I'm sure the DUP could block it if they want
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I'm sure the DUP could block it if they want
Should have been done ages ago,
Can't see it being passed if anything came of it, the rest will block it.
Why block it?
They'll block it purely due to the fact SF proposed it! Though I imagine they would block it anyway.
Clay Davis
Member
fully agree. I find the complaints against it troubling though, a child doesn't choose to be born into a family where all claim benefits, well the parents should be taught that they can't continue to have children at the state's expense. I have no problem supporting a young family that's fallen on hard times, we've all been there and we were all grateful for the help the state can provide, but people using it as a means to continue to have children so they can gain more and more money per month through benefit? absolutely against it.
my other concern is that it won't be implemented. it needed to happen years ago but instead we're only just starting to talk about it and there's no possibility of it being implemented until after the next election apparently.
Cosmonaut X
Member
My wife and I had a planned first pregnancy - twin girls, though, which was obviously unplanned, and uncontrollable - and then had a second, unplanned pregnancy when her coil failed - another girl.
We're both working part-time and both caring for the children - three girls under 3 would mean crippling childcare costs if we both worked full-time - and making the best use of the limited benefits we receive. We would not be any better off if one of us quit work to be a full-time parent, and our benefits certainly wouldn't rise significantly to offset loss of earnings, so we are making the best of the situation until the kids are older and we are able to look at returning to full employment. In the meantime, I'm working on furthering a second career in design in my spare time, and trying to sell my writing.
The proposed changes would certainly hit people who are having kids with no thought for the consequences, and perhaps deservedly so, but they would also hit people like us who took precautions and tried to be responsible, and who are working bloody hard to keep things together.
Clay Davis
Member
it's not retroactive if I'm understanding what they want to achieve correctly. it would be for new families applying for child benefit and I feel that's absolutely fair. it wouldn't be fair to pull the rug out from people who depend on that money now but at the same time we can't allow future families to continue to grow at the state's expense.
I can understand this and while it would be unacceptable that some people who took precautions but still ended up with more than two children are impacted, it's not retroactive. so you won't be directly affected if I'm understanding what they hope to implement if / when they can.
it would only apply to people applying for child benefit after the changes are brought in.
Well I think we can all at least agree that after two years of stagnating growth and a double-dip recession, this return to a vigorous 1% growth is nothing short of a magnificent confirmation of the success of the Tories' economic policy.
A good read, but old news. We've known since at least when the Tories took the reigns that their claims about the deficit were grossly distorted to make the case for dismantling the welfare state under the auspices of economic recovery.
A good read, but old news. We've known since at least when the Tories took the reigns that their claims about the deficit were grossly distorted to make the case for dismantling the welfare state under the auspices of economic recovery.
Cosmonaut X
Member
I'm obviously going to be looking into the proposals and following this, but even if we're grandfathered out, I think there's a legitimate question about the "2 child limit" here. It's entirely possible to end up in situation where you take precautions, plan things and try to be a responsible parent but *still* fall foul of this cap (the point I was making in talking about our situation) and end up being treated as though you're trying to abuse the system - and I would wager there are a great many people like us, rather than families in our position being the rare exception.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Since the proposed limit is three children this wouldn't affect you. However if you had another kid (planned or unplanned) I wouldn't have any sympathy since you already have three kids and should already have had a vasectomy by now to ensure no more kids.
It might be harsh, but this year the government are going to borrow £120bn and every year the taxpayer funds around £40bn of tax credits (around two thirds for the child tax credit). Reducing this bill is essential in getting the state finances back on a sound footing. Not only that, but limiting benefits to three kids (and three bedroom houses/flats) is essential in removing the perverse incentives non-working families have for breeding and squirting out kids like there is no tomorrow.
Obviously you guys are responsible, and the limit of three kids is reasonable so you will not be affected (which is great) but for people with four kids with no means to pay for them all, one does wonder what went through their heads when having all those children.
It might be harsh, but this year the government are going to borrow £120bn and every year the taxpayer funds around £40bn of tax credits (around two thirds for the child tax credit). Reducing this bill is essential in getting the state finances back on a sound footing. Not only that, but limiting benefits to three kids (and three bedroom houses/flats) is essential in removing the perverse incentives non-working families have for breeding and squirting out kids like there is no tomorrow.
Obviously you guys are responsible, and the limit of three kids is reasonable so you will not be affected (which is great) but for people with four kids with no means to pay for them all, one does wonder what went through their heads when having all those children.
I'm kind of torn on the issue of child benefits, because while I think that withdrawing benefits from people is inhumane for a number of reasons, I do also think that in the longer term we ought to be trying to reorganise society around not having sprawling families, because they only really made sense in an age where you could have 8 kids and probably only 1-2 would survive. When the mortality rate is low enough that if you have 4 kids they'll all likely survive, we need to be putting resource scarcity first, because our current birth rate is unsustainable.
I'm just not sure the best way to do that is to remove benefits.
I'm just not sure the best way to do that is to remove benefits.
Cosmonaut X
Member
Pretty much where I am, and part of why my wife and I tried to plan and take precautions, rather than adopting a "hey, whatever" attitude.
I'm not blind to the problem of people who take no responsibility, though. Even locally, I know at least two families where neither parent works, neither parent is making any attempt to work and both families have just had their second child, and that's just families where I have direct knowledge of the situation, rather than ones where I know second-hand or can guess. Hearing them refer to their benefits as their "pay" and complaining when they don't get them when they expect is... well, galling would be putting it mildly.
But how do you legislate to prevent that but support those aren't behaving like that? That's the fucking difficult question.
Out of curiosity is a vasectomy permanent? For example, what if you divorce and want another child with your next partner, or God forbid lose one child or something.
Also bare in mind, for more than one child, the allowance is only £13 a week. Hardly an amount that would be incentive to have more children at all. In fact, it's the very bare minimum you'd need to be able to pay for that child, so this notion that people have multiple children only to claim money from the government is imo hugely disingenuous. The reason these 'chavs' pop children out en masse is the same reason for high birth rates in impoverished parts of any country, a lack of education.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
You are only looking at a single aspect of benefits and the child tax credit is actually £1108.92 per child for two non-working parents. You also have to look at housing benefits as well, having more than 4 kids means a bigger house and since neither the last government or this government has built very much social housing, it means renting very expensive private sector accommodation. So in addition to 2x JSA/ESA/Incapacity benefit, 5-8x child benefit and child tax credit, you also have to take £1000pcm into account for housing benefit.
Now you should be able to see why there is such a massive incentive to have kids and such a huge benefits trap in this country that there are so many workless families in the UK.
Cosmonaut X
Member
Uh, not in Scotland - or at least, not my part of it. Standard Council accommodation around here is typically a three-bed terraced house, and anything larger is bloody rare. Families with 4+ kids are *still* in three-bed houses and don't automatically get shifted to anything larger, and certainly don't get rented private accommodation - they get to sit on a list until Council accommodation becomes available.
CyclopsRock
Member
Is anyone against the cut to child tax credits for those with money? Benefits should be a safety net. You shouldn't be paid simply to have children; You should get some help if you need extra help.
Psychotext
Member
As long as it doesn't cost us more to means test it than it actually costs in benefits, yeah, I think it's perfectly reasonable.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
There are plenty of people for it, this should be obvious. Me? I tend to think that it isn't a necessity in the slightest - many more vital services and benefits have been cut before it. However I do feel that in a system where everyone is paying into a benefits system, it can be a nice fillip so that middle-earners don't feel like they are constantly paying for others' less fortunate circumstances.
EDIT: but as psychotext said, if it is more expensive to means test then it is the best option.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It isn't, and it isn't means tested. It's income tested by tax returns. Letters have been sent out to all people effected (higher rate payers currently receiving child benefits) that they will have to fill out a tax return from now on to continue receiving all or part of the child benefit.
We're moving slowly to a more american style system whereby every earner in the country fills out a tax return and their benefits are calculated on the basis of that. With the universal credit it is more than possible to make this change. It's great because benefit fraud is much, much harder and easier to trace.
CyclopsRock
Member
It might be "nice" but this isn't a service being provided - the government aren't using this to build roads or supply teachers. They're just giving out money. It doesn't seem ludicrous to advocate a system where the middle classes - who give so much money - receive their own money back? If that's honestly the best use of the money, why take it in the first place? Benefits should be given on the basis of need. If people don't need it, but you think they deserve some money, we should try taking less from them in the first place.
radioheadrule83
Banned
If the right safeguards are in place to ensure it affects mostly self sufficient / affluent families, then making savings can only be a good thing -- but like all these cuts, I'm sure there will be fringe cases where people are actually harmed.
Did anyone see the report yesterday about the road tax proposal? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/29/road-tax-two-tier-system
A two tier system, with lower tax for people who stay off the motorway (or put more realistically - higher road tax for people who use them!). Fucking ridiculous, and frankly surprising that a Tory government would be considering such a thing. Ministers can't seriously tell us to "get on our bikes" to find work, while simultaneously making it more difficult and less attractive to leave your city/town/village and commute. They surely can't be talking about helping small businesses, while simultaneously penalising them for using the road network? Road users are already over taxed, spending on road infrastructure is less than a third of what the treasury actually takes from road users. Thankfully, the reports are suggesting this is just at the 'idea' stage at the moment, but other countries do this - so I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot tries to make it a reality...
I'm reminded of the Mersey Tunnel in Liverpool, which opened in 1934 and was supposed to become free when it had paid for itself... they put the toll rates up last year. If you allow someone to institute a toll or any other kind of tax on something people NEED to use (like roads), authorities and treasuries will milk money from it for eternity.
Did anyone see the report yesterday about the road tax proposal? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/29/road-tax-two-tier-system
A two tier system, with lower tax for people who stay off the motorway (or put more realistically - higher road tax for people who use them!). Fucking ridiculous, and frankly surprising that a Tory government would be considering such a thing. Ministers can't seriously tell us to "get on our bikes" to find work, while simultaneously making it more difficult and less attractive to leave your city/town/village and commute. They surely can't be talking about helping small businesses, while simultaneously penalising them for using the road network? Road users are already over taxed, spending on road infrastructure is less than a third of what the treasury actually takes from road users. Thankfully, the reports are suggesting this is just at the 'idea' stage at the moment, but other countries do this - so I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot tries to make it a reality...
I'm reminded of the Mersey Tunnel in Liverpool, which opened in 1934 and was supposed to become free when it had paid for itself... they put the toll rates up last year. If you allow someone to institute a toll or any other kind of tax on something people NEED to use (like roads), authorities and treasuries will milk money from it for eternity.
CyclopsRock
Member
Exactly the same with the Dartford tunnel.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
-£122bn
Finallly got a chance to check out my options for Police and Crime Commissioner. There are two people running as independents in my area and the sheer fact they are independent, for some reason, made them incredibly more appealing than ones put forward by the political parties.
Personally I think it'll be interesting to see the voting results for this type of election. I doubt people will feel inclined to tow their typical party lines as much for an election for such a position as this.
Personally I think it'll be interesting to see the voting results for this type of election. I doubt people will feel inclined to tow their typical party lines as much for an election for such a position as this.
frankie_baby
Member
Well that's alright, as I'm sure nobody else's contraception method of choice will fail in the future at all.
frankie_baby
Member
Capping child benefit at 2 kids is actually rather short sighted, we need an average of more than two kids per family just to support our pension system
Psychotext
Member
Who will support their pension system?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It won't be two, it will be three. The proposal says two because the government intend to settle with family groups at three.
frankie_baby
Member
Either more than two kids for each of those or a complete ground up redesign of our pension system but that would take a whole lifetime to come to fruition
Psychotext
Member
Who will pay for the infrastructure required to handle every one of those two or more kids having two or more kids?
(It goes on and on)
(It goes on and on)
OH GOD NO. We don't need any lessons from America on how to run a welfare state, thanks. Keep your "food stamps" away from me, you fucking barbarians!
CyclopsRock
Member
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume my sarcasm detector is broken.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
What the hell are you on about man? Who said anything about copying the welfare system, we're copying how benefits will be calculated as it is easier, faster and much cheaper than the current system.
...yeah, I figured that one out all by myself, zomg, and I actually agree with it up to a certain point. Still, Poe's Law is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
(If I were being serious, I might have brought up the American healthcare system, but since the Affordable Care Act started elevating it to
nearly
unless Romney wins and the wingnuts repeal everything Obama ever touched because EWW ICKY MUSLIM KENYAN PINKO GERMS
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
So Heseltine seems to be raising some very good and sensible points, notably about the interdependence of government and markets. Will he be listened to though?
CyclopsRock
Member
I think he will, to an extent.
It's not like Heseltine doesn't have history of stiffing Tory Prime Ministers! I think the boys in Downing Street know that their plans aren't working all that well (though they aren't failing exactly either, they just aren't very effective), but politically, they need some cover to move. They can't just come out and say "We're going to change a lot of stuff we've been doing for the last 2.5 years!" because people will ask them why they haven't been doing it for the last 2.5 years. So I think they chose a Tory Lord with strong back-bench support who they knew would fly at the chance to offer all sorts of policy ideas, purely so as they can compromise with him and meet him half way, to give them the political cover they need to make the changes that they actually already want to make. Then they can say that they'e made a consultation with a tough critic, they're listening and - in a wonderful example of a-political humilty - are heeding the advice, and say to the lib dems that, at any rate, they have a backbench problem to worry about and this'll be an important step in quelling the rebellion, especially with the war re: the EU coming up in the next 6 months.
That's my view, anyway.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Government looking at defeat today. I have heard Bone has the numbers and Ed M has enforced a three line whip to support the Reckless amendment.
Cameron is a complete amateur, being outflanked on Europe by Labour. What an idiot.
Cameron is a complete amateur, being outflanked on Europe by Labour. What an idiot.
Psychotext
Member
Bone?
CyclopsRock
Member
Reckless has to be the greatest name for a politician ever. "The Reckless Ammendment", "Vote for me for a Reckless Britain", "The opposition to this motion is little more than Reckless" etc. It's like being "Dr Slaughter" or something.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Peter Bone. Arch Eurosceptic who got behind the Reckless amendment which proposes that the government go for a real terms cut in the EU budget rather than a freeze which is what is being proposed. Labour have also got behind the move. It leaves Dave facing an attack from the right of his party and from the leftist opposition and he has been completely outmanoeuvred by Labour on this one, which is concerning because Europe is supposed to be an area in which the Tories are strong and aligned with public opinion.
It's hardly surprising that Dave is leaking thousands of votes to UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the turning point for the Tories, if the government is defeated Dave will either have to become a eurosceptic to please the right wing, or he will face a leadership election. It also leaves Dave in a very weak position of having to rely on the Lib Dems to force through legislation, the Tory right and Labour could easily form a blocking coalition in Parliament if they decided they have had enough and want to go for an election.
Clay Davis
Member
I fear already moving to this/. the number of food banks has increased significantly and I have no doubts that the government is just waiting until after the next election to move to a stamps / vouchers system and take advantage of the food banks that charities have set up.
speaking of which, did anyone watch britain's hidden hungry last night? shocking to say the least, especially the advice one young girl received from the job centre. she couldn't claim benefits because she was in full time education, so the adviser told her to have a baby so she could get benefits, house and so on.
here's the episode if anyone wants to watch it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nqcbm
radioheadrule83
Banned
Remember Adam Werrity - Liam Fox's best bud who was accompanying him undeclared on military-contract related trips with no civil oversight? Who stayed rent free in Fox's second home while he was claiming expenses on it? Friend to Tory backed Defence Lobbies? Did you ever read all that shady stuff about Atlantic Bridge?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/15/liam-fox-resignation-exposes-tories
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/06/david-cameron-ministerial-code-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/19/link-liam-fox-donors-tory
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/15/liam-fox-repay-expenses-adam-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/26/donor-liam-fox-defence-lobbyist-stephen-crouch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/02/adam-werritty-links-second-minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/25/defence-minister-met-firm-funding-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/08/adam-werritty-backer-linked-minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/29/adam-werritty-liam-fox-pargav
Well... the CPS have just announced they're not going to be prosecuting him for anything as apparently there's no evidence. Friends in high places still, Adam?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/15/liam-fox-resignation-exposes-tories
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/06/david-cameron-ministerial-code-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/19/link-liam-fox-donors-tory
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/15/liam-fox-repay-expenses-adam-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/26/donor-liam-fox-defence-lobbyist-stephen-crouch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/02/adam-werritty-links-second-minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/25/defence-minister-met-firm-funding-werritty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/08/adam-werritty-backer-linked-minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/29/adam-werritty-liam-fox-pargav
Well... the CPS have just announced they're not going to be prosecuting him for anything as apparently there's no evidence. Friends in high places still, Adam?
Whelp, looks like it just happened. What now, Dave?
Not binding, so it changes nothing in terms of the EU budget, but this could be a very interesting three years for the Tories if what Zomg said above comes to pass.
As for Werrity - well, I wish I could say I expected better of the CPS, but I don't.