The poor breeding

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Some people do behave like animals - if you're having children for the economic benefit there's precious little difference between that a breeding animals for cash!

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

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

God's the 100% shareholder.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Some people do behave like animals - if you're having children for the economic benefit there's precious little difference between that a breeding animals for cash!

I'd suggest that having such an opinion of the citizens you are tasked with representing and making decisions in their interest makes having a position of power untenable.

surreyxc

boredom and lack of fufillment. If poor life can be tedious and unfulling, what better way to address the issue of 'whats my life about, why am I here' than with children. If you have some cash your often to busy having a whole heap of fun to want lots of kids, unless you are mega rich then you can have it all.

Basic mathematics the world is finite, how many more do we think we can squeeze in and at what detriment to everyone and everything, will there be a critical mass, tipping point I wonder.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Some people do behave like animals - if you're having children for the economic benefit there's precious little difference between that a breeding animals for cash!

I'd suggest that having such an opinion of the citizens you are tasked with representing and making decisions in their interest makes having a position of power untenable.

What about the citizens who pay the taxes? You are also tasked with representing them....

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Some people do behave like animals - if you're having children for the economic benefit there's precious little difference between that a breeding animals for cash!

I'd suggest that having such an opinion of the citizens you are tasked with representing and making decisions in their interest makes having a position of power untenable.

What about the citizens who pay the taxes? You are also tasked with representing them....

You have to represent all citizens. Not just the ones you like. Suggesting some of them are "animals" is not being seen to have all citizens interest at heart.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

From the quote though he is using 'breeding' for both the middle and lower classes. Therefore I don't understand the leap to outrage unless is is standard political fake outrage...

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

From the quote though he is using 'breeding' for both the middle and lower classes. Therefore I don't understand the leap to outrage unless is is standard political fake outrage...

I'd suggest the tory peer is neither...

davmaggs

It's fake media outrage. I expect the journo was extremely pleased to insert the term "breeding" knowing full well that when the media reports on the media the context would be lost.

Oh, and I think he's right. What's more when it has come up in conversation (anec-evidence I know) with other people they agree with him.

lost_in_thought

I keep reading Sewinman's thread title as 'the poor breeding' like 'the breeding which is done poorly' as opposed to 'benefit scroungers breed for more benefits/scrounging'.

Isn't 'scrounge' a great word?

In other news, bears sh*t in wooded areas, and Salman Rushdie is ex-directory.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

From the quote though he is using 'breeding' for both the middle and lower classes. Therefore I don't understand the leap to outrage unless is is standard political fake outrage...

I'd suggest the tory peer is neither...

And?

Would the chips drop off you if he's said upper, middle and lower?

The upper classes are known for "breeding" anyway - just in-breeding rather than over-breeding.

Does that sit better with you?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

And?

Would the chips drop off you if he's said upper, middle and lower?

The upper classes are known for "breeding" anyway - just in-breeding rather than over-breeding.

Does that sit better with you?

I'm just explaining why it's become an issue.

I'm not passing any comment on whether I agree with the sentiment or not.

A lot of people are discussing the sentiment of the comment, but that's not what the issue is. That sentiment is not controversial.

The issue is his choice of language, and what that reveals about him.

Had he said "having children" as opposed to "breeding", no-one would have noticed.

SamWise72

It's not that he stated the problem, which is hardly a new one, it's the proposed solutions, and the underlying opinions, as given away by the language. Yes, poor people have children they can't afford to pay for, and perhaps can't care for in the way middle class people think they should (including me), but the tory solution is "starve the blighters then". Which, by the way, won't work, and when poor people did starve, they had MORE children. What's needed is education, and hope. Call it aspiration, if that's more comfortable. Yes, that's what the left have tried and failed to provide, but at least they've tried. Not only is "starve the blighters" inhuman, and also not representing the best interests of that portion of the electorate, it won't work, will it?

snailracer

notsoblue wrote:

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

Because Cameron's changes to child benefit (which penalises the rich who have kids) flies in the face of the opinion that most Tory voters hold.

David Cameron is basically bashing someone who has pointed out a contradiction between his own policies and Tory sentiment, under the weak pretext that the use of the word "breeding" is being disrespectful to certain segments of society.

Howard Flight, the Tory peer in question, IMO is correct in saying he was quoted out of context. He is hardly a basher of the poor, in fact the last time he was "fired", it was for opposing proposed Conservative spending cuts, which favour the poor.

snailracer

lost_in_thought wrote:

...
In other news, bears sh*t in wooded areas, and Salman Rushdie is ex-directory.

On behalf of all polar bears, no we don't

DonDaddyD

It is wrong to imply that people on lower incomes breed for additional benefits.

There I've said it.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is wrong to imply that people on lower incomes breed for additional benefits.

There I've said it.

What if it's true?

gtvlusso

lost_in_thought wrote:

I keep reading Sewinman's thread title as 'the poor breeding' like 'the breeding which is done poorly' as opposed to 'benefit scroungers breed for more benefits/scrounging'.

Isn't 'scrounge' a great word?

In other news, bears sh*t in wooded areas, and Salman Rushdie is ex-directory.

I read the thread title the same way......

'Embellish' and 'Gating' are my words of the day.....

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is wrong to imply that people on lower incomes breed for additional benefits.

There I've said it.

What if it's true?

I don't believe either of us could sufficiently say that it is true or not.

I however, know people on lower incomes who have upto and above three children who have chosen to do so not because of the financial increase benefits awards but because they love their kids and wanted a family. It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Also, not all pregnancies are planned.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is wrong to imply that people on lower incomes breed for additional benefits.

There I've said it.

What if it's true?

I don't believe either of us could sufficiently say that it is true or not.

I however, know people on lower incomes who have upto and above three children who have chosen to do so not because of the financial increase benefits awards but because they love their kids and wanted a family. It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Also, not all pregnancies are planned.

Well, I think personally that it's a sense of responsibility - should you take out a loan if you can't afford to repay it? And if you can't afford to repay it and you knew you couldn't when you took it out, should you just be bailed out by the taxpayer?

In my opinion, definitely not.

So, if you have a child knowing you can't afford to care for it, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

And for unplanned pregnancies there's an amazing new cure... I think it sounds a bit like 'distortion'.... it's very radical...

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Wouldn't dream of telling anyone how many children they can have. However there is nothing wrong in limiting how many of those children are paid for by the taxpayer - then it's up to the parents to have some resposibility for their lives and decisions.

I don't see this as a particularly controversial point?

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Wouldn't dream of telling anyone how many children they can have. However there is nothing wrong in limiting how many of those children are paid for by the taxpayer - then it's up to the parents to have some resposibility for their lives and decisions.

I don't see this as a particularly controversial point?

Oh no not controversial at all, I think LiT has is taking care of that all by herself. I actually need to take a moment before I reply to her, if I reply.

Anyway.

I do and I don't agree with what your saying. In principle I see the logic behind limiting how many children will receive child benefit per household. Such a law by extension would be stating how many children each family should have. I think that is wrong.

lost_in_thought

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Wouldn't dream of telling anyone how many children they can have. However there is nothing wrong in limiting how many of those children are paid for by the taxpayer - then it's up to the parents to have some resposibility for their lives and decisions.

I don't see this as a particularly controversial point?

I'd limit it to none.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do and I don't agree with what your saying. In principle I see the logic behind limiting how many children will receive child benefit per household. Such a law by extension would be stating how many children each family should have. I think that is wrong.

Why though? If I earned 20k a year and wanted 10 kids then most people would rightly describe me as delusional or highly irresponsible. You live within your means, and that includes the number of offspring you produce.

The problem is that if I earn 20k and have 10 kids and there's no state support then you're punishing the kids, because the parents clearly don't give a fuck.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do and I don't agree with what your saying. In principle I see the logic behind limiting how many children will receive child benefit per household. Such a law by extension would be stating how many children each family should have. I think that is wrong.

No it wouldn't. What it would do would be to ensure that the parents think about whether they can afford to have any more children before doing so, which is a good thing for society and the children themselves. That's all. Still no limit. But if you can't afford something, you don't have it, be that a third child or a Ferrarit. And there's no reason why the state should pick up the tab. There's also no right to having children - it is a massive responsibility, and if parents can't even make a responsibile decision as to whether they can afford a child in the first place I wonder how responsible they'll be when the child is growing up.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It is wrong to imply that people on lower incomes breed for additional benefits.

There I've said it.

What if it's true?

I don't believe either of us could sufficiently say that it is true or not.

I however, know people on lower incomes who have upto and above three children who have chosen to do so not because of the financial increase benefits awards but because they love their kids and wanted a family. It is not for us to tell people how many children they can or cannot have or whether they can afford it or not.

Also, not all pregnancies are planned.

Well, I think personally that it's a sense of responsibility

I honestly think bassjunkie has enough real life experience/knowledge to end all discussion in this thread. Anyway...

OK, I think most who decide to have or keep a baby (planned or unplanned) realises that they have taken onboard a level of responsibility. We live in a Country where child benefit is available and this ultimately does make it easier to have children. I don't think it removes any aspect of that responsibility and I also do not think that the benefit on its own is sufficient enough to provide for a child.

I don't think many expect other people to provide complete financial support for their child.

And for unplanned pregnancies there's an amazing new cure... I think it sounds a bit like 'distortion'.... it's very radical...

Firstly there is nothing wrong with an unplanned pregnancy. It happens. It is also not an illness to be cured.

An abortion is a deeply emotional decision for both the man and the woman (albeit physically for her as well). And something I know to be far easier to say than to live through.

lost_in_thought

DDD wrote:

I don't think many expect other people to provide complete financial support for their child.

Well, those who have kids while being supported entirely by state benefits certainly seem to, don't they?

BTW well done for the measured response.

DonDaddyD

LiT, dhope, W1,

Do you have children, want children or have been faced with the prospect of having children if you mind me asking?

Why though? If I earned 20k a year and wanted 10 kids then most people would rightly describe me as delusional or highly irresponsible. You live within your means, and that includes the number of offspring you produce.

And what are those means. The thread assumes that large families on lower incomes (what is a low income by the way) is dependant on child benefits. Can anyone prove this is the case?

No it wouldn't. What it would do would be to ensure that the parents think about whether they can afford to have any more children before doing so, which is a good thing for society and the children themselves.

To be fair in some circumstances I think having the child should come first. No one can say how much you need to earn before you can afford to have children. I think what you'll find is that even without child benefits the loving mother wouldn't regret having her kids.

The assumption seems to be having children is about the money and not the the child themself.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do and I don't agree with what your saying. In principle I see the logic behind limiting how many children will receive child benefit per household. Such a law by extension would be stating how many children each family should have. I think that is wrong.

No it wouldn't. What it would do would be to ensure that the parents think about whether they can afford to have any more children before doing so, which is a good thing for society and the children themselves. That's all. Still no limit. But if you can't afford something, you don't have it, be that a third child or a Ferrarit. And there's no reason why the state should pick up the tab. There's also no right to having children - it is a massive responsibility, and if parents can't even make a responsibile decision as to whether they can afford a child in the first place I wonder how responsible they'll be when the child is growing up.

Bzzzt. Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

But yes, it is a big responsibility.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

I don't think many expect other people to provide complete financial support for their child.

Well, those who have kids while being supported entirely by state benefits certainly seem to, don't they?

BTW well done for the measured response.

I think a system where it is more profitable to have children than to work is wrong. But I think the system scews perception and opinion of why people choose to have children, keep children and/or have large families.

There is always going to be more financially better off people. Are those people better equipped to have three kids, financially maybe. Should those people be entitled to have three kids over a household bringing in £20k-25k. No.