£95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house
05/09/2010 5:26 pm
DM uncovers another corker:
Surely it's about time child benefit was capped? How long is the taxpayer willing to provide perverse incentives for the feckless to breed and then demand ever larger houses at their expense?
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
05/09/2010 9:48 pm
I am in total agreed with one hundred per cent - cut it off after the second child .
I love it when they also come out with well I am in a two bedroom property and now my mum and dad and new wife and ex amount of children now live in the property and we want a big property.
05/09/2010 10:39 pm
Anyone would think that the Daily Mail is the only news publication in the land - how about: http://www.iwca-islington.org.uk/new/article/31
Anyone we know?
06/09/2010 0:16 am
No. Try again. Sticking to topic, can any lefties really come up with one decent reason why child benefit should be unrestricted and unlimited given the global population problem?
"Singapore is the world’s most overpopulated state, followed by Israel and Kuwait, according to a new league table ranking countries by their degree of overpopulation. The UK is 17th in the table....A UK citizen, for example, has an average ecological footprint of 6.12 global hectares but because of the size of the population, their “share” of national biocapacity is only 1.58 global hectares. This gives the UK a self-sufficiency rating of 25.8 per cent – the proportion of its footprint it derives from its own resources –and a corresponding dependency rating of 74.2 per cent. If it had to rely on its own biocapacity, the UK could therefore sustain only a quarter of its population – around 15 million – and, at current consumption levels, is “overpopulated” by more than 45 million"
06/09/2010 7:13 am
But Owen Hart was a member of ILAG, with some very dubious views and a productive role within a quango. Just the sort of person to obsess about tenants and all things tenant, without ever a positve refelection nor balance. How can you not know him?
One good reason - child benefit ensures that the basic nurishment for a child can be afforded, reducing infant death and maximising the health of children.
Second good reason - children should not suffer punishment because of the actions of their parents.
Third good reason - until the economic imbalance insociety is addressed, i.e. the cause, then the solution that is child benefit must remain.
06/09/2010 10:39 am
ILAG you must be massivly naive to believe everything you read in the papers...especially such as obviously right wing and bias publication which is so widely laughed at as sensationalist and alarmmist, playing on people's pre-existing prejudices.
You already know this, but as the DM fits your angry "out with the forigener" chant you are happy to ignore its ridiculously obvious shortcomings. As long as it brings you some confort whilst trapped in you flat.
06/09/2010 10:58 am
ILAG, How many familIEs in a single household of 12 are there in the land?
And how many of them are foreigners?
And how many of them get all this money?
Maybe 1 or 2...
while the multimillion daily waste of councils goes on and growing by the second you worry about this family?
06/09/2010 11:09 am
The likely suspects this time were not BME, so would fall under the 'Feral Tenant' description in 'ILAG speak'. Kev is spot on that ILAG reads only what supports his own world view.
It is notable the extent of condemnation and hatred held for fellow human beings, that seems to rest behind so many of ILAG's contributions. Are these really the views of the people of Islington, of leaseholders, of Britain? Do we live in a sceptred British Isle or sceptic Ilag Isle?
06/09/2010 11:10 am
I have just read ILAGs post with amazement.
Apparently the UKs population needs to be 15 million to be sustainable.
The UKs population in 1850 was 15 million.
I don't even know where to start with this one.
Firstly i would like to thank ILAG for his post, a much needed laugh on a Monday morning.
Secondly thanks for proving you have absolutley no understanding of populations and demographics and the optimum pop trust lol has no grasp of reality.
Also i love the random examples, obviously cut and pasted from various right wing sites such as the opt but ILAG you have massivley discredited yourself yet again with such ridiculous figures that if you has any real understanding you would realise how stupid they sound.
How do you propose the population is reduced by 75% then? Ridiculous. I would love you to expand on your theory of how the UK can only sustain a population we had 160 years ago? Have you forgotten all forigen trade, new technology and farming practices, GM crops... the list goes on.
Thanks again, you have discredited yourself in such a way that would never have been possible without you supplying such stupid figures.
06/09/2010 11:22 am
There is remarkable similarity between the posts of Progressive Solutions Required, Kev Dupree and the catechism according to Socialist Worker Party.
Most readers would need explanation about the SWP since its never got any electoral representation, has now given up on obtaining that representation - after abandoning infiltration of the Labour party - and meets in a tent at the Hendon turn-off of the North Circular on the third Sunday of every month.
06/09/2010 11:28 am
Thanks for avoiding the point yet again ILAG, i'll repeat the question:
How can the UK can only sustain a population we had 160 years ago?
I'll repeat the figures just to make you understand.
You state the UK can sustain a population of 15 million.
The national statistics website states the UKs population in 1850 was 15 million, yes thats 160 years ago! How have we survived ILAG, oh yes, you are talking nonsense yet again.
Tom, can you confirm PSR and myslef are different people so ILAG has to face the ridiculous statements he has made?
06/09/2010 11:31 am
I'd like to add the "remarkable similarity" is likley due to the fact you post such ridiculous views and laughable facts, i expect mine and PSRs views are representative of the vast majority.
Also thanks for the SWP explination, i haven't heard of them before, except when you try and hurl "lefty" insults. I'm still unsure who/what they are but don't really care.
Inside Housing staff post
06/09/2010 11:48 am
If it helps the debate get back on track, I'm happy to confirm that Kev and PSR are different people.
06/09/2010 12:52 pm
Listen Kev NotaSpart the source for ILAG's contribution was a site called optimumpopulation.org. or something similar.
The source therefore wasn't ILAG. The views therefore were not ILAG's. Gettit.
It might help you to understand that one of the drivers of modern economics is the idea of scarce resources and some of the early thinkers - Malthus and Keynes - thought that population was a factor in the equation (Well, stone me, I'd have never thought of that).
Now where was I? Ah yes, here you roll out your intellectual heff.
"I'd like to add the "remarkable similarity" is likley due to the fact you post such ridiculous views and laughable facts, i expect mine and PSRs views are representative of the vast majority.
Also thanks for the SWP explination, i haven't heard of them before, except when you try and hurl "lefty" insults. I'm still unsure who/what they are but don't really care."
There's the small matter of May's election, not forgetting Blair's book, which have comprehensively put your views in a minority of a minority.
As my mom used to say: "Go and read a book".
06/09/2010 1:10 pm
What a pathetically weak response:
"the source for ILAG's contribution was a site called optimumpopulation.org. or something similar. The source therefore wasn't ILAG. The views therefore were not ILAG's. Gettit."
And there was me thinking that if you post a quote from another source then you agree with it. Of course he didnt come up with it but he is obviously advocting it as correct.
"There's the small matter of May's election, not forgetting Blair's book, which have comprehensively put your views in a minority of a minority."
Where has this come from? i asked ILAG to state if he still agrees that the UK is overpopulated by 45 million and this is the response i get? Sounds a little desperate to me, also i voter tory so i don't really see your point.
Ridiculous figures, ridiculous viewpoint, no-one except an anon poster agrees, several posters disagree.
06/09/2010 1:15 pm
"It might help you to understand that one of the drivers of modern economics is the idea of scarce resources and some of the early thinkers - Malthus and Keynes - thought that population was a factor in the equation"
Thanks for "helping me understand" by simply naming two famous economists. You don't seem to have made a point. Obviously population is a major factor in economics but my point is to state that the UK is overpopulated by 45million and needs to return to the population we had in 1850 is so naiive it is amazing.
06/09/2010 1:30 pm
Would that be the same Malthus who was so enlightened as to suggest that the poor should be corralled in ghettos, refused any poor relief or healthcare, and denied access to betterment as a means of population control. His argument that the poor were a drain on the ruling classes were as ludicrous as his solutions.
06/09/2010 1:44 pm
Listen Kev NotaSpart and NotaBrain get yourself over the optimumpopulation website and take a look.
For your information, one of the world's saints, Sir David Attenborough, is a patron.
Now tell readers here you think Sir David is a numpty for the same reason you slagged off ILAG.
06/09/2010 2:02 pm
Please do come back with the date, time and posting subject where I quoted Keynes, approvingly or otherwise.
06/09/2010 3:27 pm
"tell readers here you think Sir David is a numpty"
The famous and the mighty can not hold extreme views - tell that to the abdicated Uncle of our current Queen, or her Husband come to mention it.
The current governor of California and even the Pope have been known to murmour the odd concering voice.
Even our own Cameron, with his hoodies, and Brown, with his Bigots, have qualified in the numpty category.
What make Attenborough so special other than he has fronted the BBC's nature programmes for-ever. Even Mr Mosley had his nice days, I'm sure - and he would have kept his views under wraps had he been a media front man as Sir David is, otherwise how would he have made a living.
What a stupid position to argue from.