The poor breeding

Sewinman

Where do they find these people, seriously, where!? :shock:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... breed.html

W1

[predictable response on]

He's got a point.

[predictable response off]

notsoblue

Why is David Cameron trying to distance himself from an opinion that most of his supporters agree with?

Wallace1492

To be honest, I cannot understand why he is being castigated.

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

There are plenty that have kids to get "up the housing list".

These kids will then no doubt want free university, although they will drop out or get worthless degrees. Who will pay for that then?

Well, either those without kids or other hard working families...

Sewinman

He has got at least four of the little lay about blood sucking blighters - the swine!

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Why is David Cameron trying to distance himself from an opinion that most of his supporters agree with?

Because slapping the poor with bundles of £50 notes isn't the done thing in the Big Society.

Poor bashing is out. It's official.

unixnerd

In my limited experience it does seem to be those with the least money who have the most children.

Ever seen the film Idiocracy, worth a quick google if you haven't :-) A taste of the future maybe.....

vorsprung

Wallace1492 wrote:

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

Well, historically it hasn't has it? Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

deptfordmarmoset

If the poor breed more, isn't the solution to make them richer? (This logic is unlikely to appeal to Tory peers.)

DonDaddyD

Poor = less educated, less aware of sexual risks and/or contraception...

Maybe?

Not enough money to buy contraception, women don't see using the pill as important as having a baby won't mess there career plans all that much so being 'protected' less of a priority - coupled with the belief that the pulling out method does work [see less educated above]

W1

vorsprung wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

Well, historically it hasn't has it? Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

Bloody luxury! Didn't know they were born.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Poor = less educated, less aware of sexual risks and/or contraception...

Maybe?

Not enough money to buy contraception, women don't see using the pill as important as having a baby won't mess there career plans all that much so being 'protected' less of a priority - coupled with the belief that the pulling out method does work [see less educated above]

Or...

more babies = more benefits + bigger house?

Sewinman

If they had to pay proper school fees like LiTs they would think twice, bloody vagabonds.

Wallace1492

vorsprung wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

Well, historically it hasn't has it? Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

Obviously meaning since the start of the welfare state. Previously the poor needed more kids due to high mortality rate.

MonkeyMonster

vorsprung wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

Well, historically it hasn't has it? Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

less soup and thinner shoes but close.

CiB

vorsprung wrote:

Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

I really can't believe what I'm reading here. <steam>. Come on - it's fewer shoes and thinner soup. FFS.. < , to make it clear...>


I reckon the world's gone mental lately. Last week it was Lord Young having to give up the day job for stating the bleedin obvious, today it's matey boy here having to grovel for saying what well over half the population thinks and knows is probably true, and in the same paper we read that that nice Mr Cameron is in trouble with the Short Peoples Society [oh I dunno...] who are angry at him for asking Mr Bercow 'which one are you then', when The Speaker said he wasn't happy. Or Happy.

And since when could a society be 'angry'? Anger is a specific human trait, not a collective emotion. Not in my bit of the world anyway. Gah. Off home to melt the snow with the steam coming out of my ears....

il_principe

notsoblue wrote:

Why is David Cameron trying to distance himself from an opinion that most of his supporters agree with?

The peers are all as bad as each other - take Baroness Uddin and Lord Paul, both Labour and both suspended for fiddling expenses (allegedly :roll: )

jamesco

Anyone who refers to having children as "breeding" is off to a bad start, in my opinion. It's not as if they're trying to get a good hound for the hunt.

Sirius631

It's curious some soon to be Lord commenting on the poor breeding as the poorest example of breeding that I can recall is Prince Charles with his bones that failed to mend on their own. I hope Kate brings the gene for strong bones back to the Royal line.

mtb-idle

unixnerd wrote:

IEver seen the film Idiocracy, worth a quick google if you haven't :-) A taste of the future maybe.....

Yup, very funny.

Here's the opening quote

As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

but i prefer

Because it's got electrolytes

EKE_38BPM

Yeah, good film, glad I watched it. Many a truth is spoken in jest.

Back OT, if you feel you have no worthwhile future, nothing to work towards, nothing to strive for, no hope etc then you may feel that you may as well shag bareback whilst watching Jeremy Vile on an outsize plasma TV from Lidl and eating Turkey Twizzlers in your council house.

Instead of saving towards building an extension/loft conversion, fire out another sprog to increase your child benefit and qualify for a bigger gaff.

Education (especially educating women) is the best contraception there is.
Not just sex education, but generally educating people gives them options and hope for the future.
They generally won't risk messing up at 16 for a drunken shag (apart from my convent school educated friend of mine who got knocked up when she lost her virginity in Regents Park to an Italian exchange student on her first un-chaperoned night out).

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

I reckon the world's gone mental lately. Last week it was Lord Young having to give up the day job for stating the bleedin obvious, today it's matey boy here having to grovel for saying what well over half the population thinks and knows is probably true, and in the same paper we read that that nice Mr Cameron is in trouble with the Short Peoples Society [oh I dunno...] who are angry at him for asking Mr Bercow 'which one are you then', when The Speaker said he wasn't happy. Or Happy.

+1

Also that Bishop was forced to "retire from public life" for stating the obvious about the Royal Wedding.

It seems a British obsession to hound out anyone expressing an opinion and demanding an apology.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Poor = less educated, less aware of sexual risks and/or contraception...

Maybe?

Not enough money to buy contraception, women don't see using the pill as important as having a baby won't mess there career plans all that much so being 'protected' less of a priority - coupled with the belief that the pulling out method does work [see less educated above]

Or...

more babies = more benefits + bigger house?

+1.

Apparently the magic number is 4 kids. Once they have 4, the benefits they receive is more than some one earning the average wage, so they can say they won't work as it would mean a cut in money, so they stay at home and breed some more to get even more benefits. The Tory peer Howard Flight is right that some merely become baby factories. There are some near me. Although he could have used more temperate language.

China had the one child only policy.

tailwindhome

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Poor = less educated, less aware of sexual risks and/or contraception...

Maybe?

Not enough money to buy contraception, women don't see using the pill as important as having a baby won't mess there career plans all that much so being 'protected' less of a priority - coupled with the belief that the pulling out method does work [see less educated above]

Or...

more babies = more benefits + bigger house?

+1.

Apparently the magic number is 4 kids. Once they have 4, the benefits they receive is more than some one earning the average wage, so they can say they won't work as it would mean a cut in money, so they stay at home and breed some more to get even more benefits. The Tory peer Howard Flight is right that some merely become baby factories. There are some near me. Although he could have used more temperate language.

China had the one child only policy.

I have 4 kids

I go to work each day

I'm a feckin mug

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Poor = less educated, less aware of sexual risks and/or contraception...

Maybe?

Not enough money to buy contraception, women don't see using the pill as important as having a baby won't mess there career plans all that much so being 'protected' less of a priority - coupled with the belief that the pulling out method does work [see less educated above]

Or...

more babies = more benefits + bigger house?

+1.

Apparently the magic number is 4 kids. Once they have 4, the benefits they receive is more than some one earning the average wage, so they can say they won't work as it would mean a cut in money, so they stay at home and breed some more to get even more benefits. The Tory peer Howard Flight is right that some merely become baby factories. There are some near me. Although he could have used more temperate language.

China had the one child only policy.

I have 4 kids

I go to work each day

I'm a feckin mug

Indeed - you should be sending them out to work!

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

CiB wrote:

I reckon the world's gone mental lately. Last week it was Lord Young having to give up the day job for stating the bleedin obvious, today it's matey boy here having to grovel for saying what well over half the population thinks and knows is probably true, and in the same paper we read that that nice Mr Cameron is in trouble with the Short Peoples Society [oh I dunno...] who are angry at him for asking Mr Bercow 'which one are you then', when The Speaker said he wasn't happy. Or Happy.

+1

Also that Bishop was forced to "retire from public life" for stating the obvious about the Royal Wedding.

It seems a British obsession to hound out anyone expressing an opinion and demanding an apology.

Except, to be fair, the Queen is his CEO - and you wouldn't expect to be able to publically mouth off about your bosses son's wedding without at least some raised eyebrows.

Agree with the rest though.

DonDaddyD

Was gonna say careful chaps some of us on here were teenage parents and/or have more than four (think we the most is 6) kids and/or needed/enjoyed/depended on child benefits. Maybe sailing too close to the wind for some...

Tory Government init, all previously demanded political correctness (many times silly) out the window. So they've gone after poor and short people, what's next? Don't get me wrong, it means I can start playing the race card again and maybe sue my pension deficit out of someone. Or at the very least I can sing baa baa black sheep (as oppose to 'any sheep') without being glared at.


And CIB, the charity's name is 'Walking with Giants' it was founded by Clever Pun and Cafewanda, get it right!

notsoblue

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Yeah, good film, glad I watched it. Many a truth is spoken in jest.

Back OT, if you feel you have no worthwhile future, nothing to work towards, nothing to strive for, no hope etc then you may feel that you may as well shag bareback whilst watching Jeremy Vile on an outsize plasma TV from Lidl and eating Turkey Twizzlers in your council house.

Instead of saving towards building an extension/loft conversion, fire out another sprog to increase your child benefit and qualify for a bigger gaff.

Education (especially educating women) is the best contraception there is.
Not just sex education, but generally educating people gives them options and hope for the future.
They generally won't risk messing up at 16 for a drunken shag (apart from my convent school educated friend of mine who got knocked up when she lost her virginity in Regents Park to an Italian exchange student on her first un-chaperoned night out).

+1, This and most of what DDD said is closer to the truth imo. Its depressing that the debate about this kind of benefit is dominated by those that use terms like "baby factory" with such contempt. You can bash these "Baby Factories" about all you like, attacking their benefits, blaming them for all society's ills, and be satisfied that they live miserable lives and their children live in poverty, but unless the cause is tackled their children will repeat the cycle. Its a poverty of aspiration that causes people to get stuck on benefits. Demonising young single mothers isn't going to help anyone other than those who enjoy a good scapegoat and shun etiological insight.

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

CiB wrote:

I reckon the world's gone mental lately. Last week it was Lord Young having to give up the day job for stating the bleedin obvious, today it's matey boy here having to grovel for saying what well over half the population thinks and knows is probably true, and in the same paper we read that that nice Mr Cameron is in trouble with the Short Peoples Society [oh I dunno...] who are angry at him for asking Mr Bercow 'which one are you then', when The Speaker said he wasn't happy. Or Happy.

+1

Also that Bishop was forced to "retire from public life" for stating the obvious about the Royal Wedding.

It seems a British obsession to hound out anyone expressing an opinion and demanding an apology.

Except, to be fair, the Queen is his CEO - and you wouldn't expect to be able to publically mouth off about your bosses son's wedding without at least some raised eyebrows.

Agree with the rest though.

I would have thought that God was his CEO

secretsam

Wallace1492 wrote:

vorsprung wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The poor have more children than the rich, and the state pays them big benefits. It has always been the case.

Well, historically it hasn't has it? Before WW2 if you were poor and in a big family you just had less shoes and thinner soup, or so I'm told

Obviously meaning since the start of the welfare state. Previously the poor needed more kids due to high mortality rate.

I think that's probably the answer, it's a historic hang over. Also, there is evidence that it's inherited behaviour - rather like teenage pregnancy (teenage mums' kids often go on to become teenage mums, whose kids often go on, etc...)

rick_chasey

I thought the issue was specifically with the term 'breeding', as opposed to "having children".

Breed is a term you largley use in reference to animals, not people. When you do use it for people, it's usually derogatory.

In the context, it sounds derogatory. Especially if he also says it's "jolly expensive".

The issue isn't the politics of the statement. It's that a peer from a party which already has a reputation for considering the poor beneath them, correct or otherwise, has played up to that reputation.