Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?

Exocet

marklv wrote: »

Why subsidise families of chavs, who will inevitably become delinquents? What is the point? If people cannot afford children they should not have them. The state should not subsidise the growth of large families for the poor.

Ah. So the rule applies to people who are chavs? Well, we all know who they are I suppose. But it would need to be defined. I mean Romeo and Juliet are clearly not chavs, although accidents happen and I can't remember if he had a job or not.

Would university students be exempt? Perhaps just those doing media studies should be forbidden from procreation. Ever.

Ok, I know what you mean. Sink estate losers, no future, have too many babies. Partly because there is f'ck all else to do I suspect. There is a small matter of having a child being the most wonderful fulfilling act a human can ever achieve as well of course. A minor matter.

How to stop 'them'. Education, investment, a chance to get off benefits and into the economy. Not some law that actually cannot be defined. Trouble is, that would cost a whole lot of money - even more than we spend on benefits I suspect.

bendix

treliac wrote: »

Another one to ignore.

Another one with more pounds than humour.

treliac

Pete111 wrote: »

+1

Liz Estelle is of the persuasion that each and every problem within the country can be traced back to those who have dared to be of above average intelligence or ambition and who over time have the utter temerity to provide for their own rather than sponge off the state.

Makes me wonder whether s/he lives to their own beliefs?

Sounds like someone with a massive chip on their shoulder but, from the way they articulate, clearly has enjoyed a good education.

treliac

bendix wrote: »

Another one with more pounds than humour.

Your crystal ball evidently lets you down.

Pete111

bendix wrote: »

It's understandable Pete. It's entirely understandable.

Bendix, your genius La Pearla incentive got me thinking.

Is there any milage in significantly raising taxes on very skimpy tops that are above say, a size 14? Quite frankly seeing the larger ladies pandering to percieved social conventions of which clothes are 'sexy' by sqeezing themselves into these muffin top revealing outfits is both demeaning and exploitative.

I am working on similar proposals for 'skinny jeans' over a size 10. Quite franky that's just false advertising.

bendix

Exocet wrote: »

Ah. So the rule applies to people who are chavs? Well, we all know who they are I suppose. But it would need to be defined. I mean Romeo and Juliet are clearly not chavs, although accidents happen and I can't remember if he had a job or not.

Would university students be exempt? Perhaps just those doing media studies should be forbidden from procreation. Ever.

Ok, I know what you mean. Sink estate losers, no future, have too many babies. Partly because there is f'ck all else to do I suspect. There is a small matter of having a child being the most wonderful fulfilling act a human can ever achieve as well of course. A minor matter.

How to stop 'them'. Education, investment, a chance to get off benefits and into the economy. Not some law that actually cannot be defined. Trouble is, that would cost a whole lot of money - even more than we spend on benefits I suspect.

No no . . he's got a point Exocet. The more I think of his ideas, the more I like them. We're not that far apart really.

Perhaps compulsory sterilisation would work. I'd certainly be prepared to bring it into my own political agenda: As a gesture, I shall add sterilisation for the obese to my list of demands (let's face it . . most of them don't realise they are pregnant until after they've delivered anyway, so it won't do any harm).

And sterilisation for other socially useless groups too - like public sector workers, for example.

treliac

Malcolm. wrote: »

.......... but Exocet got in quickly.

I've heard he has a reputation for that.

bendix

Pete111 wrote: »

Bendix, your genius La Pearla incentive got me thinking.

Is there any milage in significantly raising taxes on very skimpy tops that are above say, a size 14? Quite frankly seeing the larger ladies pandering to percieved social conventions of which clothes are 'sexy' by sqeezing themselves into these muffin top revealing outfits is both demeaning and exploitative.

I am working on similar proposals for 'skinny jeans' over a size 10. Quite franky that's just false advertising.

Pete

I think we're onto something here. Would you be prepared to be my Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Exocet

I can't see the Liberal wing of the coalition going for mass sterilisation but if Nick can sell it to them the right way, maybe another four years in government. Great thread Carol, we don't normally find a solution this quickly.

Pete111

bendix wrote: »

Pete

I think we're onto something here. Would you be prepared to be my Chancellor of the Exchequer?

It would be an honour Sir.

At the rate the govt is creaking there will be a general election in the next 12 months. Suspect we are going to need to quickly recruit a few others from the board to form a shadow (shadow) cabinet.

How about that White Horse chappie as home secretary? he's a little left leaning but is full of interesting ideas nevertheless.