i didnt say all poor people did i?

No you didn’t. But the article which this thread refers to says : child benefit changes would encourage the poor to “breed”.

poor remark, and outdated language that has no place in modern politics. people are greedy/selfprotecting and will get what they can where ever they are from in the strata.

I thought Camerons gaffe was better!!….

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8159102/David-Cameron-criticised-over-John-Bercow-dwarf-joke.html

tang, that sounds a very dark appraisal of humankind. I’d like to think that there are plenty of good and selfless people alive today.

If Cameron really did say that on the spur of the moment then credit where it’s due it’s comic genius.

you are most 100% right muppetw, my point is unscrupulous behavior is not class specific, just part of human nature.

It really does not happen apart from very rarely. This is the fact. <Much research backs this

Nonk _ I suggest you read Winstons post again and stop believing the tory propaganda.

Donald Hirsch, a poverty expert at the Centre for Research in Social Policy in Loughborough,

He dismissed the unspoken theme that people chose to have children in order to reap the available benefits. “It doesn’t make sense – the benefits system is not generous enough. Your odds of being in poverty are much greater if you have children than if you don’t, and your odds of being in poverty are much greater if you have more, rather than fewer, children.”

Rhian Beynon, a spokeswoman for Family Action, which supports vulnerable families, said: “The welfare reforms will hit larger families very hard. It is not fair to assume that these families have a deliberate strategy of enlarging so as to obtain more benefits. It may be that people with large families have previously been in work but lose their jobs because of the recession.”

ernie.. absolutely, but my post was in diret response to tj saying that it does not happen.

Nonk – and all the experts in social policy and research I have read but cannot find now show that this does not happen ( apart from perhpas very occasionally)

tang; agreed, gits come in all shapes and sizes.

read winstons post tj…and agree with it.
you as i recall where outraged because this does not happen.
i was telling you that in our world it does on a weekly basis.
as a percentage it may not be huge but i/us/me and her see enough of it to be fairly depressed by it.

nice backpeddle there.

Its a tiny amount. Not a reasonable basis to make policy on.

Its all about demonising benefits claimants as the undeserving poor. Its about creating moral panics and scapegoats.

And its worked as teh gullible fools outing themselves on this thread show.

He seems to be making sense to me. It’s a (almost universally accepted) fact of life that if you give people an incentive to do something, it will increase their propensity to do it.

In the case of people on benefits having a disproportionate number of kids, it’s not going to be a good thing for society.

Seems odd to me that you’d look to social policy to answer an economics question…

anyone been reading steve bell strip in the guardian this week? class.

how is it a backpedal?
how tiny is the amount?
i dont know and neither do you? and if you post some report that you believe has all the answers then you need to stop pointing the gullible finger.
i dont want some **** stw row tj because to be honest with you i wanted to be irritaed by the stuck up fek but i cannot deny that he has SOME basis for his point.
his choice of language is apalling that i grant you.

If you read the article, “Welfare cuts will encourage poor to breed” is a pretty vicious paraphrase. Breed almost infers that he sees the poor as a different species, but he actually used the term in relation to the middle classes 😆

The Evening Standard (they did the actual interview) quote is as follows:
“We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive,”

And its worked as teh gullible fools outing themselves on this thread show.

Don’t forget to demonise anyone who does not agree with you.

Cranberry – you mean like the tories and benefit claimants?

TJ your rules on internet debate clearly state that the first poster to resort to insults has lost. 😉

In his defense I have heard the ‘breeding’ word used with a straight face. A good friend is a Viscount, and he openly talks of child berth among his own children as ‘breeding’. Did make me laugh at the time. But it does show a need to reproduce in order to keep what they have going. No excuse for a politician to use this language in the current climate.

If you read the article, “Welfare cuts will encourage poor to breed” is a pretty vicious paraphrase. Breed almost infers that he sees the poor as a different species, but he actually used the term in relation to the middle classes

The Evening Standard (they did the actual interview) quote is as follows:
“We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive,”

There is “every incentive” to do what ?? The word “breed” clearly applies to both middle and poorer class.

TJ lets face is as a socialist are you really going to lose face and agree with anything said by the right of centre even if it were true ,or a good idea?

I am no socialist. Ask Ernie.

I don’t mind good ideas no matter where they are from. This however has no real basis in fact, is designed to vilify benefit claimants and simply stinks of bias and hatred.

I would just like to express my general disgust at this sort of thing, as would my brother Keanu, my sister Destiny-Marie and everyone who has ever bought Le Coq Sportif nylon leisurewear from JJB Sport.

And your cousins Chardonnay and Tyson do they feel the same way?

They’re actually on side with it, but Chlamydia and Terminator-X are furious.

I find it offensive because its an nasty elitist stereotype denigrating benefit claimants based on bias.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Euthanasia anyone?

She’s my youngest, teachers all have it in for her, but she’s never not done nothing, right?

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Meanwhile in the real world she’s in prison.

What’s your point …….. O guardian of extreme right-wing quasi-fascist values ?

“I am no socialist. Ask Ernie”

It’s true. I can confirm that TJ is a pseudo-lefty Guardian reading bourgeois liberal.

She’s my youngest, teachers all have it in for her, but she’s never not done nothing, right?

Kin teachers all poncy barstewards wot went to college an ave kin loads of olidays

“the poor”

“breed”

disgusting language

The poor should be spayed ?

Thank you Ernie – I knew I could rely on you

While you all squabble as per, the real point of the thread has been lost.

The comment is offensive because it’s language completely de-humanises the ‘poor’. Animals breed, people raise families.

It matters not one whit that he’s apologised. He may well have been censured by Cameron in public but you can bet he’s been given a hearty pat on the back behind closed doors. All of these things keep adding up to portray the ‘poor’ just as the govt, would want and as the comments on here prove, the fear and loathing escalates.

Keep on sucking it up, it’s a tory dream come true.

New Conservative peer Howard Flight has issued an “unreserved” apology for saying child benefit changes would encourage the poor to “breed”.

The guy is an idiot- even if he believed that was the case he should have had the nous not to say it- or not to say it with a less insulting choice of language. Cameron needs to get a grip and stop giving jobs and honours to the old loony right.

However family allowance/child benefit was introduced to encourage people to have larger families to help repopulate the country after WWII therefore it is designed to incentivise people to have children or to put it in Flight’s language to “breed”. So in that sense he’s correct.

By removing family allowance/child benefit from higher rate tax payers they are being disincentivised to have have children, however the basic rate tax payers’ incentive remains in place so whilst they’re not being incentivised further neither are they being disincentivised.

Its ridiculous that the top 10-15% of earners like me are essentially being paid to encourage us to have children. However its equally ridiculous that in a country of 60 million heading towards 70 million we should be incentivising anyone to have children.

people raise families.

Apart from the ones who behave like animals!!

Keep on sucking it up, it’s a tory dream come true.

Aye, too true.

Well said trailmonkey.

I’m always a bit sceptical of the claims that having kids to get houses is a widespread problem. There were 9 girls in my year who got pregnant between the ages of 13 and 16, and none of them did it to get a house, or away from their parents.

One got pregnant at 15 deliberately to stop her 26 year old boyfriend from leaving her. She’s now 30 and has 5 kids by different dads. She works full time though, and still lives with her parents.

One got pregnant at 14 because her boyfriend (same age) told her that he was sterile, so they didn’t need to use contraception. She had an abortion.

All the others got up the duff because they didn’t think it would happen to them, as if being sub-16 was a magic defence against pregnancy. None did it as a career choice.