The Labour Government

[mexico1970]

I like what this Labour government is doing so far.

 

[Zuriblue]

If there's one thing I've learnt since Labour got into office a few weeks ago, it's that... fuck me... how soft and whiny are some of these conservative types?

I know I moaned a lot over 14 years of the Tories, but I don't think I've ever become quite as abject and pathetic as some of the comments I've seen from the right - both on here and elsewhere. The softest of soft folk. Very precious and easily upset. It really is very revealing.

Same sense of whiny entitlement that we saw on RAWK and Rag Café after we started winning things again.

 

[babyape]

If there's one thing I've learnt since Labour got into office a few weeks ago, it's that... fuck me... how soft and whiny are some of these conservative types?

I know I moaned a lot over 14 years of the Tories, but I don't think I've ever become quite as abject and pathetic as some of the comments I've seen from the right - both on here and elsewhere. The softest of soft folk. Very precious and easily upset. It really is very revealing.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Birth rates have been falling since around 2010. Most likely due to the economy being a shit show since around that time.

Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.

 

[BrianW]

We are not replacing ourselves. Last I heard the replacement rate was 2.1 children per woman on average, and we are producing 1.6.

I'd bet £50 that the people most exercised about not giving 'handouts' to children are also the ones most exercised about immigration. But as a declining population creates numerous economic problems, immigration is inevitable unless we start replacing ourselves.

There are all sorts of reasons why fewer children are being born. Better contraception. Better education for women (shocking!) giving them alternative options. Poor economic times leading to a sense of insecurity. But a major reason is simply inadequate incomes. Contrary to what the Daily Mail thinks the majority of people are not irresponsible. They work to what they can afford.

These are hard times. Not only do I have to decant my own port these days, but the duty on a decent bottle is scandalous. But it's short-sighted to limit families at a time when we are not replacing ourselves. Of course, many don't give a fuck as they reckon they've only got 10-20 years. So they want lower taxes, for them, now, and who cares what happens in the medium or long term?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.

And what about people who have a change in circumstances after they have had more than two children?

E.g. father and main or solo earner commits suicide due to clinical depression he hid from his wife and life insurance doesn't pay out.

 

[BobKowalski]

Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.

The flaw in the economic argument is that it equally applies to the first and second child. Why are you having any children if you cant afford it? Why is the state paying to support your first born? A cap is arbitrary. You either have state support for children or you don’t.

If you do have state support then penalising a third child - and by extension the first two children because there is less to go around - make no sense. Why are you penalising children at all. The state has no business punishing children for the crime of existing.

As a country, our birth rate is slipping year by year. People moan about immigration and then cheer suppression of the birth rate which will lead to greater immigration. It is incoherent nonsense.

The two cap policy will eventually go. It is bad policy and dumb.

 

[bluenova]

Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.

People's lives change, and not always in a positive way.

So, what if you have 3 or 4 kids in a loving family. The father was the main bread winner, and he dies. Or perhaps he just meets someone else and leaves you? Or he could lose his job and struggle to find a new one, or perhaps he has an accident, or gets cancer, and can't work? What if a family member gets ill and you have to care for them, and can't work as many hours? What if you had a good job, but the father leaves, dies or has an accident/illness, and you have to give you up your job to look after the kids?

Would you feel happy telling anyone in the situations above that, although there's a minimum amount that the government thinks they need to provide for their children, they won't get it? To me, it sounds like most of those situations are exactly where we should be stepping in and providing support.

And if you think that we instead have some rules to separate out the more undeserving parents, then you're on a very slippery slope, and you'll soon discover that people have very complex lives, and you'll struggle to define rules that could ever be objectively "fair".

 

[hilts]

Of thirst?

I believe GDM is a fair man when it comes to getting rounds in.

Only in Wetherspoons, first round before everyone else has turned up, like fucking Usain Bolt out of the taxi.

I'll get em lads will give you the taxi money when I get change.

He never does, he never does.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Only in Wetherspoons, first round before everyone else has turned up, like fucking Usain Bolt out of the taxi.

I'll get em lads will give you the taxi money when I get change.

He never does, he never does.

Surely that's a mark of his good character that he drinks with us plebs in such nefarious hostileries?

 

[hilts]

We are not replacing ourselves. Last I heard the replacement rate was 2.1 children per woman on average, and we are producing 1.6.

I'd bet £50 that the people most exercised about not giving 'handouts' to children are also the ones most exercised about immigration. But as a declining population creates numerous economic problems, immigration is inevitable unless we start replacing ourselves.

There are all sorts of reasons why fewer children are being born. Better contraception. Better education for women (shocking!) giving them alternative options. Poor economic times leading to a sense of insecurity. But a major reason is simply inadequate incomes. Contrary to what the Daily Mail thinks the majority of people are not irresponsible. They work to what they can afford.

These are hard times. Not only do I have to decant my port these days, but the duty on a decent bottle is scandalous. But it's short-sighted to limit families at a time when we are not replacing ourselves. Of course, many don't give a fuck as they reckon they've only got 10-20 years. So they want lower taxes, for them, now, and who cares what happens in the medium or long term?

Just what the world needs more people. Pmsl.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Surely that's a mark of his good character that he drinks with us plebs in such nefarious hostileries?

I’d wager I’ve been in more nefarious hostelries than anyone else on the board! :-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Only in Wetherspoons, first round before everyone else has turned up, like fucking Usain Bolt out of the taxi.

I'll get em lads will give you the taxi money when I get change.

He never does, he never does.

I realised a long time ago that if you get the first round in, less is expected of you throughout the course of the rest of the session.

That said, one of my pet hates in life is tight cunts who don’t get rounds in and I never hesitate to call the cunts out on it unless there’s a bona fide reason (such as genuine lack of funds).

 

[Blue Maverick]

People's lives change, and not always in a positive way.

So, what if you have 3 or 4 kids in a loving family. The father was the main bread winner, and he dies. Or perhaps he just meets someone else and leaves you? Or he could lose his job and struggle to find a new one, or perhaps he has an accident, or gets cancer, and can't work? What if a family member gets ill and you have to care for them, and can't work as many hours? What if you had a good job, but the father leaves, dies or has an accident/illness, and you have to give you up your job to look after the kids?

Would you feel happy telling anyone in the situations above that, although there's a minimum amount that the government thinks they need to provide for their children, they won't get it? To me, it sounds like most of those situations are exactly where we should be stepping in and providing support.

And if you think that we instead have some rules to separate out the more undeserving parents, then you're on a very slippery slope, and you'll soon discover that people have very complex lives, and you'll struggle to define rules that could ever be objectively "fair".

Such is life, there’s things such as insurance for those getting ill or dying, there is no need to have more than 2 kids, these are choices, think of a worst case scenario. I did loads of jobs where people didn’t have building and contents insurance, house burnt down they were fucked, but guess what it was about £10 a month to cover them and you could plainly see they could’ve afforded it but chose not to because “it would never happen to them”. Maybe the government should pay everyone’s house insurance just in case eh!
These are conscious decisions by people, you can have a mistake, once maybe twice but it’s a conscious decision to keep going 3,4, 5 kids stop expecting the state to provide, if the argument is what if the above scenarios happen then maybe there should be a system were you can apply if those scenarios come about but not before.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I’d wager I’ve been in more nefarious hostelries than anyone else on the board! :-)

Yes, but they were your own businesses :)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Such is life, there’s things such as insurance for those getting ill or dying, there is no need to have more than 2 kids, these are choices, think of a worst case scenario. I did loads of jobs where people didn’t have building and contents insurance, house burnt down they were fucked, but guess what it was about £10 a month to cover them and you could plainly see they could’ve afforded it but chose not to because “it would never happen to them”. Maybe the government should pay everyone’s house insurance just in case eh!
These are conscious decisions by people, you can have a mistake, once maybe twice but it’s a conscious decision to keep going 3,4, 5 kids stop expecting the state to provide, if the argument is what if the above scenarios happen then maybe there should be a system we’re you can apply if those scenarios come about but not before.

And what if one partner manages all financial matters and picks an insurance that doesn't pay out or there's a high excess that's unaffordable. Or they told their partner that they were paying the premiums and instead gambled it away?

Should the state not give out disability payments to people for people unfit for work due to occupational injuries as well? People should know the risk when they took on the jobs why should the state support them for their poor life choices?

 

[lazerblue]

Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.

Saw one hag on the news last week asked about child benefit, she said, I've got 3 but I'd only get paid for 2 it's not fair, ffs does she think she's paid to have kids, unfortunately that seems to be the mentality of some people

 

[bluenova]

Such is life, there’s things such as insurance for those getting ill or dying, there is no need to have more than 2 kids, these are choices, think of a worst case scenario. I did loads of jobs where people didn’t have building and contents insurance, house burnt down they were fucked, but guess what it was about £10 a month to cover them and you could plainly see they could’ve afforded it but chose not to because “it would never happen to them”. Maybe the government should pay everyone’s house insurance just in case eh!
These are conscious decisions by people, you can have a mistake, once maybe twice but it’s a conscious decision to keep going 3,4, 5 kids stop expecting the state to provide, if the argument is what if the above scenarios happen then maybe there should be a system were you can apply if those scenarios come about but not before.

Insurance for illness, or for losing a job, is something that people with relatively good jobs can afford. It's different to house insurance, and the majority wouldn't have it.

If you genuinely believe those scenarios - and they're just a few possibles - are worthy of exemptions, then you may as well take out the whole cap. Once you speak to people, and hear their life stories, it's very difficult to separate the deserving from the undeserving.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Saw one hag on the news last week asked about child benefit, she said, I've got 3 but I'd only get paid for 2 it's not fair, ffs does she think she's paid to have kids, unfortunately that seems to be the mentality of some people

I saw one with 6! Even with child benefit thise kids aren’t having the best upbringing unless your both on six figure salaries, but ye it’s not her fault!

 

[Blue Maverick]

Insurance for illness, or for losing a job, is something that people with relatively good jobs can afford. It's different to house insurance, and the majority wouldn't have it.

If you genuinely believe those scenarios - and they're just a few possibles - are worthy of exemptions, then you may as well take out the whole cap. Once you speak to people, and hear their life stories, it's very difficult to separate the deserving from the undeserving.

You talked about people dying, that’s relatively cheap insurance, if you lose your job you get benefits, like I said if your intelligent enough you look ahead and see can I afford this of it goes tits up, I always said can we live off one wage and cut our cloth accordingly, it’s called taking responsibility, people don’t want a nanny state, yet they want looking after.