George Osborne,does he have a point ?

[drew]

Simple solution...

Cap welfare at 5 kids....

It would certainly stop "career procreationists" but not hinder the rights of those who just want to have large families

I think simple is rather apt!

 

[Chicken Runner61]

George Osbourne is a scumbag.

The Tories and Thatcher created scum like Phillpott - Thatcher made being reliant on Benefits socially normal by taking working class people and placing them on the dole in the eighties. Before Thatcher the Welfare system kept people alive till they found another job, Thatcher put people on benefits by closing down industries and making so many people unable to find work it became "normal" to be on them. New Labour then made the situation worse by creating a complex generous benefit system that paid nearly as much as having a low paid job if you had children and could trigger other benefits.

Just as workers look for ways to increase their wages through overtime and expenses etc, benefit scroungers like phillpott look for ways to get more benefits and in his world he could by starting that fire could get a bigger house and at the same time stitch up an ex who left him causing him to lose benefit money.

So now we have a section of society that don't feel its worth working as they can get more on benefits and they have the perfect excuse for not working as the tories have destroyed all their jobs making it normal and socially acceptable to claim it.

There is nothing to debate we need more jobs and industry and we need to make benefits only available to people who really need it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Simple solution...

Cap welfare at 5 kids....

It would certainly stop "career procreationists" but not hinder the rights of those who just want to have large families

And what about the kids in families with more than 5 children? Are you going to force them into (a) starvation? or (b) much more expensive council care, away from their family?

 

[HovaGirl]

Did Fred West chop up his kids because he was a builder? To even suggest people on benefits are more likely to kill their own kids is pretty insulting to be fair!

He didn't say that or make that connection, so why did you? Osborne's point was about benefits, not murder.

 

[BadFish]

Simple solution...

Cap welfare at 5 kids....

It would certainly stop "career procreationists" but not hinder the rights of those who just want to have large families

How many of these career procreationists are there? Is this course of action really going to make much difference to the countries finances. I wonder if it would cost more to introduce and monitor than it would save!

I wonder where enough money can be found to save the UK economy.

The underclass who live on a pittence?

The 99% who share 10% of the wealth?

The 1% who share 90% of the wealth?

Somone remind me which group is making the decison?

 

[bWize]

He didn't say that or make that connection, so why did you? Osborne's point was about benefits, not murder.

A few quotes:

"George Osborne was accused of a demeaning attempt to use the killing of six children by Mick Philpott to bolster the Conservatives' case that the welfare state is subsidising inappropriate lifestyles.

In what is turning into a bitter row over welfare reform, Labour accused the chancellor of overstepping the boundary of decency by implying there is a connection between welfare and the crimes committed by Philpott.

Source: Osborne 'cynical' to link Philpott deaths with welfare cuts, says Ed Balls | Politics | The Guardian

"Mr Osborne spoke as he visited the Royal Crown Derby porcelain works, where he was highlighting changes announced in this year’s budget. His remarks were carefully thought out because he did not directly link the deaths to the welfare state, but implied there is a connection."

Source: George Osborne: Child killer Mick Philpott was helped by benefits | Metro News


He can't just come out and say it directly to the public because there really would be fecking uproar! He did the next best thing and implied it and anyone with half a brain knows what he was getting at. It is sick and just plain wrong to push that kind of agenda during a time where the nation are highly emotional/angry at the deaths of 6 young kids and baying for Philpott's blood.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

The case is awful, dreadful, shocking and Mick Philpot is an evil man who should rot in jail, and never, ever see the light of day agai.

There are people in this country who get too much from the State in the way of income.

Should the two be linked. No.

Should there be a debate about our Welfare system. Yes.

Completely agree.

 

[DBL]

All Osborne is saying is that there should be a debate about the issue. The state subsidised left on this forum should pipe down.

Personally, I would bring in some sort of policy similar to China. Provide benefits to those with one child. After the first, the State claws back benefits. If you elect to have three kids or more, you pay the state irrespective of your financial status.

It's time to take responsibility.

 

[Hotchilidog]

All Osborne is saying is that there should be a debate about the issue. The state subsidised left on this forum should pipe down.

Personally, I would bring in some sort of policy similar to China. Provide benefits to those with one child. After the first, the State claws back benefits. If you elect to have three kids or more, you pay the state irrespective of your financial status.

It's time to take responsibility.

Bollocks! all Osborne is trying to do is demonise those on benefits and is using Philpott to tar those who claim with the same brush. The fact that so many seem to buy into this shows it may have been a shrewd political move when Osborne himself is likely to have benefited from a tax cut of about £40,000 from his recent budget. The cheap politics of divide and rule from an unprincipled piece of incompetent shit, an absolute disgrace.

 

[Guinness Boy]

All Osborne is saying is that there should be a debate about the issue. The state subsidised left on this forum should pipe down.

Personally, I would bring in some sort of policy similar to China. Provide benefits to those with one child. After the first, the State claws back benefits. If you elect to have three kids or more, you pay the state irrespective of your financial status.

It's time to take responsibility.

In the Guardian iPad edition this morning are stats from the DWP on the number of families on benefit broken down by dependent children. Just over 1.2 million have three or less, the vast majority of those having 1 or 2. Just over 100K have four or more.

You'd be saving very little money to deal with a tiny minority. You'd also risk starving members of 100,000 families.

 

[Butch Willykins]

A few quotes:

"George Osborne was accused of a demeaning attempt to use the killing of six children by Mick Philpott to bolster the Conservatives' case that the welfare state is subsidising inappropriate lifestyles.

In what is turning into a bitter row over welfare reform, Labour accused the chancellor of overstepping the boundary of decency by implying there is a connection between welfare and the crimes committed by Philpott.

Source: Osborne 'cynical' to link Philpott deaths with welfare cuts, says Ed Balls | Politics | The Guardian

"Mr Osborne spoke as he visited the Royal Crown Derby porcelain works, where he was highlighting changes announced in this year’s budget. His remarks were carefully thought out because he did not directly link the deaths to the welfare state, but implied there is a connection."

Source: George Osborne: Child killer Mick Philpott was helped by benefits | Metro News


He can't just come out and say it directly to the public because there really would be fecking uproar! He did the next best thing and implied it and anyone with half a brain knows what he was getting at. It is sick and just plain wrong to push that kind of agenda during a time where the nation are highly emotional/angry at the deaths of 6 young kids and baying for Philpott's blood.

There is a 100% connection. It was stated in court during the trail that the motive for the fire was to increase Phillpotts child benefit income. He saw his kids as cash cows. That is the connection.

I'm not a fan of Osborne in any way, but it seems people are letting their anti Tory feelings cloud exactly what he has said.

 

[Boroseagull]

For the couple of posters here who have been 'pensioner bashing', in the nicest possible way of course, a few facts. I would love to receive the so called average income [£26000] that benefits are based on. After 45 years of contributions I end up with a little under £10000, Mrs BS, who took time out to raise a family, [no credits payable in those days] receives some £6000 a year. I underline contributions because that's what pensioners had to do to earn their miserly income in later life. Don't mix us with benefit scroungers who have possibly never worked and contributed. As to parties keeping pensioners sweet...in real terms our pension income will fall this year as Mr Osborne failed to raise the pensioners tax allowance, I believe all others were raised. Why do political parties [try] to leave pensioners alone? Because we are the biggest voting group & most ex-pats here I know make a point of voting at general elections as most are still tax payers to HMRC.

 

[dragonred]

he's got a valid point irrespective of political viewpoints - that as in all difficult issues, inevitably which are non-PC to even raise let alone discuss, the vast majority of the population who chose to stay silent probably don't disagree with the gist of what GO trying to say (badly)- he is pretty much dreadful at his job and has no common touch whatsoever, but we live in a totally bust country and we definitely have developed in the last 15-20 years a whole section of society that lives by its own rules and gives little, in fact nothing, back to society - they just take take take and don't for one second accept any of the responsibilities that come with that taking. Philpott was part of that society, those other similar cases in Dewsbury and Croydon the same. The common denominator in all of them is a system that allows these people to play the system to their sole financial and legal advantage and which has lost all ability to then try and stop them abusing it when caught out - In my job I come across all sections of society and genuinely believe the vast majority of people I've had the pleasure to meet are decent and believe in work hard, and use the benefit system as it was meant to be used - to support those in need of genuine support and to alleviate situations, permanent or temporary, for others where some assistance is much needed. GO was attacking, even if very clumsily, not these people but those who view benefits as a legitimate income generating stream that means they can stay at home and I think anyone who does work, whether part or full time, would and probably does resent this total abuse of the system even if it is by a small but definitely not insignificant number of people.

 

[Simster]

And what about the kids in families with more than 5 children? Are you going to force them into (a) starvation? or (b) much more expensive council care, away from their family?

Exactly. It's not as if Gideon is even using a good example to make his point. Philpott is unemployable, that's not the fault of his kids. That is what benefits are for, protecting the vulnerable. If there is a debate to be had, it is whether selfish irresponsible violent turds like Philpott should be sterilized and if so, how early.

 

[pork pie]

Don't like the guy, but the matter is in the public eye and a good time to talk about such issues.

This piece of shit has been sponging off the state to pay for an oversexed lifestyle breeding 17 kids. At what level could that be fair to society? People like him would not provide a family environment that promoted education to enable them to gain their place in society by getting good jobs, so we will no doubt be paying the price of his lifestyle supporting his offspring for generations to come.

 

[pork pie]

Exactly. It's not as if Gideon is even using a good example to make his point. Philpott is unemployable, that's not the fault of his kids. That is what benefits are for, protecting the vulnerable. If there is a debate to be had, it is whether selfish irresponsible violent turds like Philpott should be sterilized and if so, how early.

The point is being missed by many on here. Obviously it is not the fault of the kids. HOWEVER, it is the fault of our welfare system for allowing them to be born in the first place as you say. What right does this guy have to keep having kids, paid for by the state? It is not their fault, but few if any will have the upbringing to take their place within society and paying taxes from well paid jobs. Clearly the guy is not capable of acting responsibly, so the state should have stopped him years ago. It is not as though nobody knew about him, there was a clip of one of the chav TV shows showing him on there boasting about it!

 

[mikeyjh]

All Osborne is saying is that there should be a debate about the issue. The state subsidised left on this forum should pipe down.

Personally, I would bring in some sort of policy similar to China. Provide benefits to those with one child. After the first, the State claws back benefits. If you elect to have three kids or more, you pay the state irrespective of your financial status.

It's time to take responsibility.

Firstly, I'm not 'state subsidised', our household pays tax from the very 1st £1 of salary earned..... While most sane people, (including many of his Tory colleagues), recognise that it is not appropriate to bring benefits in to the case of 6 dead children, (which has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare system) Osborne shows himself for as the odious nasty man that he is.

Secondly, to suggest that there 'needs to be a debate' suggests that there hasn't been a debate? Which is obviously absurd. The tories and the Daily Mail have been demonising those in receipt of benefit for a long long time. Indeed - As I'm sure you are aware - the most extreme of extreme cases, Mick Philpott, was subject of the Anne Widdecombe programme design to highlight issues with the welfare state in...... 2007. Have the debate, but be mature and have it without having to rely on 6 dead children to prop up your argument.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

For the couple of posters here who have been 'pensioner bashing', in the nicest possible way of course, a few facts. I would love to receive the so called average income [£26000] that benefits are based on. After 45 years of contributions I end up with a little under £10000, Mrs BS, who took time out to raise a family, [no credits payable in those days] receives some £6000 a year. I underline contributions because that's what pensioners had to do to earn their miserly income in later life. Don't mix us with benefit scroungers who have possibly never worked and contributed. As to parties keeping pensioners sweet...in real terms our pension income will fall this year as Mr Osborne failed to raise the pensioners tax allowance, I believe all others were raised. Why do political parties [try] to leave pensioners alone? Because we are the biggest voting group & most ex-pats here I know make a point of voting at general elections as most are still tax payers to HMRC.

While I don't deny there are many pensioners that need state help there are many that don't but still get it. If you have 30 minutes to spare go to Channel 4OD and find Michael Berk's Dispatches about the benefits pensioners get - very revealing.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Firstly, I'm not 'state subsidised', our household pays tax from the very 1st £1 of salary earned..... While most sane people, (including many of his Tory colleagues), recognise that it is not appropriate to bring benefits in to the case of 6 dead children, (which has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare system) Osborne shows himself for as the odious nasty man that he is.

You need to get onto HMRC and get them to change your tax code then so you get your tax free allowance.

 

[mikeyjh]

You need to get onto HMRC and get them to change your tax code then so you get your tax free allowance.

You do realise that one can have a zero or negative tax code right? Anyway, thanks for ignoring the main point and playing silly buggers!!