The Left's way forward

So if I say I was raped I can have a child, but if I don't I can't. That is really ridiculous. Firstly women don't necessarily report rape, secondly if a child is born will the child then realise-my mum must have been raped? I would love to see families able to survive without claiming tax credits, but they are necessary and this idea that by 2017 people will start having only 2 children because the government says so is ridiculous. There used to be a policy called "Every Child Matters" are we now saying "Every Child Matters except for the 3rd child of low paid parents who are claiming tax credits"?

It's known as cutting one's coat according to one's cloth.

www.livingwage.org.uk/news/kpmg-economic-analysis-raising-minimum-wage-living-wage-would-benefit-staff-and-businesses

KPMG did an analysis of what the living wage would mean to the staff and businesses. It meant a 1.3% rise in the wage bill. That's the proper living wage.

Trisher, Every Child Matters was Labour policy. That explains why it's disappeared.

What happens when your cloth changes, Ana?

Circumstances can and often do change though Ana. My DS and DDiL have 3 children. They both work hard and neither are on good wages but they just about get by. All it would take for them to be in total poverty would be for either one of them to lose their job (heaven forbid).

Personally I only ever wanted 2 children. When my DH and I met, loads of people asked when we would be having a child together. My answer was always, "never". I think too many people chop and change partners feeling this need to have a baby every time in order to "cement" the relationship.

Exactly durhamjen. Crossed posts.

All I'm saying is that people know that from April 2017 they won't get tax credits for a third child. That date is when the size of the 'cloth' is due to change.

Yes I know that Ana but what if ............. man and woman both have decent jobs. They make ends meet. They have 3 children (the 3rd child born after 2017) man or woman loses job. What does child 3 do? Starve or be put up for adoption?

1.3% rise in the national wages bill.
So very very roughly, inflation increase of 0.4%?
Not huge but there will be an impact.
[others may come up with more accurate figures. They may be on the KPMG link].

That's just silly, gillybob. The whole family would have to cut down, as do families today when one or both partners lose their jobs or are forced to accept reduced hours.

All I'm saying is that people know that from April 2017 they won't get tax credits for a third child

That isn't exactly right Ana. Anyone who is receiving tax credit for a child before that date and continues qualify for receipt of the benefit after that date will continue to receive it for those children. Anyone who does not qualify by that date, or falls out and then back into eligibility including those with more than two children, will, after that date, only receive benefit for two children.

I don't think its silly at all Ana. When people say "cut their coat......." the point is that things can and do change for many of us.

An interesting article about Tony Blair's intervention last night.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/07/22/tony-blair-is-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-jeremy-corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is way ahead.

Roy Hattersley has just been on the radio saying that Jeremy Corbyn would make Labour unelectable and that Margaret Beckett regrets putting his name forward.

I think Labour can relax, Corbyn won't win.

I meant that it was silly to make a wild assumption that the third child would starve or be put up for adoption of course, gillybob.

And yes, Gracesgran, I made that point myself at 12.35 today.

We have all had to alter our spending( the cutting one's cloth etc) over the years, when things happen like loss of job.It has certainly happened to us, and we managed until better times.If an extra child comes along, then the share just has to be stretched over the whole family as it always has done.

That's exactly what you didn't do Ana. You said "it's only families who have more than two children after that date who will be affected." This really isn't exactly true. As I said in my post "or falls out and then back into eligibility including those with more than two children, will, after that date, only receive benefit for two children." The issue arises not just with those who have more than two children after the date and you seem to be ignoring the fact that the system is fluid.

It still feels to me as if there is a section of society who feel their version of what is moral - just as extremist tend to do to "rule" the society according to their views - are punishing children in order to make their point. This is not about morality it is about looking after children in a way we can afford.

How do you know Corbyn won't win, roses?

How is it 'punishing children' to expect parents to make a responsible choice about how many they can actually afford to have?

I have inside information Djen!All very hush-hush.

So which comes first - a charismatic leader or an appealing set of policies?
I would say the leader, because, do the majority of voters really study carefully the policies of a party?
Except for Gransnetters of course

i think it's going to get complicated when couples who have children already from a previous relationship, come together and decide they want a family together.

This seems to be happening more and more, often with little thought to the wisdom of such a decision.

Yes; charismatic leader I'm afraid. Even Robin Cook admitted that he would not get votes and that was before we seemed to veer towards American style election campaigns #whydowealwayshavetofollowamerica?