Large families

Ana, I think several people agreed it would be a good idea to stop paying Child Benefit after the second child, including Movedalot.

Galen you little tinkerboots*

Yes, but I still don't see how your proposals would provide a better incentive for those who don't want to work to do so. Of course it would be more fair if those who had worked and lost their job through no o fault of their own were given enough benefits to live on and to keep their home where applicable, but there'd still have to be some form of time limit.

At 5'8" and over 13 st I don't think little applies

Ana there is a time limit on ESA now unless you're in the schedule 3 category

I think we're all talking at cross-purposes here!

There is anecdotal and ... anecdotal. My sil is not the only one of my friends on Council Estates, 5 different ones in different localities - who say the same. Which is also born by the way people have replied - 51% labour supporters in favour of reform. Am I to say to those people who tell me that abuse (which will mostly NOT show up on statisitics) not necessarily fraud, is much more prevalent than some of us believe. Am I to say to them that because I have a Degree and I am an experienced teacher, I know better than they do, because I read the Guardian and the Independent? I don't think I could - I've tried to challenge those views, but was laughed at and told I just haven't got a clue.

So should my sil stop telling his sons to get up in the morning and go and look for work and better training- so they can look after themselves, their partners and children - or just tell them to stop in bed and not worry- there are no jobs anyway?

As I have already conceded that there is probably undetected abuse and that the system should be overhauled, I am not sure what more I can be expected to say.
My main concern is the assumption that some newspapers made that large families were an unmitigated evil. I thought it was unfair to draw any conclusion from the Philpott affair and very hurtful to people with more than whatever number of children other people deemed to be reasonable.
I am still waiting for some other open minds to evince themselves!

Maybe you can give me an example, greatnan of the newspapers that have denounced all large families as evil? I can think of two large families that have been in the press in recent weeks and I think that even the most liberal minded among us would be hard pressed to find any redeeming features for them.

Is it actually possible to evince oneself?

I totally agree. I am trying to be open-minded, but I have to be open-minded to other people who tell me that they know a lot more than me about benefit abuse. The Phillpot case should have never be linked to welfare reforms. It was dreadfully and sicklingly opportunistic to do so. Large families on welfare from the start are rare, but not that rare. Certainly many have 4 to 6 children. And I believe that we all agree that a larger family having to claim benefit because someone loses a job, becomes ill or has a terrible accident, is not fair and right - which is hugely different.

Maybe it would have been much much better if careful and sensitive welfare reforms had been tackled by cross party research and working parties - before the *ankers sold us down the road. But as usual, in the extremes in UK ping-pong politics - this would have been impossible. Bring proportional representation and end this constant right-left see-sawing which has disastrous results and allows nothing to move forwards.

granjura some of us thought that the coalition might stop - even if only temporarily - the 'ping-pong politics. However, the junior partner got so obsessed with raising the tax threshold that they were unable - or just didn't care - to try to prevent the iniquitous new rules on working tax credit introduced last year which pretty much cancel out the tax reduction for thousands of families. I used to write leaflets for my local party but some of the hypocritical spin I was expected to include sickened me and although I remain a social democrat, I no longer call myself a Lib Dem.

Ceesnan - I am sure you are not saying that the Philpott case tells us anything about any large family other than that particular one. Are you?
If you look back at the thread you will see which papers were concerned. I am getting a bit bored now as I think I have said everything I want to say on the subject. People have chosen not to believe the government statistics on benefit fraud so I can do no more.

Ana - I said I was waiting for open minds to evince themselves - please don't nitpick over my use of language!

Oh yes, so you did! I wasn't nitpicking Greatnan, I simply misread your post.

To some extent I think it depends on what you call benefit fraud. A relative works for one of these companies trying to get people back to work - they are referred to one of the companies after so long out of work. When she took the job she was full of enthusiasm about really being able to help people who were unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. She has almost twenty years recruitment experience which she hoped to put to good use.kThe reality has been very different.
There are of course some people who have lost jobs and are desperate to get another one but many of these people never actually get as far as being referred to these agencies as they have found some form of employment before that stage. Of those that do get that far most of them know exactly how the system works to continue to receive benefits. They go to job interviews etc because if they don't their benefits will be stopped, sometimes they go in pyjamas at 2 pm or in totally unsuitable clothing - if they do not have suitable clothes they can be given money to buy some.
Some people will get as far as being offered a job and refuse and others just not turn up on the first day or even be so bad an employee they are sacked - back on the benefits. She had one Nigerian in UK to study refuse to go for an interview for a job he could do and was highly likely to get because he wanted to remain on benefit. His consultant was told of his reluctance to go for the job and his benefit was stopped immediately. Since the young woman who went to court because she was made to do a work experience just for her dole money, most of the sanctions that could be put on the people not taking a job have been withdrawn.
The agencies are not paid until a person has been in employment for six months and many never reach that length of time. Also many of the staff are put on targets which require them to place x number of people in a job each month. It does not matter how hard they have worked at finding the jobs, training people for the interviews etc if the unemployed do not first accept the job secondly turn up and thirdly stick at it they will eventually after a couple of months be unemployed themselves!! This makes for a very stressed workforce wondering each month if they will have a job in a few weeks.
I now think that there needs to be an even more radical shake up of the system for those who in effect refuse to work. It is quite a different thing when people who have worked for years are made redundant for any reason - it is quite easy to see who these people are by their NI and tax contributions - there must be some way of coding them when they lose their jobs so that they are really assisted in finding more work - these are the people it is easier to employ and also they do want to work again.
Most of the jobs which are out there are low end and minimum wage and also I understand that most of the jobs, at whatever level, are paying a lot less than a few years ago and that 20 - 23k is a good wage. If people who have worked for years need to take a job at a lower wage then they should get a top-up to make their pay average.
I find the discrimination with people who have a mortgage not getting housing benefit is a disgrace. These people did not want to lose their jobs and be unable to pay and not to get any payment to assist them for six months or whatever is unfair when housing benefit for rental is paid sooner.

I don't know which company your relative works for, Bez, but Private Eye has exposed at least one of them which was claiming for non-existent placements and tried to gag an ex-employee who blew the whistle on the practices.

Yes that might be the case but not the same company I think - but whatever it still does not change what I know is happening in at least one office and the tales of what people say and do to not go to work would make your hair curl.

Anno I truly understand how that must feel.

But let's take the case of large families and the so-called 'bedroom tax' (which is nothing of the sort actually). On the one hand people are saying that we should respect the choice to have a big family and support them. On the other hand, when it is suggested that as we have many families in dire need of suitable accommodation, we should look at Council properties where there is extra capacity, so that we do not have people in properties with rooms they do not need - whilst others have to live in bedsits and hotels (often at HUGE cost to the tax-payer too).

I would totally understand that the response would be 'watch out, sensible exceptions have to be made, for 'x/y/z' reasons, and ensure that this happens. But no, there is a huge uproar with huge headlines about people being on the streets (which is the total opposite), and pictures of people living in cardboard boxes on the streets (yes some do- but not the ones that would be affected by the changes). I would totally accept that people would say 'we need to build more suitable smaller properties and ensure people do not lose their social base and community. But NO - there is no will to even look at it and make the necessary proviso, etc. So we end up with one side opposing any talk of change- even if it does mean that families, including larger ones - continue to be housed totally inadequately. Nobody is listening to the other, and we end up with the same, same old mess.

Do do we want to look after families including large ones, or do we not> Can't have it both ways - we need to listen to each other and find ways to go forwards - without going back all the time to who is responsible for that, or this, or for the other, ad nauseum.

My social and family base is totally mixed- and goes pretty well from one extreme to the other. Life would be much easier I suppose if I only talked to people on one side or the other (but I'd be much poorer for it) - I suppose if your family and friends are from one side (party/economic and social circumstances) it is easier to make sweeping statements and find 'easy' solution and 'demonise' t'other side - but in the long run, it is a tragic disaster. And for me it is so sad, as I love the UK that adopted me for so long, and where my grand-children and so many friends are living. I want my beloved UK to come around and find ways forwards- but at the moment I am tearing my heart out to see what is happening - and how divided the country is, with apparently no hope of ever finding a concensus on anything, education, welfare, the NHS, etc.

Don't people realise the wealth is needed to pay for it all? Gordon Brown did - which is why he was in favour of de-regulation - as he thought (sensibly) that the wealth from de-reg would be ploughed back in taxes (sensibly) - he never thought the greedy *ankers would ever do what they did. But WHAT ON EARTH DO WE DO NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW. Sorry for shouting- but it tears my heart out to see my beloved England in the state it is. Best if I leave before I explode. Sorry.

greatnan of course I'm not, and that is in reply to your post of 19.23.44. I was rather hoping that you would have remembered which papers made such inflammatory remarks as you normally seem to have information readily to hand. Maybe I should try Google

Why are statisics so vital in a discussion such as this? Lies, damned lies and statistics - anyway, we seem to have strayed from the subject of 'large families' far enough as to put aside the supposition that there are almost no large families on benefits....

I realise that post wasn't phrased very elegantly, BTW!

Granjura I for one would be quite happy for you to run the country. I love your balanced approach which is actually based on common sense. It's refreshing too to hear someone mention that businesses should be supported as they are the section of society which actually produces the wealth to pay the benefits. I wonder if anyone on GN thinks it is representational of the general public. To my mind, it really isn't. Many are worried about the country, the future and the pathetic political ping pong. It's 2013 and we have a call for a General Strike for goodness sake.

In Portugal, as Greece, as Spain and Ireland, people have grown comfortable on unsupportable benefits and now the wake up call is a deafening shout. France elected a Socialist government because the people thought it would protect their benefits and 'soak the rich' Check out how France is doing. Interesting too to take a look at Germany and welfare and employment conditions there, there is a reason they are top dog. I do wish people would stop banging on about their rights and start talking about their responsibilities.

One other thing, we need to broaden our minds and realise that wealth is now created in a global setting. Our businesses must be competitive to generate jobs and income. The architects of the Welfare State would turn in their graves to see what it has become.

I am not sure why anybody thinks any of us are against wealth creation or business - many of us have run our own businesses.
What I am against are corrupt business practices, exploitation and usury, - surely any right minded person will agree with that.

A forum dedicated to people old enough to be grandparents can hardly be representative of the general population - after all, we are the single group costing most in benefits.