Large families

Absent C&P below:

absent Fri 05-Apr-13 10:47:01

Greatnan I'm not so sure you're right. Reading letters in various newspapers and even some of the posts on Gransnet, I think that there are people who would leave the children of existing large families on welfare to starve. They would shake their heads and say how sad it is but the parents have been so irresponsible.

Sel Why are you asking me such a silly question? You and I know perfectly well that no one had posted that on Gransnet and I never said anyone had.

I agree with you Sel but how do we get the people who need the education to accept it? More integration between families would hep.

I would also like to know who these gransnetters are with the extreme opinions which are so frequently mentioned.

I don't think it is selfish to have a larger family if you can afford it. If you then hit hard times that is when the welfare system should kick in to help. If however, you can't afford to have a large family yourself it is most certainly selfish to expect the rest of us to keep them.

Absent I would be very interested to know which person on Gransnet posted 'that large families on benefits should be left to starve'

Greatnan I am well aware that there are many areas of the world that are less populated but I was talking globally. We have finite natural resources and each mouth accounts for a drain on them. Whilst it is understandable in Third World countries that uneducated women with no access to contraception or health care continue to have many children, I don't think it is acceptable in the developed world. I believe it is selfish in fact. I am obviously not talking about 'blended' families.

So, I would go back to education.

That's interesting. It seems there are more large families on welfare than I thought, more than 1 in 10. I wonder why that is? What percentage of the population is on welfare? Is it 1 in 10?

To be sure in this discussion that information is correct. Try the CPAG and the ONS site for the facts about family size benefits etc.

www.cpag.org.uk/

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/index.html

and for stuff about immigrants rights

https://www.facebook.com/#!/KeepCalmBritain

There is a notoriouslarge family who live on the same estate as my son and DIL. The local authority knocked two houses into one huge house in order to accommodate their ever growing numbers. They have all been to prison at one time or another and the eldest son is currently serving a long sentence for a vile crime. All of the children have now left home and live in their own flats/houses (local authority rented) and yet the mum still lives alone in this huge 6/7 bedroomed house (paid for by the local authority obviously).

Having said that, I still believe that huge families are quite rare and Greatnans early statistics prove the point.

One thing is certain, there are loopholes that permit abuse of the welfare system including the health system - to the detriment of all - including the deserving - as a senior doctor and professor pointed out this week (I first picked up about it on Twitter but Google found a report on it in The Spectator):

www.spectator.co.uk/features/8880071/international-health-service/

In this case the loophole appears to be issuing overseas visitors with an NHS number. It's unbelievable that people are filling hospitals near Heathrow Airport for free treatment and being wheeled back to their planes still in a wheelchair (from the article). I shake my head.

If these families were 'left to starve' who would be the first to whinge if the children later became 'feral youths' roaming the streets mugging respectable citizens?

Actually Greatnan I do agree with you - the welfare state was set up to help those families you mention, no matter how many children they have.

What needs to be done is to educate people to be responsible for their own lives, then if they do fall on hard times the welfare state is there to help them.

Something has to be done about the abuse of the welfare system but how this can be done without hurting those who the system was set up to help I just don't know.

Greatnan I'm not so sure you're right. Reading letters in various newspapers and even some of the posts on Gransnet, I think that there are people who would leave the children of existing large families on welfare to starve. They would shake their heads and say how sad it is but the parents have been so irresponsible.

I am afraid most people who talk about large families seem to rely on anecdotal evidence from the tiny number of such families they know about.
Of course we all agree that people should be responsible but as I have pointed out (several times!) sometimes people who already have what some would consider the wrong amount of children fall on hard times through no fault of their own. It must be horrible for them to be pilloried and associated with the feckless.
Nobody has said what should be done with existing large families - it is evident that the children cannot be left to starve.
My whole point is that whatever statistics you use, such families are rare in comparison to the general population and should not be used as a way of trying to cut benefits.

sunseeker

I don't think anyone would advocate state control over population regulation, either from the point of view of birth control or for us older ones, euthanisia?! However, a degree of personal responsibility is a creditable thing. Anecdotal accounts of happy, fulfilled, stable larger families can be countered by the experience of seeing a large family unable to sustain themselves physically, financially, emotionally, with exhausted parents and children with restricted life chances. It is my personal view that having children is of course a personal choice and carries great responsibilities as well as joys, but I also think that no-one has a right to have child just because they want one. I agree with Sel and Greatnan, overpopulation and the distribution of resources is a serious debate and it might be beneficial if those contemplating having many children could get away from thinking it's just about their own family and look at the wider picture.

MiceElf I know you were not getting at those of us who don't have children but would point out that as we don't have family to look after us we will be providing employment to others to do so.

Most of us can come up with instances of large families who are hard working and support their families, just as some of us can provide instances of families who don't.

In my own family I have a BiL who has 4 children, one of whom is disabled. The 3 able bodied children are now grown with families of their own and all are employed. My BiL is almost 70 and is still working as he wants to set up a trust fund for his disabled child and doesn't feel he has yet got enough money to do so.

I also have another BiL who also has 4 children, is a heavy drinker hasn't worked for at least 10 years and has no intention of ever doing so. Fortunately, his children don't seem to have inherited his attitude and are either already working or in education.

Taking a bit of a chance here but can I just say something in George Osbornes favour - he didn't actually link the Philpotts to the benefits changes. He was asked what he thought should happen to families like the Philpotts. (Grabs tin hat and ducks)

Well it seems the DM is not as sensationalist as I had thought from reading GN. Last night the BBC said the figures were 140,000 with 5 or more children so either the BBC is worse than the DM or the DM is not so bad.

The only way we could get a proper perspective on this, imo, is to find out what percentage of those on welfare have families bigger than 4/5 and what percentage of those not on welfare had such families. Then we could have a sensible debate based on facts.

Perhaps someone should point out to GS that nearly all the over 65s have paid into the system and are simply getting their own money back!

My own opinion is that I would prefer our money to go to the large families which have fallen on hard times than to someone like Mr Phillpot who has been said to have had more children so he could get a bigger house and more benefits.

As there is a finite amount of money I think it should go to those who can't help their situation rather than those who have made a lifestyle choice to have a large family they know they cannot afford and expect their hard working friends and neighbours to support. The number of people this applies to is irrelevant, they are using resources which could be better spent on those who do not choose such a lifestyle.

Of course not - nobody has a solution! I suppose raising the age of retirement and pension was a shot at it.

Gillian Shepherd is 73 herself, so she should know. Does she have a solution?

According to Gillian Shephard, people over 65 are much more of a drain on the state than the few large families! Now, what would anybody do about that?

I suppose it is one way of getting the great British public to accept cuts in benefits - 'well, they don't deserve to be helped'.
This subject is currently under discussion on Channel 5 'The Wright Stuff' - it will be interesting to see what is said.

The Daily Mail likes nothing more then to bash anything negative. If it's not dreadful tales of immigrants marching in taking all our council houses and benefits its the large family benefit dodger. They don't mention how hard most immigrants work as they have come here to improve their lives. Like thousands and thousands of British immigrants to places like Canada and Australia. There are big families - the ones are tv recently were, except for one, all hard working parents with well behaved children.
Families like the Phillpotts, thankfully, are not the norm. There are thousands on benefits for a good reason, there will always be those who abuse the system. If not benefits, on some other method, it's just how some people live their lives.
I thought George Osborne's remarks yesterday reprehensible. Like that rag the Daily Mail, he is trying to demonise those on benefits.

Over population is not a problem in every part of the world - it certainly is not in New Zealand. Distribution of resources is certainly a problem.

Given that over population is one of the largest threats to the world, I agree with Butty - education.

MiceElf There will always be people who cannot believe that any way of life that deviates from their own is acceptable. Unfortunately, it seems to have become this season's favourite game to demonise anyone with a larger family. Criticising the childless is so last year, my dear.

I only know of one large family in this area, the children go to school with my DGC, I think there are 8 possibly 9 children but they are over a huge age group the eldest are in their 20's and have partners and families of their own, and the youngest is five, both parent work long hours,they are a lovely family who all seem to help one and other out, and as in large families of old the older siblings seem to take a large part in the rearing of the younger children, while the parents work.

I am of the opinion that this is a very small group and not the benefit drain we are lead to believe, but the Government need to support the larger group of low income families who for one reason or another cannot get better paid employment.
I shudder to think of going down the route of the Chinese solution.