Another MP in Internet history fail

Another MP in Internet history fail

Author
Discussion

numtumfutunch

Original Poster:

4,705 posts

137 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all

Triumph Man

8,670 posts

167 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
I don't entirely disagree with him...

Douglas Quaid

2,271 posts

84 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
I completely agree with him.

Wobbegong

15,077 posts

168 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Don’t see anything wrong with his comments, apart from apologising.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
What he actually said.

Ben Bradley in 2012 said:
No sector of the government spends more of taxpayers money than the Department of Work and Pensions, and as the House of Lords debates the proposed changes to the Welfare Programme it’s important to make it clear that cuts are necessary and vital to not only our economy but to British Culture; benefits must become ‘a hand up, not a hand out’.
In terms of unemployment benefit the best proposal I’ve heard in a long time is the idea of an ‘allowance cap’ for families, so that total benefits would be limited to around £500 per week for families with children. It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!) Take the example of the Smiths (actual name, not a cover story), who earn around £95 grand a year for their 10 kids under 15 years old, live for free in a council house and even have their meals delivered to them. It’s a tough life when, as Mrs Smith put it "we are so hard up that we can only afford one Nintendo Wii between all the kids”. The family receive benefits totaling £44,954 a year. They also have a £950-a-week bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home. This comes to £49,400, making a grand total of £94,354 a year. All in all around 190 families like this cost the taxpayer over £11 million a year!

People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill! Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means its not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep! Iain Duncan Smith’s cap proposal is spot on!

BOR

4,699 posts

254 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Nasty.

There seems to be something deeply wrong with this new breed of hard-right New Conservative.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
BOR said:
Nasty.

There seems to be something deeply wrong with this new breed of hard-right New Conservative.
Which bits do you disagree with?

Cupramax

10,469 posts

251 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Douglas Quaid said:
I completely agree with him.
Indeed, if you want lots of kids, fund them yourself like the rest have to. State funded breeding while on benefits should not be an option.

BOR

4,699 posts

254 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
sidicks said:
BOR said:
Nasty.

There seems to be something deeply wrong with this new breed of hard-right New Conservative.
Which bits do you disagree with?
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).

TroubledSoul

4,589 posts

193 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
He's bang on for me. Something needs to be done. We are already well on the path to Idiocracy as it is....

Cupramax

10,469 posts

251 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
What do you suggest to stop those who don't have any money to fund their shagging habit?

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
His observation is that people shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford them. One possible option is free vasectomies. He hasn’t suggested these are made compulsory. Other birth control options are available!

BOR

4,699 posts

254 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Cupramax said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
What do you suggest to stop those who don't have any money to fund their shagging habit?
Well call me a marxist, but how about a payment cap(already introduced) and not interfering in peoples' lives ?

Oakey

27,524 posts

215 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Which is what he suggested! If you introduce a payment cap and these people continue having kids, how will they afford them with said cap?

sugerbear

3,961 posts

157 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
sidicks said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
His observation is that people shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford them. One possible option is free vasectomies. He hasn’t suggested these are made compulsory. Other birth control options are available!
That's going to upset the Catholics.

gooner1

10,223 posts

178 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
Poor sods can't win.
They try to do their bit for the Country by producing possible
future work forces, hence needing less imported workers.
Then along comes some toff wanting to surgically interfere with
their reproductive organs.
It's enough to put a person right off their stroke, I tell thee.

GEFAFWISP

86 posts

90 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
To echo the sentiments of others, as sad as it is, I agree with him. There is however a big difference between suggesting people who cannot afford to provide for children should not have them and eugenics.

I am far from a Conservative supporter but this is one area where I think the left leave me wanting - having lived in less than affluent areas myself, I completely agree that people seemingly being paid to reproduce is counter-productive. On the flip side, how many people who work hard and have a conscience about the ever growing population will decide not to have children so they don't add to the problem.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
I'd go further,
We should have termination teams going around council estates aborting unborn babies if either parent has been out of work for more than 12 months.
The surviving family members should be made to sleep on the streets.

mx5nut

5,404 posts

81 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
BOR said:
sidicks said:
BOR said:
Nasty.

There seems to be something deeply wrong with this new breed of hard-right New Conservative.
Which bits do you disagree with?
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
It's the "it'll never happen to me" attitude at work.

I mean, why not medically remove somebody's ability to ever have a family if they lose their job? Nobody has ever got another job after a period of unemployment, after all.

sugerbear

3,961 posts

157 months

Wednesday 17th January 2018
quotequote all
zygalski said:
I'd go further,
We should have termination teams going around council estates aborting unborn babies if either parent has been out of work for more than 12 months.
The surviving family members should be sent to the nearest gulag made to sleep on the streets.
You lefty liberal namby pamby hand wringer. In my day we would sleep down a mine 28 hours and we would eat once a year. If we were lucky. And be grateful for it !