Man criticised by Labour MPs for saying something sensible

[Mich the Tester]

So this chap Hunt suggests that people who don't have any money should think it over a bit more before producing lots of children, and Labour call that "unreasonable and very cruel".

Cap on family benefits will make claimants 'take responsibility' for their large families, Jeremy Hunt claims - Telegraph


FFS

[thunderlizard]

At least he's learned something from the old Keith Joseph business: say stuff like that after you've won the election, not before.

[TimberWolf]

You should hear the criticism you get if you use the word "deserving poor".

[EternalOptimist]

If it's not right to punish the kids for the irresponsibility of the parents (by slashing the cash), the irresponsible parents (in this case the mum) should be prevented from being irresponsible, which means sterilisation

is this where the labour position will eventually lead us to?

[d000hg]

Someone suggested this on CUK the other week, and I'll admit I said it was a stupid idea that'd never happen... it seemed unbelievable a government would have the balls, or get away with it.

Of course, suggesting it is not the same as implementing it. For instance putting a cap on families who already have the children is problematic, you can't really just say "tough" and give benefits that genuinely are not enough to buy food, in a country with a welfare state... that would lead to homelessness and more importantly, bad PR.

[Mich the Tester]

If it's not right to punish the kids for the irresponsibility of the parents (by slashing the cash), the irresponsible parents (in this case the mum) should be prevented from being irresponsible, which means sterilisation

is this where the labour position will eventually lead us to?

Scary thought indeed, and I know that once the kids are born they have to be looked after; but that doesn't mean giving the money directly to parents who clearly can't take responsibility. The money really needs to be administered by someone who can take responsible decisions with it.

[Mich the Tester]

Someone suggested this on CUK the other week, and I'll admit I said it was a stupid idea that'd never happen... it seemed unbelievable a government would have the balls, or get away with it.

Of course, suggesting it is not the same as implementing it. For instance putting a cap on families who already have the children is problematic, you can't really just say "tough" and give benefits that genuinely are not enough to buy food, in a country with a welfare state... that would lead to homelessness and more importantly, bad PR.

I can see there are problems with this, but you can't call it cruel to raise the issue and make the suggestion. After all, it would seem to me to be quite normal to expect people to consider their family finances before taking on the responsibility of raising a chiild.

[SupremeSpod]

Someone suggested this on CUK the other week, and I'll admit I said it was a stupid idea that'd never happen... it seemed unbelievable a government would have the balls, or get away with it.

Of course, suggesting it is not the same as implementing it. For instance putting a cap on families who already have the children is problematic, you can't really just say "tough" and give benefits that genuinely are not enough to buy food, in a country with a welfare state... that would lead to homelessness and more importantly, bad PR.

Re-assess the claimants needs.

Simples.

[shaunbhoy]

Scary thought indeed, and I know that once the kids are born they have to be looked after; but that doesn't mean giving the money directly to parents who clearly can't take responsibility. The money really needs to be administered by someone who can take responsible decisions with it.

Sod giving them money. Give them food and clothing vouchers.

[Mich the Tester]

Sod giving them money. Give them food and clothing vouchers.

indeedy