Valid.
Just wanted to comment on this part, if I may.
There is definitely a sense where this is solid advice, especially for a small group of people who are on benefits and they have many children. I think thatâs where the comment is coming from, and ideally, people in this category would be able to count the cost beforehand, not just financial cost, either.
Beyond that, I think about the overwhelming majority of parents when they have kids. Thereâs almost always a sense that you canât afford them. Life will be disrupted and changes are coming. And the financial cost? There are loads of studies saying that having a kid costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, when you factor in everything you provide for them, to see them through to adulthood.
Against such a backdrop almost nobody could afford to have a kid.
Yet they do, and they manage! And, without going all soppy about it, it is one of the marvelous things about the human condition. The next generation is brought in, raised up, and released to hopefully change the world and do a bit better than their own parents.
Reducing the magnitude of that to an economic transaction makes it sound a bit like, âIf you canât afford the car payment, stick with the little runabout.â
I know where you are coming from, and it is sound advice for people to count the cost before having kids, but the whole enterprise is much bigger than the economics, and most people who have kids, to their immense credit, find a way.
3 Likes
Kids are hugely expensive, no question. We âre struggling with the cost of residential dance camps over summer for Jnr. But if you canât afford the basics, donât have them and more importantly, donât expect me to pay for them.
You are going to trigger @cynicaloldgit.
Isnât the heart of the problem the fact that a substantial number of children are not exactly products of robust decision-making, and at a societal level we will end up paying for them one way or another? A school milk program is a fraction of the cost of incarceration.
That points to the surprise for me about Labourâs position on a cap of two children for benefits. I think of any household getting benefits for children as probably having made some poor decisions (quite possibly because it was never really a âhouseholdâ per se). I know it is a right wing bĂȘte noire, but women having more children to increase benefit payments have proven to be so apocryphal as to be a poor basis for social policy. There are undoubtedly some, but the vast majority of such situations are cases where women simply donât have control over their own lives.
3 Likes
The leadership have all been quite vocal in the past about the negative impact of the policy that it caught quite a few by surprise when Starmer said he would not change it.
I donât believe for a second that a Labour government would not change the rules, or provide an alternative form of support to effectively replace it even if it is kept in name only.
There are some elections coming up and it appears that his stance may have been an effort to appear financially responsible ahead of this. From what I have read this cap on benefits is fairly popular across both the main two parties (with I think about 50% of members in each party in favour).
Iâm sure there could have been a better way of phrasing what he said though.
1 Like
Should the 12+ be a compulsory filter - 75% or more and youâre good to carry on?
No big deal, nothing to see here.
1 Like
Funny how suddenly when a pathetic snowflake gets dropped by his private bank itâs a crisis that needs such urgent intervention, but when itâs the environment, starving people, public sector crises, nothing.
Not to mention that the article also quite clearly states that the review of that snowflakeâs account was triggered because he fell below the threshold which was required to maintain an account with them, and they felt that on the balance of things, the reputational risk that he brought to the bank was not worth the business he was giving them.
In other words, someone using his five minutes of fame to wrangle special treatment for himself. Colour me surprised.
6 Likes
Whilst it was terrific to see the Lib Demsâ demolition of the Tories in Somerton and Frome, as well as Labourâs record-breaking turnaround in Selby and Ainsty, the fact that the Conservatives narrowly (by a mere 495 votes) held on to Uxbridge and South Ruislip was depressing.
Of course, Sadiq Khanâs plan to extend the Ulez zone is being blamed for Labourâs inability to win Bozoâs former seat, when in fact itâs the shortsightedness of the voting public thatâs really to blame. Planet fucked? So what? I canât be bothered walking/cycling/using public transport.
1 Like
Thatâs discrimination though.
No it isnât. Reputational damage is something brands have to take seriously. Look at Adidas and Kanye West, for example.
1 Like
Canât believe youâre having to explain that to a self-proclaimed successful business ownerâŠ
1 Like
I think the situation is also a strategic mis-step by Labour. They didnât have a solid line on it, and went into the situation largely on the defence. The candidate started out already trying to make himself neutral and unseen on the issue (reminiscent of the leader of the party on any issue, perhaps), and only trying to take a clearer stand when it became clear that the Conservatives were trying to make the by-election all about that issue.
Instead, they should have been out campaigning on the spectre of health issues, and how the Conservative government (including under certain previous prime ministers) has been systematically underfunding the provision of public transport, and neglecting the NHS, resulting in a double whammy of the reliance on a car producing negative health effects (read cancer, adverse effects on the brain, etc), which then will not be treated by the NHS because theyâve been starved of funding.
Sadly, Labour just went with âULEZ badâ despite being a Labour mayorâs policy. Pathetic effort, really.
2 Likes
Who the fuck said successful??? I might run a business or two but that doesnât mean they make money.
Yes, theyâre refusing to provide goods and services based on his political views. Weâve had this before. Canât do it on ethnicity, colour, sex, race (none of which are views) or religion (which absolutely is)
Could always go into dog breeding like your neighbour 
1 Like
Those bloody creaturesâŠâŠ