But you are tarring all with the same brush-very much like the immigration and violence debate. In both cases there will be a small percentage for which your presumption is true, but that is all it is, a small %.Not new at all.
It's the phrase used to describe the huge numbers of people who CHOOSE to have kids they can't afford then CHOOSE to work minimal part-time hours in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits, resulting in them having the same level of disposable income as someone working full-time earning the national average wage.
If they time their breeding programme correctly they can milk the system in this way for decades.
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the situation, I'm guessing you don't get much opportunity to see how things are in the real world.
So remind me how many cheap imported labour are actually working in the public sector, whose roles can be made more efficient.The whole point of this particular discussion is that low productivity is intrinsically linked to the use of cheap imported labour, I'm not "guiding it on to immigration at all"
You've absolutely confirmed my point of the utter insanity of the whole situation... we've imported millions of unskilled workers to do low paid work whilst at the same time we have huge levels of under-employment with people choosing to work minimal part time hours or not work at all... all supported by benefits.
I think from the little time they have had, there have been improvements.Well they've certainly done nothing at all so far to demonstrate to me that they're going to tackle the rampant corporatism that's the root cause of every social, economic and environmental issue this country suffers from.
Do you think they have?
It’s commendable that they’re breeding the next generation of taxpayers reducing the future need for immigration.Not new at all.
It's the phrase used to describe the huge numbers of people who CHOOSE to have kids they can't afford then CHOOSE to work minimal part-time hours in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits, resulting in them having the same level of disposable income as someone working full-time earning the national average wage.
If they time their breeding programme correctly they can milk the system in this way for decades.
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the situation, I'm guessing you don't get much opportunity to see how things are in the real world.
Not new at all.
It's the phrase used to describe the huge numbers of people who CHOOSE to have kids they can't afford then CHOOSE to work minimal part-time hours in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits, resulting in them having the same level of disposable income as someone working full-time earning the national average wage.
If they time their breeding programme correctly they can milk the system in this way for decades.
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the situation, I'm guessing you don't get much opportunity to see how things are in
I’ve sailed passed Jacko’s comments but had a quick read as you replied. I noticed the words ‘breeding programme’ and wondered who would write in such style and what meant by it?So no immigration. no poor parents, and even fewer people in the future to pay for the previous generation's pensions.
There wouldn't be the poor parents if our corporate rulers had to pay decent living wages and our rentier class establishment couldn't massively inflate the cost of accommodation... both of these situations are enabled due to their policy of mass immigration.So no immigration. no poor parents, and even fewer people in the future to pay for the previous generation's pensions.
So you think these feckless workshy people living a cushy life milking a generous benefits system are somehow going to produce offspring that are highly motivated, hard working, high earning, net contributors to the tax take?It’s commendable that they’re breeding the next generation of taxpayers reducing the future need for immigration.
Well my local river is still of human faeces and my PIP claiming neighbour has just had her third foreign holiday this year despite being too ill to work. So I'm afraid I ain't seeing these improvements.I think from the little time they have had, there have been improvements.
Which one? Of or for?So you think these feckless workshy people living a cushy life milking a generous benefits system are somehow going to produce offspring that are highly motivated, hard working, high earning, net contributors to the tax take?
That's a really interesting preposition.
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make in your first sentence, the discussion was about productivity in the private sector... the public sector is under no compunction to be "productive" (or efficient or competent or accountable) regardless of whether it's employees are imported labour or not.So remind me how many cheap imported labour are actually working in the public sector, whose roles can be made more efficient.
And when you've done that, you'd better start trying to encourage your own family, friends, relatives, fellow Blue Mooners to start encouraging their offspring/partners to go and work in an abbatoir, in the fields, in a care home and the like. The need for those roles will not just go away and need to be done by someone.
My sincere apologies I meant to use the word proposition, terribly remis of me to allow such a glaring error to have occurred, I promise I'll try my best to not let it happen again.Which one? Of or for?
If you think it's only a "small percentage" of child related benefits claimants who are deliberately gaming the system from the outset then I can assure you you're very much out of touch with the way things are in the real world.But you are tarring all with the same brush-very much like the immigration and violence debate. In both cases there will be a small percentage for which your presumption is true, but that is all it is, a small %.
I have seen plenty of the real world thanks having worked my way from an Ashton council house (nothing wrong with that by the way).
I’d rather you stopped posting shite rather than correcting minor spelling mistakes.My sincere apologies I meant to use the word proposition, terribly remis of me to allow such a glaring error to have occurred, I promise I'll try my best to not let it happen again.
So you think the feckless breeders don't circumvent the notional "2 child cap" by timing their breeding programme?.. That's if they've not already managed to circumvent that cap via getting their offspring diagnosed with this weeks newly invented "SEN" or "neuro-divergence" disorder.I’ve sailed passed Jacko’s comments but had a quick read as you replied. I noticed the words ‘breeding programme’ and wondered who would write in such style and what meant by it?
Can only assume that they refer to such people as ‘animals’, and not fit to be accorded the same as other human beings that what’ve generations in the UK.
Just because the facts of real life don't fit with everything you read and repeat in your virtue signalling echo chambers on social media it doesn't mean they're not really happening in the real world.I’d rather you stopped posting shite rather than correcting minor spelling mistakes.
Based on previous discussions with you where you proudly boasted about getting by on not much more than £100 per week, I suspect you’ve had very limited exposure to real life. You also presumably don’t pay tax so you’re a net recipient from the state which doesn’t put you in a great position to pontificate about feckless spongers.Just because the facts of real life don't fit with everything you read and repeat in your virtue signalling echo chambers on social media it doesn't mean they're not really happening in the real world.
As I said, I drive past your posts as you’ve made it quite clear that you see certain people as ‘vermin’ and cannot accept anything other than your own twisted narrative.So you think the feckless breeders don't circumvent the notional "2 child cap" by timing their breeding programme?.. That's if they've not already managed to circumvent that cap via getting their offspring diagnosed with this weeks newly invented "SEN" or "neuro-divergence" disorder.
It's really sweet that you have such child like, wide eyed innocence and naivety. I suppose really it must make life very simple for you.
I doubt I'm as young, naive and inexperienced as you clearly are... but I can assure you I'm not an elderly brexit voter with a blue rinse.As I said, I drive past your posts as you’ve made it quite clear that you see certain people as ‘vermin’ and cannot accept anything other than your own twisted narrative.
Just to confirm, no migrants, no welfare, but better conditions for those of UK descent.
Reform? Did you also vote Brexit, of the elderly type and once voted Conservative.
No more needs to be said from me.
Well you've pretty much managed to have a go at everybody over the last 2 days, from immigrants, anybody working in the public sector, feckless parents, lazy youngsters... anyone who doesn't agree with you is not in the real world.I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make in your first sentence, the discussion was about productivity in the private sector... the public sector is under no compunction to be "productive" (or efficient or competent or accountable) regardless of whether it's employees are imported labour or not.
As for you're second para, so fine, you're happy for things to just continue as they are with an entire underclass of migrant labourers being exploited and receiving poverty pay whilst hundreds of thousands of fit, working age people can choose to effectively not work at all and just live on benefits.... Yes let's just carry on with that, it seems a perfectly sustainable and sensible way to run an economy and can't see any problems at all with it.