To loop round to the original source of the discussion - exclusion from school - I don’t really see how that helps?
If we accept @Klopptimist’s ‘bad parenting’ stance, surely all that exclusion does is deny the child an settled education (and alongside that, stability and acceptance), virtually guaranteeing they will themselves go on to be bad parents.
I’d also be curious what we do about the kind of parenting that raises children who go on to be Tory MPs and asset strip the country.
That’s a bit of a false dichotomy. There are many parents who try their best but are let down by the very agencies that are meant to be there to support them.
One thing @Klopptimist mentioned which is true is that children from married couples tend to do better. But this isn’t some magical property of marriage as such but the fact that those children will have twice the number of carers that children from a single parent household will have.
Some children in single parent households are there because their mothers have a feckless lifestyle. This is the image that the right-wing press like to present. However, many single parent households are more likely to be a result of force majeure: death or illness of a parent, breakdown of a marriage for unforeseeable circumstances etc.
In those cases where children have fallen through the system (technically known as NEETs - Not in Education, Employment or Training) one of the common features is that they were unpaid carers as children. There is some support for them but it is generally inadequate.
This is one thing that continually came up as ministerial questions when I was in the civil service. They actually had some good strategies to tackle it. Sure Start was one of the more successful ones. Unfortunately, the funding for this has been cut by years of austerity. The end results are not good.
My dad was in a nutshell a fairly shit dad. Never gave me affection or more importantly his time.
Looked down his nose at me when I followed an “unconventional” teen lifestyle, mind you so did half the country.
Made me even more determined to be a good dad, and I have been
if i read between the lines are you suggesting maybe castration as a solution?
it may seem harsh, but within two generations, the whole system comes up smelling of roses.
A bit like “Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses”. That moved on to “Aktion T4”. None of this ended well.
That’s quite a lot of reading between the lines going on there. 
Depends on how you define poor. If you have no job and rely on the state for everything then you absolutely shouldn’t be having kids. I don’t know if you have children. If you have you’ll know the very special joy of the eye watering costs. That’s before they’re born. If you haven’t, think of a number then put a zero on it. Then faint when you go to pay for new school uniform.
The money aspect is simply that if you have a child and you can’t afford it (by afford I mean cover the costs without governmental help and food banks) you’re not exactly the sharpest tool in the box to start with. As I said above, yes situations change for the minority. I’m not talking about paying for 3 holidays a year and caviar for breakfast every day, just safety, warmth, food, comfort etc. The basics.
The question of whether it can ever be my responsibility to pay for your child (as an example) is very straightforward.
problem is mate, you cant stop poor fuckers from breeding…if we could just convince them that breeding for them is pointless and continued human existance should be the sole responsibility to people who earn a decent wage
There are ways of doing it.
Godwin’s law incoming.
Maybe interesting to some on here…
The interesting part is that what @Klopptimist is dancing towards isn’t even eugenics, per se. It’s not selecting on the basis of fitness or health, or even race and ethnicity. It’s selecting in the basis of dumb luck.
If thats meant to be a joke its an extremely poor one.
You are entitled to your right wing views, and I wasn’t going down the route you are suggesting.
But abolishing poverty through sterilisation isnt something to mess about with.
I didn’t suggest it.
That’s quite the magnificent straw man.
Nope, simply wouldn’t it be nice if the only people who had kids were ones with the tools and funds to bring them up to at least a reasonable standard? Too much to ask?
Nah we’ll just carry on as we are throwing some random funding at community groups and outreach projects whilst thousands and thousands of kids are hungry and neglected because of their parents. The fault of course lies with the government.
Concepts like “blame” and “fault” are wholly inadequate to describe situations as complex and multifaceted as this. Overly reducing complex issues down in this way is simply a way to make something difficult sit comfortably with the person. It does nothing to help understand or respond to the issue though.
Yep, so complicated that nothing is ever done about it. Just a part of life that we have to accept. People without the financial means can have kids with abandon and Joe T Taxpayer will just keep picking up the bill. The fact that (in most cases) a person who has a child without the means probably is never going to be a great parent is irrelevant. And a gross stereotype. We’ll just let things carry on as they are.
Just too complicated and never as easy as feckless idiots breading like rabbits. WAY too simple a concept. Or Warrington as I call it.
Is there is one sure fire dumb way to approach something it is to pretend that the difficulty in solving it means the solutions must be simple.
