Tory peer apologises for gaffe claiming the poor 'breed'

Holybejaysus

Conservative peer Howard Flight issued an "unreserved" apology for suggesting welfare changes would encourage the poor to have more children, saying he would like to withdraw the remark.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8160151/Tory-peer-apologises-for-gaffe-claiming-the-poor-breed.html

Personally, I don't see why he should have to apologize. It would appear obvious to me that there are certain sections of society who have decided to make a career out of government benefits.

I wonder should there be a financial incentive package for them to be reversibly sterilised instead? Of course, nobody should ever be forced into sterilisation, or to take long term contraception against their wishes. That goes against every foundation of democracy and personal choice.
However, there should definitely be the option for those who wish to consider it, in my opinion-reversible sterilisation along with a financial benefits package as compensation, say 5,000 euros, paid in instalments.

What say you folks? Are generous child benefits encouraging the less desirable to breed irresponsibly? Would the above be an acceptable proposal, or is it a form of eugenics/social engineering?

feicim

I don't think this is the road we should be going down...



however, if we do we should apply it to politicians and bankers and not the poor.

Holybejaysus

feicim wrote: »

I don't think this is the road we should be going down...



however, if we do we should apply it to politicians and bankers and not the poor.

Yawn. No offence bud, but can you save the boring, clichéd 'bankers and politicians' response for other threads? Pretty please? I am talking about a specific issue here, let's try and keep it on topic from the start.
Ta.

Now, why don't you think we should go down this road?

PeterIanStaker

Tory apologises for being a Tory shocker.

Does he watch Jeremy Kyle?

southsiderosie

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8160151/Tory-peer-apologises-for-gaffe-claiming-the-poor-breed.html

Personally, I don't see why he should have to apologize. It would appear obvious to me that there are certain sections of society who have decided to make a career out of government benefits.

I wonder should there be a financial incentive package for them to be reversibly sterilised instead? Of course, nobody should ever be forced into sterilisation, or to take long term contraception against their wishes. That goes against every foundation of democracy and personal choice.
However, there should definitely be the option for those who wish to consider it, in my opinion-reversible sterilisation along with a financial benefits package as compensation, say 5,000 euros, paid in instalments.

What say you folks? Are generous child benefits encouraging the less desirable to breed irresponsibly? Would the above be an acceptable proposal, or is it a form of eugenics/social engineering?

Why would the state pay someone for long-term contraception? If insurance covers it fine, but actually paying someone to do it? Hell, I'm fine with paying for contraceptives out of pocket, since they are a heck of a lot cheaper than a kid. The problem today is, there are too many people who have no sense of how expensive children are because they don't actually have to pay for them.

Personally, I think direct child benefits should be cut in general. Maybe there should be some kind of tax rebate for working families with children (and coverage for families when someone loses a job), but that's it. And there is no way that the government should be paying people to take birth control. Pay for it, sure, but it should be made clear to people that if they want to have kids, then the parents - BOTH parents - will need to be financially responsible for them.

Nodin

Holybejaysus wrote: »

................
What say you folks? Are generous child benefits encouraging the less desirable to breed irresponsibly? Would the above be an acceptable proposal, or is it a form of eugenics/social engineering?

(my bold)

How would you define the "less desirable"?

Pedro K

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Yawn. No offence bud, but can you save the boring, clichéd 'bankers and politicians' response for other threads? Pretty please? I am talking about a specific issue here, let's try and keep it on topic from the start.
Ta.

Now, why don't you think we should go down this road?

Wow. Ironic. You're asking him to keep boring, cliched responses out, while talking about 'less desirable' people breeding, and certain sections of society chosing to make a career out of it...
Which sections are these, how would you define them? Oh, and try keep boring cliched responses out!

Holybejaysus

Nodin wrote: »

(my bold)

How would you define the "less desirable"?

I would have thought that anybody who produces children purely so they can claim government benefits would qualify as less desirable-i.e. unproductive, lazy, little or no qualifications, an entitlement mentality, and a drain on state resources. Of course this doesn't mean all, but......there tends to be a pattern it has to be said.
Not a lot of thought tends to be put into choosing a partner, or even having one around. And from what we can observe of society at present, parenting or discipline skills tend to rate quite low on their list of priorities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/5935665/Mother-whose-13-children-were-taken-into-care-is-pregnant-again.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331943/Lavine-Samma-Mother-vows-having-babies-gets-council-house.html

In my opinion, little can be done with people of this mentality. Rather than rewarding them for reproducing so carelessly (which in turn multiplies the problem), we should offer them the option of sterilisation or long term contraception. As far as I can see, everyone is a winner. They are given a direct chance to improve their lives, and you have broken the cycle of poverty.

wolfpawnat

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Yawn. No offence bud, but can you save the boring, clichéd 'bankers and politicians' response for other threads? Pretty please? I am talking about a specific issue here, let's try and keep it on topic from the start.
Ta.

Now, why don't you think we should go down this road?

As opposed to the "everyone who is unmarried, has children when they are under the age of 28 and does not currently have a jobs is a SW abuser and pops out kids left, right and centre of benefits" cliché :rolleyes:

Holybejaysus

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As opposed to the "everyone who is unmarried, has children when they are under the age of 28 and does not currently have a jobs is a SW abuser and pops out kids left, right and centre of benefits" cliché :rolleyes:

I didn't say anything of the sort. I couldn't care less if someone is married, or whether they are currently employed or not. Most of the unemployed people in this country are in that situation because of the economic situation, not by choice. This is only a temporary problem for these people-they would happily prefer to be working.

I am clearly referring to the long term unemployed, those who have no intention of ever getting a job and intend to live off benefits all their life because it pays to have kids. Do you not think it is a bad idea to be rewarding this lifestyle?

wolfpawnat

Holybejaysus wrote: »

I didn't say anything of the sort. I couldn't care less if someone is married, or whether they are currently employed or not. Most of the unemployed people in this country are in that situation because of the economic situation, not by choice. This is only a temporary problem for these people-they would happily prefer to be working.

I am clearly referring to the long term unemployed, those who have no intention of ever getting a job and intend to live off benefits all their life because it pays to have kids. Do you not think it is a bad idea to be rewarding this lifestyle?

Are there women that decided that rather than getting a job and paying their way, they would have a few kids by different partners and get every SW payment under the sun - sadly yes. I hear CWO and SW personal condemn the system daily because legally these girls are entitled to these things!

Should parents recently down on their luck have to suffer under the poverty line because these b!tches are riding the system (and everything else while they are at it) - Hell No!!!!

It is a catch 22, to aid the truly needy you have to also allow the abusers of the system to use it too!

I am 22, I was working and in college, now have a baby. Got everything he needed between myself and his family, and daily I get comments about SW buggies and everything. Sickens me to my core!!!!:mad:

I AM NOT A SCUMMY MUMMY!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad:

Rant over!!!!!