about responsibility and often about class and the opportunities women have. Women who are more educated, who have better standards of living, who aren't subject to religious restrictions on contraception and abortion tend to have fewer children.

Yes, I said the same in an earlier post.

[Quail]

Yes, I said the same in an earlier post.
Well then, in that case the solution isn't imposing a limit on the number of children a woman can give birth to, but improving the material conditions for women.

[human strike]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21753195

"Philpott fire deaths trial shines light on polyamory"

Oooooooh shit. Major failure here to recognise the difference between polyamory and abuse.

[LeonJWilliams]

Well then, in that case the solution isn't imposing a limit on the number of children a woman can give birth to, but improving the material conditions for women.

Yep, thanks to the debate and the help from my good friend NoXion I will direct my irritations towards the fight for better education, free for everyone.

[Hit The North]

Even if such breeding limits would only effect a small minority, shouldn't all nasty people abusing the system be picked up on and rectified? The Queen, the bankers et al?

No, because it is not a matter of defending the 'system'. It is their system, not ours. What does it matter to us if some "nasty people" abuse the system today, if we wish to tear it down tomorrow?

Also, you seem to be arguing from the position that the system is good and that it is abused by nasty individuals whether among the poor or the rich and they need to be "rectified". But, for a socialist, it is the system that is rotten and it is the system that needs rectifying - through a revolution.