What @raisingirl? Shy, retiring moi? Never been comfy on fences. Prefer a good solid wall.
@Lyn - I agree. Broadly speaking2 per couple seems eminently reasonable to me if we're not going to over populate the planet and place unsustainable demands on resources. I certainly don't think the state should be subsidising child bearing in those who go on to have 3 or more. It's like food, housing, cars etc - have what you can afford.
The state should provide decent education for all (yes, I know, idealistic) and adequate housing stock but not be expected to feed and clothe the ones whose parents have gone beyond their financial limits.
Clearly, children in poverty now need help but it's a problem that can be reduced in future if dealt with intelligently and with a long view. All children should be encouraged and helped to achieve their potential but that's really hard in homes ground down by poverty/alcohol/drugs/poor health and, unfortunately, these last tend to be self-perpetuating if the cycle is not broken.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
What do you do about the children already born to irresponsible parents? You can't just pretend they don't exist. Perhaps food and clothing vouchers rather than cash for additional children?
I hate political parties. As I child I foolishly thought each MP represented their constituency, and if the majority of their people had an opinion, the MP would vote for that opinion when making laws. My local MP has voted against local opinion but with her political party three times so far this year (that's three that I know of because they've been publicised). We are not a democracy.
My local MP did the same.. she got voted out at the last election to be replaced by a Conservative for the first time in living memory... silly woman.
What do you do about the children already born to irresponsible parents? You can't just pretend they don't exist. Perhaps food and clothing vouchers rather than cash for additional children?
You can't do that!!!! It's against their "oomin ryts". Sadly they never seem to have heard of "persnol 'sponserbilerty"
I'm not talking about the parents' rights. I'm talking about the children's rights.. Child poverty in this affluent country is shameful enough without deliberately causing it to increase. In any case, with a depleted younger generation, who's going to pay taxes to find your pension?
I think we all forget how quickly things have changed, and how little things changed for millennia.
Until a couple of hundred years of so back, work was largely manual. It required strength. Add to that no pensions, so the children were the pension. Also vastly more difficult for women to work - as they were constantly pregnant in their early years - and potentially even died in childbirth. The children then worked to keep their parents in their old age. Families stayed as units. Poorer nations still have the same model processes and related issue. But now,work has become mental rather than physical in the west (and life expectancy has changed alarmingly) and has gone pension based - so big families aren't needed - we still need the young because their taxes and earnings fuel our pensions. They earn and spend and pension funds invest. So the young are still needed - unless the old work for longer and longer - but they don't have to stay close as the pensions are funded from anywhere.
Posts
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
@Lyn - I agree. Broadly speaking2 per couple seems eminently reasonable to me if we're not going to over populate the planet and place unsustainable demands on resources. I certainly don't think the state should be subsidising child bearing in those who go on to have 3 or more. It's like food, housing, cars etc - have what you can afford.
The state should provide decent education for all (yes, I know, idealistic) and adequate housing stock but not be expected to feed and clothe the ones whose parents have gone beyond their financial limits.
Clearly, children in poverty now need help but it's a problem that can be reduced in future if dealt with intelligently and with a long view. All children should be encouraged and helped to achieve their potential but that's really hard in homes ground down by poverty/alcohol/drugs/poor health and, unfortunately, these last tend to be self-perpetuating if the cycle is not broken.
You are not being 'shouted down'. Somebody is simply expressing an opinion which is different to yours, which is permitted in a free society.
You can't do that!!!! It's against their "oomin ryts". Sadly they never seem to have heard of "persnol 'sponserbilerty"
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
In any case, with a depleted younger generation, who's going to pay taxes to find your pension?