Chinese democracy
The Scotsman reports today that the Lib Dems are prepared to accept Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals to limit child benefit and child tax credits to the first two children in a family, in return for some tax increases on the rich.
The plans, which echo China’s extraordinarily punitive “one child per family” laws, have caused a storm of controversy because of the obvious catastrophic impact they could have on some of the poorest and most vulnerable families in the country – costing them thousands of pounds a year – as well as the nightmare of bureaucracy and obvious cases of farcical unfairness that could and will result from them.
(What if you’ve worked all your life and have four children, then get made unexpectedly redundant or become ill? Are you supposed to put your two most expensive kids into care because you can no longer afford to feed all of them? What if you already have one child and fall pregnant with what turns out to be twins or triplets? Do you have to pick your favourite and leave the others at the hospital? What if people ignore the changes and have children they can’t afford? Do we just let their kids die, saying “Hey, you knew the rules”? What if someone gets raped and can’t have a termination on religious grounds? Etc etc.)
Nevertheless, the Lib Dems have signalled their support, ensuring the policy will have a Parliamentary majority and be enacted. Some tax rates on the wealthy may be raised, and the rich will continue to get their accountants to find imaginative ways of avoiding paying that tax as usual. Even if additional tax revenues were to be raised by the measures, we’re not sure how that helps the starving extra children of the poor, since they won’t be getting any of the money.
It’s clear that the poor are going to continue to bear most of the burden of austerity. With this latest development following on from Scottish Labour’s recent abandonment of the principle of universal services, all three main Westminster parties and their subsidiaries north of the border are now fully committed to savage attacks on the welfare state. If you’re poor in the UK, it no longer matters who you vote for.
You know the rest by now.
I guess the Liberal Democrat MPs are all chasing honours and patronage as they cannot reasonably expect to be re-elected. A disgraceful party. It reminds me of Malcolm MacLaren’s adage “never trust a hippy”.
The issue is far more complicated than some people on benefits having too many children; it is an easy target for the ConDems to attack though and will get widespread support, even from those who should know better. If you don’t want successive generations claiming benefits how about educating children and giving them the means to attain a future for themselves. How about forcing companies to pay a living wage instead of relying on Tax Credits (our tax money) to ease the pressure on their payroll. How about ensuring that the company executives don’t earn more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker earns.
I have sympathy for anyone who finds themselves in poverty but workers don’t get a pay rise because they have another child. The benefits system is unfit for purpose and needs a radical overhaul that’s not designed to appease to Daily Mail readers.
“It reminds me of Malcolm MacLaren’s adage “never trust a hippy”.”
As an old punk-rock kid, that’s why I can never bring myself to vote for the Greens…
I can’t say I’m enamored of the ongoing attempt to take Britain back to the 19th century. I know people have fondness for the period dramas and all that, but honestly it just wasn’t that pleasant for most folks. I don’t think Scotland would go for this. We need to choose these things for ourselves.
Steven wins the ‘understatement of the day prize’.
OK, Devils Advocate for a minute –
This problem is part of a wider view which was highlighted spectacularly in the opening scene of the movie ‘Idiocracy’ (don’t watch the whole movie unless you laugh at farts and people getting kicked in the balls).
This clip is part of the opening scene but you can see where it is going.
Is there a middle ground?
Should people be ‘rewarded’ for having kids?
Is it utopian to imagine that the answer is simply ‘yes’ and we should focus on education, jobs etc to avoid the ‘Idiocracy’ situation?
There is no doubt that there are instances where today’s young adults find that the best way to guarantee housing and a steady income is to have a kid of their own, in fact no, lets have 2 or 3. The social implications of current tax policy towards ‘the family’ are a nightmare.
To me, its WAY too complicated a situation to simply say –
OK you only get tax breaks for ‘x’ kids, or
OK, this is a universal benefit that should apply no matter
Both outcomes are clearly not ideal.
This is another case of the lib/dems cutting their own throat for a chance to sit on the red seats in the house of lords .
I know many lib/dem councilors and activists who will be appalled at this .
At this rate the lib/dems will be reduced to a party of the lunatic fringe .
I became wary of the lib-dems when they formed the first coalition with labour back in 99. It became apparent to me that this party would sacrifice any long cherished principle to have a top seat at the table.
To McHaggis I would say that this should not be seen as a reward for having kids. But support for children, because we don’t like the idea of child poverty. To IDS & Co. They see this in terms of people having kids simply to get the support. The only way this stupidity works is if you believe that these parents keep the money and let the child starve. Thats the kind of logic that led Davidson to going to the press saying 80% of Scots don’t contribute anything and lamont declaring a universal benefit paid for by taxation as “something for nothing”.
In the end these policies will make things worse, not better. You expect it from a tory, because they don’t believe in society and think people should fend for themselves. But this is not a lib-dem outlook, so in the end the party that will suffer the worst of the fallout, will be the Lib-dems. When you look at the Scottish Lib-dems, you can see the future of the English party written with each deluded outburst from Wullie Rennie.
Anyone who thinks that this type of thing has merits are falling into the tory/daily mail trap of demonising certain sections of society .
Where do we draw the line ? What next , do we ban certain types of disabled people from having children or go one step further and terminate people who dont fit into society .
We all know what happened when a certain country went down this road in the 30,s .
If big business & toff,s paid their proper taxes , we would not even be having a conversation about child benefit or any other type of universal benefit .
If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me but did I not see somewhere that non payment of taxes by the business community etc amounted to more than £54 billion .
Are there any reliable stats on how many families there are on long-term benefits and with more than two kids, and how much it costs the state? I get the feeling that this sort of thing may be on a par with ‘dole scroungers live in £1million house’ or ‘Abu Hamza’s kids get free school meals’ style of guff i.e. get the core Daily Mail vote riled up.
Edit: I see from the Scotsman article it’s estimated at £3.5bn from tax credits and £1bn from child benefit, no suggestion of how much of the tax credit would be from working families. I’m guessing also that IDS will have studiously avoided any research in how much early funding prevents later problems and costs for many of these kids.
The real story here is that capitalism isn’t working. In fact, capitalism hasn’t been working for a long time now. Since the 1980s, in the US and other leading capitalist economies, GDP growth has been half what it was in the so-called ‘golden age’ of capitalism (1950-1970), real wage growth has been stagnating, profit levels have been, at best, disappointing and welfare bills have been mounting as poverty and inequality increases. Financialisation, uncontrolled house price inflation and a massive consumer credit boom provided a temporary relief from the late 1990s, but they also ended up creating the worst crisis in capitalism in 80 years.
For neo-liberal governments, austerity is the only game in town. The poor must become poorer, the low paid must see greater falls in their income, and the middle class are going to have to lose a lot of the ‘sweeteners’ that governments have provided to them over the years. And all the time, the ‘cost of living’ rises inexorably.
We hear a great deal about the ‘bank bailouts’, but the fact is we have been bailing out capitalism for generations, through regional policy, investment grants, the downward pressure on corporation tax, among other things. In fact, even since Alex Salmond became First Minister in 2007, how many times have you heard him say, in response to an MSP asking a question about the latest round of redundancies in a constituency, words to the effect that, ‘The Scottish government will do all it can to help these workers and their community’. In effect, what he means is that the taxpayer will foot the bill to deal with the mess that these firms have left behind them. So we provide taxpayer-funded sweeteners to induce these firms to invest in the first place and then, when the firms pack up and leave, the taxpayer has to pay for the consequences of that too. And all this in the name of economic ‘efficiency’!
Of course this policy is madness on the part of the ConDems, and no doubt their Labour Party chums will either support it or have their own variant of it. I’m surprised that no-one has, as yet, pointed to one of the long-term weaknesses of this proposal (the British don’t do ‘long-term’, of course). All projections suggest that the population of older people will increase significantly in the first half of this century. Unless we can find a way to increase the population of working age people we’re heading for a pensions crisis, not to mention a crisis in care. In other words, unless we start planning to increase the population of younger people now, there is no way we can avert these other crises, so we should be encouraging people to have more children now not less!
I worked in a deprived area of Glasgow for thirty years. It was common to encounter third and fourth generations who had never worked with many expecting to be looked after from the cradle to the grave. Mostly single mothers whose large families were their main source of income. They handed over responsibility for child rearing to nurseries and school but negated positive developments with feckless inconsitencies and a lack of adherence to routines. It was and is a depressing picture. In amongst that were many families striving to do their best but not getting out of the benefit culture because rules and regs negated any positive benefits and it’s hard to rear a family on part time work. Millions were poured into the East End; houses were improved and continue to be…but there is insuffient well paid work. I agree with limiting child benefit to two children but it has to be part of a complex and difficult regeneration, not just of employment opportunities but of aspiration too. If that means a sharp shock just now; a wake up call for lost generations then we have to do it. However, I want no part of blaming people for their poverty/lifestyle choices. I want education and support packages expanded so that people are helped to move on. This is happening in Glasgow and other major cities and towns…we need to be independent to manage and target resources so that people, once again can take pride in their lives. This goes hand in hand with eradicating drugs and alcohol from Scotland.
O/T
Worth a look. Not looking so clever for certain bods in Holyrood or the media now.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6133-liar-claims-undermined-as-scottish-government-confirms-law-officers-reviewed-eu-documents
May I offer a word of defence for the Chinese?
It’s easy, today, to criticise the “one child policy” because it worked.
When the policy was introduced, the population was facing unrestrained exponential growth and would have been likely to result in pestilence and starvation or war over resources.
The policy was the lesser evil.
There is no such excuse here, beyond the unspoken Tory goal that only the wealthy should procreate.
What I see is a bunch of neoliberal a..holes paving the way to subjugate the poorest people of the UK and to drive them to more impoverishment….but the principles or morals to these same a..holes means zero to them as they have not personally experienced it.
Never, ever trust a liberal democrat as they are the lowest of the low and have happily joined their despicable friends in the tory/lab club. Sorry and desperate low life.
Looks like I’m in a minority here but I don’t think you should keep getting more money for having more children when you can’t afford them. It’s not just child tax credits and child allowance but child premium for each child in a a non working family almost as much as a single, childless unemployed person gets to live on in total. The ConDems policy is full of loopholes certainly. A more nuanced policy is required for cases such a natural multiple births (multiple births more likely with IVF) and you need to find a way of dealing with situations when people had children when they could afford them but find their circumstances have changed.
It cannot be made retrospective, you can’t disappear existing children. And yes I agree that the large families who have never worked and rely totally on benefits are a) in a minority and b) being used to divert attention away from the much more nasty welfare changes facing the unemployed and the sick/disabled.
However contraception is free, abortion is legal and there’s a long waiting list to adopt. You cannot help being disabled or unemployed but you can control how many kids you have. Two is a perfectly adequate size of family. I grew up in abject poverty. No indoor plumbing with no heating poverty that was condemned whilst I was living in it. I don’t have children.
I would think that most benefits are paid to older folk that don’t have children living at home. Most middle-class folk have have decent pensions and associated benefits, so don’t have to depend on the state so much. For example, a nurse i know has had to retire early due to chronic back problems. She is on a decent pension, so doesn’t claim from the state.
Take someone like a 60 year old roofer who develops the same condition. He will likely have no pension, so he will be on benefits till he dies. Unless the state wants old burnt out men climbing on roofs? Maybe there is a case for manual workers being able to retire earlier than desk jockeys?
In my opinion, this ‘2 child thing’ is just a sop to the right wing of the party.
Looks like I’m in a minority here but I don’t think you should keep getting more money for having more children when you can’t afford them. It’s not just child tax credits and child allowance but the child premium alone for each child in a non- working family is almost as much as a single, childless unemployed person gets to live on in TOTAL. Certainly the ConDem’s policy is full of loopholes. A more nuanced policy is required for cases such as multiple births and you need to find a way of dealing with situations when people had children when they could afford them but find their circumstances have changed.
It cannot be made retrospective, you can’t disappear existing children. I believe that large families whose parents have never worked and rely totally on benefits are a) in a minority and b) being used to divert attention away from the much more nasty welfare changes facing the unemployed and the sick/disabled.
However contraception is free, abortion is legal and there’s a long waiting list to adopt. You cannot help being disabled or unemployed but you can control how many kids you have. No-one is stopping poor people having ANY children. Two is an adequate size of family.
I’m no Tory toff and I grew up in abject poverty. No indoor plumbing with no heating in a building that was condemned whilst I was still living in it. I don’t have children because I wouldn’t wish that kind of poverty on anyone.
@ Derick
Cool, do I get a prize? 😀 I was going to go for ‘the Lib Dems kinda suck’, but I thought it was a little on-the-nose.
The Lib Dems suck, by the way.
We are always hearing about the diminishing ethnic population due to low reproduction of the western countries and how it will affect the future of the country’s prosperity/identification and direction. Now we are getting that having too many offsprings is bad and unaffordable…FFS make your mind up.
Jeez Macart you might at least have warned us about the photo. 😀
I find it “interesting” that all the false claims from Labour about A.S. lying are given reams of coverage by the MSM and BBC yet by the same token all the PROVEN lies from Labour are given, well no coverage.
With regards to the ConDems now going to cut child benefit I find myself in a bit of a quandary over this.
First,, I remember quite some time ago reading newspaper articles ( when I used to actually buy a newspaper) about a few families who had 10 or more kids and wanted more. I found these sort of articles rather sickening. I just couldn’t get my herad round why anyone would want to have a “football team’s” worth of kids. Moreover some of these families seemed to think that it was their god given right to demand their local council knock two, or more, council houses into one so they could live in “one” house. This really got my goat. Other needy families were losing out on a house because of this, in my view.
Second, now that I’ve had my ranty about, in my view, oversized families, I’ll get to the point of the article.
I know that the issue of family tax credits and child benefit has been discussed at great length here before. However, I do believe that unpalatable as it may be to some there does need to be some form of break in the system. What I mean by this is that families with a combined take home income of, for arguments sake, over £250,000 do not get either of these benefits. A sliding scale is then followed that allows increasing amounts of benefits to families as their combined income drops down to say £75,000. Below this figure then the full amount of benefits is paid out. I know that I’m in the majority in this line of thinking but until the rich and super rich start paying their full whack then I do not see why they should get the full benefit of the child and families benefit system. If they are not prepared to pay their full tax bill then how can they expect to be “supported” by the child and families benefit system.
In my view anyone with a combined income of over £250,000 can well afford to keep their family without having to rely on the state. The people most in need of state assistance is, as always, the poor. These are the people who need the most help and yet they get the least help. There are times that I do feel that the Westminster “Snooty club” really does have a desire to return Britain to the 19th Century.
Is it a step closer to the Chinese kleptocracy?
Embradon raises a view well worth consideration and development.
In the event of Scotland’s independence can England provide for a population of some 50 million? The news this past week has been about green shoots showing for the UK economy, and then Oh no, Ford is going to close the Transit van assembly plant at Southampton.Is the economy so fragile that a smallish plant closure will affect the miniscule economy recovery figures being optimistically quoted?
i’m inclined to believe that this drip drip of benefits reviews voiced by the Unionist parties is to prepare the UK population for a much less prosperous time ahead – and those in a position to do so are grabbing whatever financial resources they can get their hands on. I do not wish to seem rude but i just don’t believe that Johann Lamont would have had any formal Economics appreciation of the content of her ‘something for nothing” speech.
She read what she was fed.
Consider the basics:
Is England a net exporter of food? Is Scotland? Could either be self-sufficient?
What manufactured goods can England export that enjoys technical and/or qualitative barriers to ward off competition? Scotland? Whisky, anything else?
Note that Ford are transferring Transit van assembly from England to a non-EU country, Turkey. What does that say about the dire warnings of the unionists that an independent Scotland would need to apply to join the EU? Would we consider EU membership vital to an independent Scotland? which brings me to my final question:
What natural resources has England that can be exported? Her people?
Scotland has oil, gas, renewable energy and fishing resources. None of which are vulnerable to transfer to another country. Scotland also has a manageable population such that exporting goods is possibly not vital for survival.
In the present UK arrangement Scotland’s oil and gas are not credited to Scotland but classified as ex-regio.Scotland’s export of generated power is actually charged a fee by the UK! Crown estates? All of this would change with independence, and for the better for Scotland.
I’m not feeling smug and I do not consider a “beggar thy neighbour” view acceptable. I believe that the ruling UK Establishment have been hopelessly wrong and selfish for many generations and it looks like the “plebs” are going to feel the pain. And i believe that independent is essential for Scotland to enable us to manage changing global politics and economics.
in my lifetime England has been changed enormously. In my early twenties I first ventured down on assignment by my employer and found a different but friendly country. i don’t get that impression from TV and MSM outlets. Maybe i’m wrong, I haven’t ventured down for several years now.
The rich have all the money.
The country is skint.
What was that about a benefits system?
@panda paws,
“Looks like I’m in a minority here…”
I suspect the reality is that you’re saying what a lot of other people are thinking. One of the reasons why birth rates have fallen in recent decades is that a lot of people who would like to have children don’t have them because they can’t afford them. As anyone who has children knows, children are expensive, both financially and in terms of the demands they make on our time. Many people either can’t afford them financially and/or both partners are too busy working, so they haven’t got the time in their busy, over-worked lives to look after them.
But this is the logic of homo economicus. Many people now need to make a rational economic calculation about whether they can afford a child in much the same way that they have to make a rational calculation before they buy a car or take on a personal loan. The poor – ‘poor’ not just in terms of income or wealth but as a consequence of this poverty, poor in terms of educational attainment and poverty of information and knowledge – are less well-equipped to make these rational calculations, so they make ‘mistakes’, that is, they have children.
Let’s not forget also that, as in so many other areas, this ConDem policy is a policy that’s being driven largely by developments in England. Since 1971, England’s population has increased by 8 million. In the same time period, Scotland’s population, on the other hand, has increased by only 100,000. In other words, some 96 per cent of the increase in the UKs population since 1971 is accounted for by the increase in England’s population.
Scotland does not need to follow these policies that punish the poor, policies that target the ‘undeserving’ poor in particular. We are an energy rich nation, we have a diverse economy that, with the right policies, would enable us to enhance rather than contract our welfare system. What we need to communicate to the people of Scotland is this: Why are we wasting so much of our time fighting the pernicious policies of the Tories at Westminster when, with independence, we could be dedicating ourselves to building the kind of Scotland that the vast majority of us want to see?
@1320
We’re back to the universal benefits thing….
A family on £250 k are the most deserving of child benefit. After all, it’s them paying for everyone else’s child benefit through the high tax they pay (quick estimate suggests £100 k a year in tax). Least we can do is given them a wee £80 a month rebate for each kid they have as a thank you (about 2 k a year for 2 kids). We can send their kids to university free when they hit 18 too (they’d have paid ~1.8 million in tax by this point, so really they totally deserve this). If we don’t do this, they’ll start resenting the tax they pay, those getting benefits from that tax (their money) that they don’t, and increasingly support ever more right-wing policies aimed at eliminating the welfare state entirely.
Means testing = neoliberal model no matter how you do it. If you support means testing in any way, you are a neo-liberal. Support universal benefits and you are a centre to left social democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Three_worlds_of_the_welfare_state
Sadly, the way the right try to sell this by saying ‘The rich can afford so we should direct the money to be poorest’ on the face of it can seem initially fair to the average joe. Meanwhile, the neoliberals smile privately to themselves as another sucker falls for it.
As usual SS you see things in the world of reality, I just see things through the glasses of rage at the unequal treatment of the poor. As usual you are on the right road, I’m on the road to nowhere. I just get so mad at all the benefit cuts coming from Westminster that affect, for the most part, the poorest in our communities the worst and yet at the same time we have the richest in our communities getting away Scot free with their “massaging” of their tax returns. 😀
Anyway on lighter note as a wee aside I have found these links and thought they might cheer one or two up. Stu I think you might find the third link particularly interesting. Did you pay for the advert or did you get the advert for free? 😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4qt-UMmajg&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIE2JOA8Xu4&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLGdtXx_o-Y&feature=relmfu
@ Arbroath 1320
Sooorreee! 😀 It is a helluva sight for a sunny Saturday.
On topic, are we really surprised at the Libdems in this? The tories we understand, we’re also fairly sure of what they’ll do with the cash on this benefits raid. The Libdems though seem bound and determined to destroy any credibility they once had as the party of the middle ground and social conscience.
Professor Paul Spicker of Robert Gordon University was on Talk Shite With Kaye on Friday and made the point that people with children are under-represented in the population of people on benefit long term (a large proportion of whom are either pensioners, or working aged disabled). Given that Professor Spicker has spent a good chunk of his career researching and writing about this he should know. This whole ‘debate’ is just Daily Mail tosh.
Like so. Joe Halewood’s blog Speye is an invaluable source of information btw
http://speye.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/welfare-benefits-its-young-peoples-fault-that-over-55-goes-to-pensioners/
Why are those with children made to feel inferior? Having children is not merely made with finance in mind, that’s totally ridiculous! Families can and do make choices in that regard, and to denigrate those who choose to have more than two children is positively archaic!
Basically, having children should be encouraged, or do we want a future country of old men and women only?
Totally agree with SS. More power to your keyboard!!!
@YesYesYes
I agree that an independent Scotland would be in a far better position to have a universal benefits system that resulted in a better society. I hate the underserving/undeserving poor distinction too. I’d like a benefits system that had an adequate payment of JSA to those not in work. £71 pw for a single childless person is poverty in the extreme. The sick and disabled need to have enough to lead a dignified life. Carers currently receive £55 pw and save the country billions. They need a proper government salary. I’m no neo-liberal but the current means-tested benefits system rewards having children with no upper limit.
Where I disagree is
“poor’ not just in terms of income or wealth but as a consequence of this poverty, poor in terms of educational attainment and poverty of information and knowledge – are less well-equipped to make these rational calculations, so they make ‘mistakes’, that is, they have children.”
That’s all very warm and fuzzy but the unacademic at my school knew fine well how to make decisions that were based on rational calculations – what’s best for me – and sometimes the decision was have children, I’ll get more money and not need to find a job. Used to be you didn’t need to work if any children younger than 16. Changing now to under 5.
@Derrick is right. The DWP spend is in descending order
1. pensioners
2. working age disabled
3. children
4. unemployed
The ConDems are not touching pensioners’ benefits though raising the qualification age. The main cuts so far have been on 2 and 4, with very little on 3. But let’s vote Yes in 2014 and have enough to pay everyone.
It would no doubt be nice if we could have ever higher levels of public spending, but unfortunately the laws of economics prevent this. The UK national debt at present stands at just over £1 trillion, which amounts to £17,000 per person. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is already approaching 50%, compared to countries like Switzerland with ratios closer to 30%. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is likewise much higher than many of our competitors. To increase public spending in our present economic circumstances and to attempt to fund it through ever higher rates of taxation, would cripple our economy, delay recovery and lead to everyone in this country soon suffering from lower living standards. To suppose that this would be different in an independent Scotland shows a lack of understanding of basic economics. If the 3 main UK parties have finally come to a similar understanding with regard to our economic predicament, that only leaves the SNP left out in the cold waiting to join the adults. An independent Scotland run by such people might set out to be a socialist paradise, but the least understanding of history shows where that route leads.
Effie Deans,
These things are currently afforded.
None of us can accurately predict the future. It is entirely possible that a few breakthoughs in fusion or solar collection or battery technology will make the world a completely different place from the world we live in now. It may be that, in these circumstances, we end up, globally, living in a post scarcity society. In any event Scots would be better off facing any future with Hollyrood control over all the levers of power.
@panda paws,
Agreed. I’m not disputing your point that there always have been and always will be people who ‘play the system’. But if we spent as much of our time and energy ensuring that wealthy corporations and super-wealthy individuals couldn’t use tax loopholes, tax havens etc to avoid paying their fair share of tax we wouldn’t need to argue among ourselves about the relatively small sums involved in providing a basic safety net for the poorest in our society.
But this is precisely where Labour and the Tories want us want to be, arguing among ourselves about which individuals and groups among the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our society are ‘entitled’ to benefits. As I said, this is the logic of homo economicus, this is what living in a market-oriented society does to us. It reduces everything to the unmerciful calculus of neo-liberalism, so that even the decision to have children becomes the subject of rational economic calculation.
Prediction trends are of the elderly population percentage increasing and of the consequent financial burden upon society. the imbalance can be corrected by encouraging the import of young persons from other countries. A consequence is possible racial tensions. A thin ice topic, see present English football difficulties. Or, encourage your indigenous population to have children. and remove or ease any financial obstacles to them. Requiring couples to sit down and do a cost/benefit analysis on whether to have another child, or even one, seems nonsensical. i mean dearies, what if you have an Arts degree and aren’t so good at sums?The country benefits from having talented women in employment, what is lacking is reconciling this benefit with the mutual needs of mothers and children.
Almost forgot, M’Lord Bitchard has proposed to get the old codgers and him(?) back to work or cut their pensions – he better not argue that slumbering in the House of M’lords is work. Not so much shop ’till you drop, as work ’till you drop. His culling process may get the percentage population balance corrected without the need for a supply of babies. If work cannot be found for the codgers – we do have unemployed youth you know, other solutions must be found. Food rationing the elderly may also be a solution especially in winter. And as for that winter fuel allowance. Top marks for M’Lord for lateral thinking.” Do you think you could clean out that toilet bowl now M’Lord. Someone has to do it”.
David Ickes(?) once said that the world is ruled by lizards, and we all laughed. If had said “ruled by cold-bloodied people’ it wouldn’t have been half so funny.
Effie Deans says:
‘An independent Scotland run by such people might set out to be a socialist paradise, but the least understanding of history shows where that route leads.’
Norway?
Effie, a series of three increasingly right-wing authoritarian governments since 1979 have brought the UK to its knees financially and constitutionally. First the Conseravatives under thatcher, then the right-wing New Labour under Blair, then the current Tory-Orange Book Liberal coalition which is one of the most extreme right governments in Europe.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
It is the same the world over – the most capitalist/neoliberal of countries are the ones sitting on the largest mountain of debt. Greed fuels debt after all! UK and US are excellent examples. If you examine European countries with the lowest levels of debt, you find they are the ones that are the most centrist (left compared to the UK) and liberal, e.g. Norway, Sweden, Finland…
Out of interest, can you point me to a socialist democratic country? I’m trying to work out your ‘understanding of history’. Obviously you are not talking about e.g. the USSR or Cuba LOL; although I must admit some numpties try to hold these up as examples of socialism like people got to vote and stuff!
In fact at the same time if you could given me an example of an economically successful right-wing country that would be helpful too.
I personally don’t understand this whole austerity agenda. During a recession or a economic depression, people tend to hoard money and not spend it. This seems to apply to companies as well. Surely the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? Politically, rather conventionally the Tories have privatised the English NHS and are going to give the private sector in England a role in policing. At the same time as the Conservatives are trashing the public sector, saying it is unproductive and inefficient, we have the debacle, and almost constant remainder, of the privatised railways, and the G4s stewarding shambles at the Olympics. The Tories never question this myth about the private sector being superior to the public sector. It just shows the extent of Scottish Labour’s opposition to independence that they have just endorsed this agenda. Surely their core support are not going to support this when they start to be personally affected by it themselves? If there is a No vote in the referendum that is what surely will happen.
@Ian,
Alternatively, if we want to emulate China’s phenomenal rate of GDP growth and compete with China, we need major reforms in Scotland. China has 400 million people living on $2 a day. It has 150 million child workers. It incarcerates supporters of free trade unions and all political dissidents. This is the way we need to go in Scotland if we want to compete with China. Never mind all of this mumbo-jumbo about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ as well as all that EU top-heavy, bureaucratic red tape about workers’ rights, controlling financial markets and the like.
There is one problem with the Chinese ‘economic miracle’ though. The Chinese state has a stranglehold in its control of China’s economy and society. Oops.
There is only right and wrong.
Folk know in their heart the right thing to do.
Human beings have advanced because we look after the weaker members of the tribe. The greedy, self centered person is the exception, not the rule.
Oops, the fox who turned into the gamekeeper has suffered a bit of amnesia methinks. After all was it not Labour who first introduced ATOS into the disabled vetting system?
http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/10/labour-calls-for-urgent-investigation-over-misleading-atos-bid-information/
Meanwhile, back in the real world we are beginning to see real people with real medical conditions suffer a variety of “threats” as issued by local police forces. No doubt on the orders from Westminster.
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/police-move-on-campaigners-for-criminal-acts-against-dwp/
I guess the DWP don’t like real people telling other real people the truth.
Effie,
It would no doubt be nice if we could have ever higher levels of public spending, but unfortunately the laws of economics prevent this.
It is not the ‘laws of economics that are the reason – it’s a declining tax take that is reducing the spending power of Central Government. Here is two simple examples of the problem:
1.) Global Companies such as Vodaphone, Amazon & Starbucks not paying a fair share of TAX. This is a dangerous position for any Government and encourages other companies to demand similar deals. Billions in lost revenue is actually costing jobs in the UK as the Government feel they must make spending cuts to try and cut outgoings. This personally costs each and every person in the UK through reduced services.
2.) In order to improve the TAX collected, higher levels of duty are often applied to areas of indirect taxation – sometimes you can actually collect more TAX by reducing TAX. Fuel Taxation and VAT would be possible examples here.
The UK national debt at present stands at just over £1 trillion, which amounts to £17,000 per person. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is already approaching 50%, compared to countries like Switzerland with ratios closer to 30%. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is likewise much higher than many of our competitors. To increase public spending in our present economic circumstances and to attempt to fund it through ever higher rates of taxation, would cripple our economy, delay recovery and lead to everyone in this country soon suffering from lower living standards.
Rather than funding Capital spending through increasing TAX it is possible to fund it through increased TAX receipts. Tax is collected in various forms, reducing TAX in specific areas can help to give a boost to business and a boost to everyones spending – it has to be focused and kept in check to avoid having negative inflation pressures. Capital spending projects can be a great boost to areas such as construction, giving companies the strength to grow and take on workers – these TAX benefits are then collected by the Treasury – I should point out that George Osborne is thinking of a plan to upgrade the London sewers, which would work in this way.
The amount of debt we had under Gordon Brown was actually less than it is today.
Increasing the TAX take of a nation actually helps reduce the debt figures as GDP improves. Win Win policy.
To suppose that this would be different in an independent Scotland shows a lack of understanding of basic economics.
That completely depends on you understanding of Economics rather than which country you apply them too. The countries with the worst outlook in Europe are the ones that are following the deepest austerity cuts.
If the 3 main UK parties have finally come to a similar understanding with regard to our economic predicament, that only leaves the SNP left out in the cold waiting to join the adults.
That follows three versus one logic, that the three are correct – rather than having the real agenda of shrinking the public sector and selling off education, policing and health to the private sector – as has happened all too often in the past, said politicians end up with directorships within these companies. These three parties can come in from the cold when ever they want, but will they?
An independent Scotland run by such people might set out to be a socialist paradise, but the least understanding of history shows where that route leads.
I would say and there is proof in this a country run in such a manner would be more inclusive, have a more equal society with generally higher levels of happiness.
Understanding of history shows where the options are – a more divided society, more unequal society…….
I know a social worker in a London borough. He’s told me many times over the years of foreign families he has to deal with and how they ‘use’ the system. Often a father will emigrate to the UK, find work – usually a fairly menial job and when he’s set up, over come the rest of the family. They will immediately start claiming benefits, and he tell’s me that having children to increase the amount of benefits is a definite plan. These are benefits that are not available in their home countries, they look on moving to the UK as an ‘opportunity’ to get free money. They don’t bother to learn the English as they never intend to seek employment.
The kids have to go to school, and the schools in the local area all have to cater for a number of foreign languages, which inevitably costs money. The councils have to house these families, which costs money. These families tend to live in similar areas – causing a ‘ghetto’ effect.
I know plenty of people in London who are absolutely fed up with this, and regard these immigrants as nothing but freeloaders. I reckon many of them would be quite happy to see a restriction on child benefit if it meant curbing this abuse, which is how they see it.
Personally, although I don’t agree with this idea, I can understand why some may find themselves agreeing with it. They see that the welfare state as being broken and bankrupt, they think immigration laws are to open and they don’t see an alternative.
What’s very apparent, every time we have a recession, it’s usually manifests itself in the most appalling ways. As things get tougher (which they will) I expect to see racism on the increase and more divisions in society appear. Not only does that include racism toward the normal ‘coloured’ victims, but towards European neighbours and to ourselves, the Scots.
Last years riots are a starting point, I expect to see more sadly.
Adrian B,
Excellent post and well said.
Let’s not forget also that, in 1947, the UK had a national debt that was 240 per cent of its GDP. Little more than a decade later, a Conservative prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was telling us that we’d never had it so good. With the political will and all the powers of independence, as well as the right policies, we do not have to follow the mantra of the Labour-Tory coalition that ‘there is no alternative’.
Approximately on topic, a good piece about why it may be the oligarchy rather than the welfarians dragging us down.
http://tinyurl.com/the-self-destruction-of-the1
Good post Adrian.
O/T Meanwhile over at the lib/dum conference Rennie speaks with forked tongue by offering home rule for Scotland .
The lib/dum,s and the libs before them have been talking about home rule since before I was born and Scotland is still waiting for them to deliver .
@SilverTay,
The Lib Dems and the Liberals before them have been talking about home rule since before your granny was born. On this issue, they make even Scottish Labour look like thoroughbred greyhounds in comparison. At least we only had to wait 100 years for Scottish Labour to get round to home rule. With the Lib Dems, it looks like we’re going to have to wait a millennium.
@YesYesYes
“But if we spent as much of our time and energy ensuring that wealthy corporations and super-wealthy individuals couldn’t use tax loopholes, tax havens etc to avoid paying their fair share of tax…”
On that we are in 100% agreement, I’d have fixed the tax code and employed more tax inspectors (the number actually have been cut) before I’d have cut a penny of the DWP budget. But then I’m not a ConDemNulab.
Scotland needs a fair, progressive tax system and a fair, progressive welfare system neither of which provide perverse incentives to the small minority of chancers rich or poor, whilst ensuring that whose who need help get it and those who pay most tax feel they get something back in the form of universal benefits.
@RevStu – I’ve requested deletion of my 11.55am first comment because I was having problems editing the typos.
Effie Deans; If your post demonstrates your grasp of macro-economics, i recommend you undertake some formal study, and gain enlightenment of the subject.
Effie Deans ” Laws of economics”
Where are they as the bankers launder money, fraud by mis-selling various products, theft etc all aided by our politicians.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/10/27/the-city-has-no-interest-in-closing-tax-havens/
Wullie at the Lib dem local branch meeting:
“Home rule for Scotland in a federal United Kingdom keeps us as a powerful force for good in the world.”
I presume the ‘poweful force’ part translates as aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, nuclear armed submarines and killing brown people for oil contracts. Very liberal and democratic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20105236
@s_s
Yes, Rennie has mixed up imperialism and liberalism again. A common problem for unionists. Ask people from Egypt, Kenya, India, Iran etc if Britain has been a force for good and the response you get is likely not to be good. If a ‘force for good’ means plundering other peoples resources, occupying their territories, and crushing rebellions, then you shudder to think what the unionists would perceive as a destructive force. The emergence of British nationalism continues……
Thanks for the positive comments, I only put down what many others are also thinking and feeling on this subject.
One other issue about Big business and Government departments (This includes the Scottish Government) that I would also like to raise as it is a big bugbear of mine.
Sainsbury’s recently made a comment about doing this – I don’t know if it has been implemented or not. They are wishing to pay their suppliers every three months, rather than the normal monthly payments for goods. I strongly dislike the very idea of this as it puts the onus of cashflow firmly with the supermarkets suppliers. Waiting three months for payment is nonsense, retailers already make by far the largest margin for the goods that they sell and I don’t think that suppliers should subsidise these profits to a higher degree by having to wait three months to get paid.
Marks and Sparks were known for this in the late ’80s and ’90s, if they are still doing this then they are buying a complete season of garments at at individual prices of £1.22 ex VAT to sell on for a retail of £39.99 inc VAT, ‘T’ shirts and the like are bought for a few pence They are then selling these through the season, before paying suppliers. The rag industry as it is known has always had huge margins, due to the cost of its stores.
The margins made by supermarkets are not as big, but the amount they turnover daily is mind-boggling. Does anyone know how much TAX the supermarkets have paid in Tax in recent years?
Local councils and the NHS seen to operate in a similar way, anyone who has had any experience with the NHS will know how inefficient they are at making decisions, again you seem to have to wait an age to get paid – there is too much bureaucracy in the system – one only has to wonder how much extra they are paying for goods and services to factor in for this extended credit period?
As usual the Lib/Dems are holding their conference in a phone box, in Dunfermline this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20105236
I must admit to being more than just a smidgen confused over the calls coming from the conference. Now remind me if I’m wrong but was A.S. up until the agreement was signed offering up the option of a second question on the referendum ballot paper that offered the chance of more powers to Holyrood. Unfortunately the LibDems seemed more interested in ensuring their mucky greedy paws got hold of the ermine of Westminster. Now we have a one question ballot In/Out they are now “promising” more powers to Holyrood.
HUH!
Whit’s all this about?
First they are against offering more powers to Holyrood and now they are offering more powers to Holyrood. Are they really so stupid or do they think that we are so stupid as to believe their promise of jam, any flavour, tomorrow?
Party leader Willie Rennie claimed the move was more popular with voters than the option of independence.
He said people wanted assurances that an independence no vote would not mean there would be no change.
Is there any chance Rennie is on the same meds as Murray?
If the option was more popular than Independence then why oh why did the LibDems not grasp the thistle by the thorns and run with A.S.’s offer of a second question?
Does Rennie honestly think that we Scots are going to take his offer, or the offer from any LibDem, of more powers tomorrow seriously?
This man is a complete dingbat of the first degree!
@Arb
A few days after Salmond has signed the referendum agreement with Cameron, Menzies Campbell announces the results of a home rule commission. Yes, there should be more powers for Holyrood but it should not be put in the referendum. This despite the fact that we had a two-question referendum in 1997! Also, Campbell is a part of the coalition adminstration at Westminster, but he can’t tell us when his apparent new policy for Scotland would get implemented. Worse than useless….
1984 – shiver
Adrian B @ 6.45 pm A very good post .
The difference between one month and 3 months will be life or death for some company,s
I worked in a shop in the 70s and it was the people who were struggling for money that paid their bills on time and the people who had the money that made you wait months before they paid you . If you were not paid in time it had a double effect on your ability to order more stock and to pay your own supplier .
If company,s have to wait 3 months for payment , many of them will go to the wall , not only increasing the unemployment rate but also increasing the welfare bill .
Muttley 79 @ 6.40pm Unlike other country,s of the empire , the atrocity,s we committed in Kenya are well documented and came straight out of the gestapo hand book .
The atrocity,s were so bad , I could not list them here but a quick google search will open anyone but die hard unionist eyes . In India the british establishment used famine as a weapon to keep the natives down resulting in the deaths of 100.s of thousands of innocent men , women and children .
Adrian: A business can adjust its business strategy to correct poor or zero profitability but it will fail if the cash flow dries up. Supermarkets enjoy a daily cash flow from the paying public, it would equitable if they were required by legislation to pass that benefit to their suppliers as daily payment for goods supplied.So if they wish to delay payment “for admin purposes” to suppliers for three months the due payment to suppliers should at least include for the overdraft charge being incurred by their suppliers for this delayed payment. Otherwise, isn’t the applicable term, carpetbagging?
O/T but hold on, is that a union jack behind Wullie but yellowed?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63744000/jpg/_63744921_016075936-1.jpg
Holy shit. No way. Even the libs are now one nation Tory?
Silverytay re India I believe it was well over a million deaths by shipping the wheat harvest to London to satisfy the commodity markets, nothing has changed as moneymen rule.
173 years worth of income tax and counting. That’s how much we have paid. We are 5 brothers and 2 sisters and although my father worked we needed the child benefit. I’m glad limited child benefit didn’t happen when my mother was raising a family.
Arbroath 1320, muttley79
Ming Campbell’s report is just same old, same old in terms of what Scotland’s going to get. The red line in all these reports is that Scotland must not get anymore money or access to resources than any other part of the UK.
With that in mind every proposal for federalism, devo-max, blah, blah, shmackety, shmah smacks face down onto the carpet every time it hits that red line tripwire.
Ming’s report is just the same, paragraphs 127 and 128 give the game away.
127. Across the world, it is normal practice for federal governments to meet the gaps between a lower tier of government’s spending needs and that tier’s ability to raise the money locally, and that is why a continued block payment from the UK Treasury will continue to be necessary in a federal system.
128. The balancing payment could, of course, continue to be paid under the existing Barnett formula. This is already happening in response to the tax changes under the Scotland Act 2012 and would allow time for a transition period to be agreed across the UK in the move to a new formula.
(my bold)
Anyway the Scottish Lib-Dems voting for it means nothing because unless the English/Federal bit of the party agree to it then it’s just hot air. The report mentions Federalism and England in close proximity so I’d say it’s a goner even before it starts.
Funny though isn’t it. It’s only after the Lib-Dems have no chance of getting a devo-max/federal question on the ballot paper do they come out with a proposal.
You’d almost think it was deliberate.
cynicalHighlander Thanks for that .
I thought it was over the million but I did not have the facts to hand .
When I came out of hospital after my hip op , I watched a documentary on the empire .
I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing so I googled british atrocity,s .
What came up had me in tears .
When you think of the outrage in the right wing press when Mell Gibson,s film the patriot came out that the british would never behave like that as it was not cricket etc and you find out that not only have we behaved like that ,we have actually been committing crimes worse than that in the last 50/60 years .
No wonder the establishment are trying desperately to keep compensation claims out of court until everybody victimised by the empire has died .
As a footnote
It was only 30 years before the American war of Independence that a member of the royal family was actually committing the same type of crimes as was portrayed in the patriot .
The only difference was that the crime was committed in Scotland and not America .
He was not called Butcher Cumberland for nothing .
Map of Liberal Conference
http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/images/stories/sldconf2.jpg
I am saddened to see folk supporting independence coming out with the neo-liberal shite that gladdens the heart of Labour supporters like Effie Deans
If you are worried about the middle-classes not having the kids then make sure there are good state nurseries and schools.
THis lie that “poor girls get everything by having loads of illegitimate weans” is best left to the Daily Mail and John Smith House where it belongs
We should consider the people of Diego Garcia as recent victims of the global ambitions of the Westminster village.
These are the people we are up against. Let us be in no doubt that they will attempt to shaft us in exactly the same way.
Here is a little light reading:
The Diego Garcia depopulation controversy pertains to the expulsion of the indigenous inhabitants of the island of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by the United Kingdom, beginning in 1968 and concluding on 27 April 1973 with the evacuation of Peros Banhos atoll.[1] These people, known at the time as the Ilois; are today known as Chagos Islanders or Chagossians.
Remind you of the Highland Clearances?
These bastards are still with us. They are known as the FCO.
Erchie,
Effie is a Conservative supporter – I know it’s hard for some of us to separate them out from one other but there you go.
I agree with your last paragraph.
Adrian B
You are right, it is hard to tell them apart.
Tories seem to think “We were reviled under Thatcher. How can we top this for inhumanity and incometence this time”
First: My understanding of Child Credit is that it is important because it is paid (normally) to the mother, and feckless fathers don’t get to drink it away.
Second: Anyone who thinks that the £14 or so per child will allow even the most thrifty mother to pay for the child’s needs and make a profit is seriously, cretinously deluded.
Thirdly: The current stringent economic times we live in were brought about directly by irresponsible behaviour by bankers abetted by Blairite deregulation ( supported by the Tories), and yet bankers continue to get mollycoddled (with QE, which goes straight to their bottom line and bonus pots) while Cameron protects them from sensible and just measures like the financial transaction tax which would solve the deficit problem, moderate the casino side of the operations that got us into this mess, and be simple and relatively inexpensive to collect.
fourthly: Even those unreconstructed neo-liberal tories in Scotland (like wee Jummie Lamont) should recognise that if the Tory menu of policies are to the taste of the Scottish people, there is nothing to stop the Scottish people from voting for a party like hers that advocates them.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news folks but there has been a time shift, maybe it had something to do with putting the clocks back I dunno, Apparently the Justice minister Lewis Macdonald has called for the ministerial code to be reviewed. No honestly, according to the STV Lewis Macdonald is the Justice minister.
http://news.stv.tv/politics/197039-labour-accuse-salmond-of-using-ministerial-code-as-get-out-of-jail-card/
I guess the Labour party are getting terrified. Oh dear, some one is getting worried that A.S. might just be found not guilty of breaking the ministerial code again!
O.K. who left the cage door open again?
Looks like Moore found his way to Dunfermline and spewed some garbage about reality. I think it is Moore who need a reality check not the Independence campaign. I can’t say that I was overly impressed with the size of the audience either. I see wee Willie Rennie was out on his own again on stage. Looks like it was left to Kennedy to spew out the anti S.N.P. line as well.
http://news.stv.tv/politics/197040-moore-uk-government-will-flush-out-facts-and-figures-on-independence/
Now for a wee laugh, or is it more a case of “take me out now sand shoot me”?
Piipa Middleton has, apparently, got a book out which is apparently called “Celebrate: A Year Of British Festivities for Families And Friends,” In this “book” she devotes a whole chapter, 20 pages worth, to the annual event that occurs in January each year, the Burns Supper. Be warned you way want to throw something at your screen when you read this article from the Scotsman.
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/is-pippa-middleton-s-burns-supper-a-dog-s-dinner-1-2602668
The same in Oz too………………
In Oz the governemnt was accused by opposition last night of reducing money for every chld but the first. a one child preferred policy in terms of benefits/welfare.
The Liebor government who are doing this have broken many election promises and introduced many that are distinctly unsocialist and would put IDS to shame.
Hockey from the Oz tories on TV last night said it was a Chinese policy so your wording is apt.
Slightly OT
A sensible article by McKenna (again) is he coming over?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/kevin-mckenna-immigration-good-for-scotland
Comments open later – I think I will add my support!
We need to do away with this nonsense that people have children just to get support. The idea is absurd and usually led by people who hate paying tax for anything. Of course they won’t say that, they’ll say its an unfair burden on the “ordinary” tax payer which they cannot bear. It’s something for nothing, it encourages idleness. They have kids to get a free house, they have kids to have free money and so on and so on. The system needs reform but it needs to have social justice at its heart. We need jobs and we need jobs that pay well. We need fairer rents, we need to invest in housing, we need to re-examine the role of the private sector and PFI. We need to lock down and close tax loopholes. What we don’t need is to make matters worse, to push people deeper into poverty, deny any access to opportunity, increasing rents, sitting by when councils fail in their duties to the communities they are meant to serve, to make old people suffer, to make people homeless. These are the policies of the tories – who hate the idea of helping anyone and if they can’t help themselves then thats their problem not the Tories. People will no doubt post and say – But how can we afford it. I say tell me how you intend to pay for trident or its replacement. ATOS and its 3.2 billion contract to harrass and harvest the disabled. G4S the people that could not manage security at the olympics performing parole services for prisoners. Allowing corporations off with large tax bills. I could go on, but so much money is pissed up a wall by westminster its beyond parody. The answer is cuts – cuts to benefits and when they run out of victims, they will go after hospitals, police, the army, in fact all branches of the public sector. It’s not just an attack on parents, it’s an attack on society itself.
You cannot fix things by placing the burden on the poorest. You cannot fix homelessness by making people homeless. Employment by making it easier to sack people. You cannot make society fair by making it unfair on those it was meant to help. And trying to find excuses to allow you to look the other way leaves that way open to futher abuses to be heaped on the vulnerable by future governments.
I leave off with a cautionary tale about the dangers of adopting the tactics and language of your oppponent. Recently posted by Lallands peat worrier from a book called A view from the foothills – by Chris Mullin. I think we should have a whip round and send a copy to Mrs Lamont.
Joined at lunch by a Yorkshire MP, a mild-mannered fellow, incensed by The Man’s [Blair’s] latest foray into education. “We’re opening the door for selection. Whatever safeguards we put in place, whatever assurances we give will be absolutely worthless once the Tories are in power”. And then: “I think we will lose the next election. The Tories will come to some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems and we’ll find that we’ve opened the door to the market in health and education. And when we protest, they will reply, “But this is your policy; you started it. We’ll be vulnerable for years. Our benches will be full of ex-ministers who won’t have the stomach for the fight”. As he talked his anger mounted and most of it was directed at The Man. A straw in the wind.
James Morton Excellent post .
We all know what the end result is when you start demonising sections of society .
While there is always a minority who will abuse any system , we cannot punish the majority who genuinely need help for the sins of the few .
Aplinal
I was wondering myself whether McIntosh, the MSP who asked the First Eck about unemployment, despite the fact that he hadn’t done his homework, was a future defection candidate, either to the SNP or the the new Scottish Labour Party which is bound to split from the current bunch of chancers, sooner I hope, rather than later.
Kevin’s article now open. It didn’t take long for the crap to appear, regrettably!
@James McLaren
I doubt Ken McIntosh will defect – he’s very much Tweedledum to Jim Murphy’s Tweedledee. They share constituency offices and staff.
@RevStu – can I ask again for 11,55am comment to be deleted.
“What if you’ve worked all your life and have four children, then get made unexpectedly redundant or become ill? Are you supposed to put your two most expensive kids into care because you can no longer afford to feed all of them? What if you already have one child and fall pregnant with what turns out to be twins or triplets? Do you have to pick your favourite and leave the others at the hospital? What if people ignore the changes and have children they can’t afford?”
We know perfectly well what the answer to this is, simply by looking at what happened before these benefits were introduced. People beg, they turn to crime, and they sell their children into various forms of indentured servitude. Then we bring back the workhouses… I’m sure there are many companies that would love to purchase some cheap labour from state-run sweatshops. In fact, running the new workhouses would likely be a very attractive PFI contract, provided sufficient legal safeguards against liability were in place.