We need a coup

Janpt "The fact is that there is no need for a child in this country to go hungry. There are enough benefits available for those who need them and use them for what they are intended i.e. not Cigarettes and drink. I cannot understand why people continue to have children they cannot afford to feed."

In the current crisis this is an appalling thing to say. Thousands of people are either going to lose their jobs or be furloughed on reduced wages. Many of them are on the minimum wage which is currently £8.72 an hour. There have been delays in delivering benefits, especially since the change to universal credit and these delays will be extended owing to the increasing numbers applying.

Not to mention all of those people who are on zero hours contracts getting zero hours work.

*Maizie8 Complacency is not the best of moves in such a situation. That's how dictatorships take control.

and what is a coup if not dictatorships taking control

You may hate this current governmnet, so do I, but I will fight to the death to keep our parliamentary democracy, even if it means defending this government - and I would have done nothing less had a Labour government won the election and proved to be just as abysmal and as autocratic as this one. (which it undoubtedly would have been)

I quite agree about Mrs Thatcher and, I suspect Gordon Brown, despite his many failings, would have been up to the task as well.

but I will fight to the death to keep our parliamentary democracy,

But our Parliamentary democracy ids being destroyed, MOnica, can you not see that?

Parliament should be sovereign. I hate to assume that you don't know what that means, but it means that collectively, the Commons and the Lords, all of them, regardless of party, are the people who legislate, who make the law, not the government. They are the people who scrutinise the Executive (i.e the government) and have the power to amend or throw out legislation proposed by the Executive. They are losing that power. They actually, because of the huge tory majority voted to lose that power, which is absolutely insane. The only way that the Executive can be stopped is by their bills being defeated; which they won't be because party comes before country..

The government also proposes to break international law, to disregard the Rule of Law which is the fundamental element in a free and fair democracy, and, to prevent any judicial scrutiny of any of their actions. Without the power to hold them to account in any way at all they then have unlimited powers. They become a dictatorship. They become the dictatorship which the Civil War was fought to prevent. They are carrying out a coup against the British people. Voting for MPs who rubber stamp the government is not democracy. It's a sham...

I don't approve of coups because time and time again history tells us that they are violent and disruptive events in which significant numbers of the population suffer.

OTOH, I could see civil disobedience being a powerful weapon, as in the anti Poll tax movement.

There are enough benefits available for those who need them and use them for what they are intended i.e. not Cigarettes and drink. I cannot understand why people continue to have children they cannot afford to feed.

I am amazed that anybody can still come up with this kind of nonsense!

Let me help you with your understanding!

I had two children when I was 37 and 42. I left it quite late in life because my husband and I wanted to make sure that we were "secure" financially - model citizens who would never have to claim benefits.

Little did I know that my husband would lose his job, our marriage would fall apart and I eventually buckled from the stress and lost my job too! I also lost my house.

My story is by no means unique. The majority of single parents claiming any kind of benefits are in their 30s or 40s (according to the ONS) and have previously been in a long-term relationship or married. They don't choose not to be able to feed their children. I think you should look at how little they receive in benefits. I'm pretty good at household budgeting, but there was no way I could ever have afforded to smoke, drink alcohol or even have a modern phone. We didn't have a TV after the old one broke and, for a few months, we didn't have any electricity in most of the house because I couldn't afford an electrician.

How dare you you stereotype people and judge them the way that you do! I suppose I should feel sorry that you are so ignorant about other people, but I'm not!

growstuff

*There are enough benefits available for those who need them and use them for what they are intended i.e. not Cigarettes and drink. I cannot understand why people continue to have children they cannot afford to feed.*

I am amazed that anybody can still come up with this kind of nonsense!

Let me help you with your understanding!

I had two children when I was 37 and 42. I left it quite late in life because my husband and I wanted to make sure that we were "secure" financially - model citizens who would never have to claim benefits.

Little did I know that my husband would lose his job, our marriage would fall apart and I eventually buckled from the stress and lost my job too! I also lost my house.

My story is by no means unique. The majority of single parents claiming any kind of benefits are in their 30s or 40s (according to the ONS) and have previously been in a long-term relationship or married. They don't choose not to be able to feed their children. I think you should look at how little they receive in benefits. I'm pretty good at household budgeting, but there was no way I could ever have afforded to smoke, drink alcohol or even have a modern phone. We didn't have a TV after the old one broke and, for a few months, we didn't have any electricity in most of the house because I couldn't afford an electrician.

How dare you you stereotype people and judge them the way that you do! I suppose I should feel sorry that you are so ignorant about other people, but I'm not!

Have you ever seen so called 'poor people' interviewed on T.V.? They usually have more than two children, quite often a large dog, a very large t.v. e.t.c. It never seems to occur to them to limit the size of their families as they know that tax payers who do just that will continue to provide for them. They even joke about getting bigger council houses to accommodate them all.

Maizie You are unnecessary alarmist. Look back over the history of Parliament and it has survived far worse than we are facing now. Today things are at a pretty low level, but how can making it worse be any good? Who would lead this coup?

Just look across the pond, could anything be worse than Donald Trump and what he has done to democracy in the USA, but their democracy will survive and revive. So will ours.

What Monica says ??

Janpt, this makes me so angry. The fact you put "poor people" in inverted commas shows that you just think they are scroungers. What do you suggest? Exposing their least favourite child on a hillside so that they don't have to feed them? Eating the dog maybe? And imagine the audacity of having a TV! To the poorhouse with them!

I'd suggest getting out into the real world to understand what problems people are facing before making such ridiculous comments.

Janpt, Have you ever seen so called 'poor people' interviewed on TV? They usually have more than two children, quite often a large dog, a very large tv etc........ I haven't printed out the rest of your judgemental post it can stand on its own.

You disregard the genuine post from growstuff , telling her own experience in going from what no doubt you would see as hard working families etc, to losing the lot, for no fault of her own and being in a position where claiming benefits was the only option.

The tv shows you refer to as your research into the lives of 'the poor' are exploitative programmes, deliberately made to show the minority of claimants who fit into the Shameless category. Have you ever met any 'poor people' as you call them.

I see from the news this morning that the shameless vote in parliament has led to a huge increase in the number of small local businesses offering packed lunches to any child in their area who needs them. Our local towns facebook group are full of such messages. Its an indictment of this government and gives me hope for humanity.

What we really don’t need now (! Understatement of the year) is civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience will put neighbours against neighbours, destroy families who are already struggling. To say nothing of the intolerable position it would put our armed forces and police in.

JanPT In this area in the last 5 years we have had inquests on people who have died of malnutrition, because they could not understand and were let down by the Benefits Agency. There are families where parents have been not eating to feed their children, children taken into care because their families are homeless.

If you haven't seen these cases on television, then you have been shutting your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la to yourself in a loud voice.

Perhaps you turn off as soon as someone from the Trussell Trust comes on and talks about the problems people have accessing benefits, of the delays that occur, of the problems those who do not have computers and smart phones have? This was on the television constantly when the schools were closed, because of the number of children unable to keep up with school work because they had no access to computers.

Read Jack Munro's story. I assume you have heard of her, so that I do not need to give you a link. My DGC attend a school that draws equally from an area of inter war semi's and a council estate where there are many poor children and my DDiL, who was involved in helping families talked to me of the problems many families there faced.

Yes, I have seen the interviews you mention, but tv programme makers like families like this, because they like the way people like you react it is really good for advertisers and families like those interviewed love the 15 minutes of fame tv programmes gives them. Sadly those truly in want, are too ashamed to seek publicity.

Maizie You are unnecessary alarmist. Look back over the history of Parliament and it has survived far worse than we are facing now.

Perhaps you'd like to give me some past examples of Parliament voting away its powers? Or of what 'far worse' things it has survived, MOnica.

I have, at least, based my conclusions on verifiable evidence.

Lets start with the Civil War and Oliver Cromwell.

Oh let's not MOnica, those dark days. I always feel it must have been like Narnia, always winter and never Christmas. Mind you, that's how I felt when Thatcher was in power and it's even worse now.

Sorry MOnica, I wasn't dismissing your reference to the civil war. I was agreeing, please not even further division.

The Tories get rid of leaders when they don’t have a chance of winning.
Yesterday Johnson was again lying in Parliament when he accused the Labour Mayor of being responsible for TFL’s need for a bail out. This from a government who demanded that the buses and trains should run on time even when passengers were practically non existent. Where were all these passengers ? Well at home working as directed by the government. Then he brandished the falsehood that TFL were financially in good shape when the former mayor was in charge. What a laugh, this from the instigator of so many bad financial decisions from useless buses to a ridiculous garden bridge which has cost us Londoners millions. Then the mayor is being told to withhold bus passes, raise council taxes etc but apparently it will be the Mayor’s decision not the government. Lie upon lie from a PM who lies when his lips move.

To all on here who are outraged at what I have said about people who cannot afford to feed their children. You have missed the point which is do not bring children into the world unless you can afford to feed them without the help of benefits. I am an only child because my parents took that decision so perhaps you can understand why I get so angry when I see people with large families claiming benefits and wanting bigger council houses to accommodate them.

Alegrias2

*Janpt*, this makes me so angry. The fact you put "poor people" in inverted commas shows that you just think they are scroungers. What do you suggest? Exposing their least favourite child on a hillside so that they don't have to feed them? Eating the dog maybe? And imagine the audacity of having a TV! To the poorhouse with them!

I'd suggest getting out into the real world to understand what problems people are facing before making such ridiculous comments.

The only ridiculous comments are yours.

Janpt, I can see that you feel your anger is righteous because your parents took the decision to have only one child for financial reasons. Why does that justify your judgemental, dismissive claims about large families/people on benefits/large council houses?
Do you actually know any of these people? Do you know anything about their lives before you rush to judgement. I'm with Alegrias and disagree with you that 'the only ridiculous comments here are yours'

YOU have missed an important point, Janpt - that the vast majority of people on benefits had lready had families while they were doing OK financially and expected to be able to feed and clothe them without big problems.

Which of the children should they choose to delete when they unexpectedly hit hard times? How much would they get for that TV, if they were to sell it, and how long would the proceeds feed them and pay the rent?

M0nica

Lets start with the Civil War and Oliver Cromwell.

Come on then. What about the Civil War and Cromwell?

How does this fit in with your 'parliament has survived worse things' thesis?

Elegran

YOU have missed an important point, Janpt - that the vast majority of people on benefits had lready had families while they were doing OK financially and expected to be able to feed and clothe them without big problems.

Which of the children should they choose to delete when they unexpectedly hit hard times? How much would they get for that TV, if they were to sell it, and how long would the proceeds feed them and pay the rent?

That's a ridiculous argument. I'm referring to those who go on to have more children knowing that they cannot afford to feed them without claiming benefits.

And how many of those are there?

Elegran's argument is very sound.