Large families

Cheers bluebell.

Eleothan- thank you, you are speaking for me as well -words like political dogma and looney left are not helpful - I have an extremely well-thought out, intellectually coherent political philosophy which developed out of many strands - childhood and adult experiences, parental example, education. It's developed and nuanced over the years but it's certainly not a dogma. Right, as a champagne socialist (and yes I've worked that one out to and I'm quite comfortable with it) I'm off to have a glass of it!!

I think the extremes at either end of the political spectrum are actually very similar. The spectrum comes full circle and both far 'lefties' and far 'righties' join the circle at the same place. Both groups would deny personal freedoms in favour of more authoritarianism, though the forms may differ.

And, as usual, cheap labels don't help argument much.

sunseeker Your comment on Orca's post seems eminently sensible to me - if any family needs extra support, either through parenting classes or home visits, that's probably a good idea. However, what I was saying was: how does that address the issue of welfare costs? At least in the short term - and maybe indefinitely - it would be an additional expense.

Movedalot I addressed the point you are making re limits on welfare benefits not being retrospective but only applying to future claimants. My response was that it's conceivable that this will not be a deterrent to the small number of people who have large families and, if that proves to be the case in some instances, such children will suffer. I also find it difficult to believe that a significant number of people have large families just to get welfare benefits.

Orca I think it's rather cheap to characterise people whose views you don't share as being "not capable of thinking for themselves" and merely guided by political dogma. I also think the use of the term "loony left" is unnecessarily provocative. ("righteous right" doesn't have quite the same connotations does it - and which of the "righteous right's" views do you not approve of?) Speaking personally - and no doubt for other posters - I can assure you I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

Yes, in my original question to Nelliemoser I was referring to people without medical conditions or reasons why they couldn't work.

It would also depend I think on the 'household' income. You can now only get ESA for a year unless in you are in the top group.

Oh, well, that's all right then - I'm working and claiming state pension, so not a shirker or scrounger, and I'm also paying extra tax. As I've worked for 44 years and counting I don't care what the government thinks of me.

Galen you may be right, but I can't see how any parent will be losing their benefits if they have school-aged children at home. It will just be another benefit under a different name.

That is a daft comment, sorry.

Yes, having 'too many' children that you cannot afford to look after, is indeed not taking responsibilities seriously. One could argue that with the population problems we have in the 21st Century, it would be a good idea to limit family size. On the other hand, if people want and can afford to look after them- as your brilliant daughter and sil do, then I'd say they should be able to do as they wish. Sadly it seems that those who could look after a large family chose not to, and too often - well, t'other way round.

Ana Yes the state pension is classified as a benefit, so, presumably, if you are not working but in receipt of state "hand-outs", you are a scrounger and shirker in this government's eyes.

She might however be able to claim supplementary benefits I think

Ana if she was claiming ESA and failed the medical then applied for jobseekers. Then I gather yes!

moved
I wonder if you meant ESA rather than DLA?
They haven't been called for interview in DLA yet. That's coming with PIP.
I think the third for ESA may be about right. This has been the case for a lot of people who have been on incapacity benefit for years and are now being migrated onto ESA.

We all agree that work is difficult to come by at the moment. It would be stupid to deny this.

And yet - much more study is required into the psychology of work, and what circumstances, psychology and other factors influence the difference between those who'll say 'there is not much work out there, so I'll give up and sign up' and those who will say 'damn this I won't be beaten and I will find some work, somewhere, somehow and even if it pays less than signing up even'. Some will say a strong supportive family, good education, etc- but I'll say, not necessarily. So many of our most successful people, be they professional (like my OH) and business, come from enormously 'challenged' backgrounds, which made them so darned determined.

Is the state pension 'benefit'? Or do you mean those pensioners who claim pension credit as well?

PS Forgot to add most of these are Senior Citizens!

I'd say you have a valid point Grandjura ..and it doesn't even have to be all that extreme either.
Nellie tried to find the stats for you. As far as I can judge it's about 10,000,000 people who have chosen not to work and to rely on benefits.

nelliemoser, are you seriously saying that a mother of three, say, would have her benefits stopped if she didn't make a proper effort to get a job or turn down a job offer? I don't think so - that would affect the children.

Orca - and from a distance, I'd say that the extreme swings from left to right, and right to left - as a 'conditioned' response, and where nobody genuinely tries to find solutions for the future ahead - is what causes the UK's very sad demise.

orca So how do you know who "chooses" to live on benefits and how many of them are there. I would like to know.

If a person appears not to make proper effort to get a job or turns down a job offer or leave a job of their own volition they do not get benefits.

Which is why I would like some figures on how many of these people the DWP estimate there are!

I think so Orca It does just seem a shame that a group of intelligent women have to stick to their old political views and not 'listen' properly to what others have said. Surely with all our years of experience, between us we should be able to come up with solutions better than our polititians. Unfortunately some of us seem to drone on about the past all the time which is no help when we need to be looking to the future.

I'm not offended, Orca! I think what you've said is perfectly right.

moved our posts crossed. I think from your last sentence that we are saying the same thing.no

Sunseeker you are welcome to draw logical conclusions, and you have. Very refreshing to see that someone is able to think latterly and not just look at the worst possible scenario. Part of the reason we have the blinkered system we do us because people foolishly divide along political lines. So if there is suggested reform to the benefit system the looney-left sing one tune and the righteous right sing the other. It's a conditioned reflex and neither are capable of thinking for themselves.
I think I'd better duck for cover now as I've offended both end of the political spectrum but frankly I don't give a damn!

I have just come on for the first time since yesterday and read all the posts and it does seem to me that people are either not reading other's posts properly or are deliberately not understanding.

I am sure no one has suggested taking child benefit, or any other form of welfare, away from existing families. The suggestion seems to be that 10 month's notice is given that child benefit will not be given for any subsequent children after whatever number is decided. Those already with larger families would simply not get any extra money if they had more children. It would take a very long time for savings to be made but it would be fair to everyone. I am sure the odd things like multiple births could be addressed easily.

It would be helpful if we knew how many people with large families are living entirely on benefits. Someone suggested that there are not many with more than 10 children but I think large families start far below that.

I am not sure it is helpful to give individual examples because everyone seems to agree that they are not typical.

I heard on the radio today that some third of people on DLA who were called for interview didn't turn up and came off that benefit. If that is so perhaps those unfortunate enough to be unemployed after a given time, perhaps a year, should be made to attend a course, centre, work scheme etc. for 7 hours a day unless they could prove they were going for an interview. If most of them turned up we would know there was not a problem of people working and claiming at the same time. We could abandon the scheme if it proved unecessary.

I realise this would cost money but it would give those involved the discipline they would need if they did get a job and the time could be spent helping them in whatever way they needed help.

I do think we should try to get away from some GN thinking others want people to starve and that everyone on welfare is a scrounger. I don't believe that is the case, I think we all just have a different emphasis. This is a problem, none of us know how big it is, we just take different views about how big it is.

Nanaej. When I was a GP in the Black Country. The proportion was quite high. In fact whole streets.
I'm getting the same impression in certain deprived area round here!