Maybe he swallowed one of those batteries he used to lick as well. Washed it down with some shower water no doubt.

Not this business again. Was this right before 'I' got convicted for racial abuse

You assume that they will be worse off.

Your problem is that your opinion on what is "fair" is based on exactly and precisely what is spoon fed to you by government press releases and the complaint section of the media who are more than willing to publish the divisive rhetoric without question.

Unfortunately you can't see past that but thats fine, I'm never a one for wanting to change peoples opinions, I have mine based on experience and I have come to acknowledge that a society that works needs to support its weakest, which isn't always cheap - and conversely a society that doesn't support its weak and tries to justify that withdrawal of support by using examples of the very worst elements and insisting that they are the "norm", is not a society that I want to call my own.

You'll also notice that I do not mention any political parties in this, for in my opinion (there it is again) they are all as bad as each other and for the record, all singing off the same songsheet, being that most fo the influential ones all studied the same politics degree before becoming career politicians we shouldn't be surprised that they all use the same rhetoric and all rely heavily on a compliant media during election campaigns.

Many years before you were born I even voted for Margaret Thatcher, twice, because the alternative was a complete shambles, so your wheeling out of the "old socialist" line is what amuses me, I was a Tory boy decades before you were even laying in a cot counting your toes, I was the owner of a business, and entrepreneur in true Tory stylee and like you now, I thought I was invincible, didn't understand why I should pay tax to support layabouts because you see the government of that time used exactly the same rhetoric as they are doing now, nothing has changed only another thirty years of experience for me, I can see through them all now, can see their lies and conniving for what they are - self interested and vindictive.

Still, keep pumping out the party mantra's, one day, with experience, you'll look back and see you were sold a lie.

I don't have to assume anything. Even the most optimistic view of economic activity between now and the next election won't get take home pay back up to where it was three years ago in real terms. Meanwhile the cost of living is climbing steadily and benefits are being cut. The vast majority of people in the UK will be worse off at the next GE than they were at the last.

I seriously doubt that he'll ever achieve that level of self awareness.

You seem to suggest that I don't believe in a welfare state.

This is not the case. I simply want a welfare state that is fair. Fairness is indeed subjective and depends on your perceptions.

One of my perceptions of fairness in the welfare state is that benefits for families who have children should be limited to two children. If this makes me vindictive in your eyes so be it. I don't think many people would share your opinion that this is a vindictive viewpoint.

The only counter opinion I have heard is 'what if you lose your job' when you have more than two kids'. I acknowledge this argument but it doesn't justify not introducing this measure - in my opinion.

You just did.

I don't think most of the electorate have such a simplistic view as you make out when it comes to voting intentions.

Most people realise we are in a difficult economic situation so won't simply say 'Err I earn £1000 less than 2010, I'll vote Labour'. I think there is a tad more to it than that.

Any more snide remarks or are you done now?

Nope. I made a prediction based on current data. One shared by the majority of economic and social commentators as well. And a fair number of Conservative activists.


As I said earlier - either naive or dim. And who even mentioned voting Labour?

The capping of total household benefits to £26k per annum effectively offers this now (or later this year), sounds like a lot and if you are renting social housing then its going to be ample for an average family and because it excludes those in receipt of working tax credits and DLA/PIP you can see that its is aimed directly at those who are out of work, £26k sounds fair.

As with all legislation aimed at weeding out specific cases though it will drag into the net those who were never intended to be affected - the minority cases like the Philpott family will see a dramatic decrease in income, they probably wouldn't have coped with ten children any longer - but a family buying a house on a mortgage on the Uk average salary who find themselves suddenly unemployed will lose out big time with basically only JSA and child allowances to rely on - they are royally fooked in those circumstances.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Standee. What do you propose is done with all the 'spare' children?

Also we have an ageing population. People having just two children will not address that issue.

You are assuming people will be worse off.

You think you are so clever, but you resort to insults ever so quickly. Bit immature aren't you. Are you incapable of discussion without resorting to playground stuff?

I live in a middle class area of mainly detached houses where I don't see any families with huge numbers of children, most of these households are working. I work in areas of deprivation, mainly in cities such as Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc on social housing projects where the number of households with large (4+ kids) is common place, a high percentage of these are non-working (and a lot have three generations of no work).

While I think it is wrong to retrospectively remove benefits from families with more than two kids we should be doing SOMETHING to prevent this continuing (I appreciate forced sterilisation is a non starter), maybe one way would be to make it clear to those who are on benefits with two or less kids is that there will be no more if you do happen to have more kids.

Whether we like it or not, there are some people out there who purposely have large families to increase the level of benefit they get, this cannot be right.

I appreciate that as the population ages, we need more to go out and earn to pay taxes, but unfortunately a lot of these large families will not produce kids who will go on to get jobs, mainly because they have seen two or three generations not bothering with work and the other because there will not be the jobs for them.

But there is no reason at all to believe that most people will stop at two kids just because there will be no benefits for any more. And while there may well be some families where kids are seen as a 'nice little earner' (although anyone who thinks so is mistaken in my experience) there are many more where it's more to do with ignorance and happenstance.

So given that we will continue to have low income parents who produce multiple offspring, what do we do if support for those kids is removed?

You've answered your own question – at least partially. And there are similar examples even in places such as Calcutta, where despite the poverty, rates of birth have been reduced by ensuring women had better educational and career opportunities.

You don't understand the difference between a prediction and an assumption, do you? Maybe you should look it up.

I'm not delivering insults. I'm expressing an opinion. Your posts appear to be the product of either naivete or lack of knowledge. I'm quite happy to assume the former if you prefer. Oh - and the irony of your complaint is not lost on me.

Assume what you want, you like making assumptions.

Accusing me of licking a battery? What's that all about?

Kosh come the next election all you will hear from the Tories will be 'But we cut income tax' as a respnse to everything:

You put VAT up
Yes, but we cut income tax.

You starved people by cutting benefits
Yes, but we cut income tax

The country's finances are in a worst state than they were when you came to power.
Yes, but we cut income tax. Oh, and it was Labours fault.

To change tack slightly THAT (above) is the problem with our adversarial political party method of government and is the greatest time and money wasting hindrance to having an efficient government who can get things done within a five year term rather than shuffle deckchairs around for a bit as the band plays "Nearer my god to thee".

One very simple change would be to remove party whips and simply have free votes on everything - you will always have political party's and those of similar ideology will always flock together but not everyone in the party will always agree to everything the party hierarchy suggests and yet they are expected to vote and comply, even when they are absolutely opposed to the suggestion - we've ended up with a government that can be led from behind the scenes by unelected shadow figures high up in any party who lurk behind the puppets they have stood up for the press.

Don't be silly. The country is in the crapper and this mob clearly haven't a scobby how to solve it as is proved by Gideon's own criteria.
So Wages are DOWN, benefits are DOWN whilst the cost of living is UP then add in this clueless group and assuming isn't needed as it is easy to PREDICT the result.

He doesn't understand the difference between prediction and assumption.

Clearly.
I was actually backing your point up matey (I assume

you got that).

See further poll in the Sunday times yesterday with results from April 5 confirming again (as if it were needed) that you are in a small minority.

Link ?

A link would be nice, even one behind a paywall.

If this is the same story as was covered on R4 this morning then you've greatly oversimplified the findings.

Oh - and when have I claimed to be in the majority? Although quite how you know where I fit in the results without asking me the same questions I'm not sure.