this rhetoric that having children is a choice you can only make from prosperity is a) totally ignorant of the fact that situations change — and childhood is a long time, as well as being b) low-key (at least) eugenicist - ThreadSky

lottelydia.bsky.social • 16 days ago

this rhetoric that having children is a choice you can only make from prosperity is a) totally ignorant of the fact that situations change — and childhood is a long time, as well as being b) low-key (at least) eugenicist

Reposted from Dorian Lynskey

Jason Cowley loves to quote Jo White because they are both terrible in precisely the same way

Comments

nocherubsplease.bsky.social•16 days ago

Hold up, is the "realism" the side that denies the very real fact that circumstances can change after you've had kids? A realism that doesn't believe in recessions? In life-changing accidents and illnesses? In... er... reality?

cobrien.bsky.social•16 days ago

‘The benefits system is there to support ppl when they’re at their greatest need, EXCEPT CHILDREN IN POVERTY and should be there throughout life if needed EXCEPT DURING CHILDHOOD’

jzelten.bsky.social•15 days ago

Is "focus on working people" another way of saying "abandon the people most in need because they have no income, often through no fault of their own"?

Because that seems like a weird take. (It's also one I see here in the US.)

jzelten.bsky.social•15 days ago

Relevant:

martcj.bsky.social•16 days ago

Undeserving children really is not a good look for McSweeney and the Reform votes that he will never catch

foolofham.bsky.social•15 days ago

It’s as eugenicist as the brutal welfare cuts that are going to push hundreds of thousands of disabled into poverty. Labour MP’s and labour members need to look at their party closely and say ‘is our party so closely running side by side with eugenics that is no longer the Labour Party?’

michaelgoodier.bsky.social•16 days ago

Very frustrating to see this view of 'keep the cap, focus on working' described as "realism" when it is at odds with the reality: 81 per cent of two-parent families affected by the cap were in work. Also removing the cap would be 'raising opportunities' for the children!

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

“Having more children is a choice that you should make when the finances allow you to do so.” is like something out of Dickens, if Dickens’ prose were quite a bit shitter.

jzelten.bsky.social•15 days ago

Starmer from the very beginning of his premiership has sounded like the villain of a Dickens novel. I would like to say I'm surprised, but the title of the book was "Low Expectations"

dsquareddigest.bsky.social•16 days ago

I genuinely do not believe anyone really thinks this, all of the opinion polling must be in some way mis-specified, and if I ever become convinced otherwise it will be time to give up on this whole sordid business and return to the sea

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

I think — from conversations about my own family with people in academia — that there is a chunk of people who literally do think this. But they shouldn’t be allowed to determine policy, because they are inhuman.

finch4077.bsky.social•16 days ago

Why tf the "Red Wall Caucus" (I hate it, we aren't American), have any more say than the rest of the Party is beyond me.

dsquareddigest.bsky.social•16 days ago

I am enough of an ableist, elitist and gentrifier to think that nobody should pay any attention to f*****g idiots, and unfortunately I attribute a lot of my financial comfort to this dismayingly retrograde ideology.

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

Imagine saying that to one of your constituents who had three children and had just been laid off from work.

hoojo.bsky.social•16 days ago

Indeed. How many wealthy people pack their children off to boarding schools or employ nannies so they can side step parenting or/& bonding with their offspring?
English boarding schools have been described as social services for the rich

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

Now imagine saying that *to their youngest child*.

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

I grew up very poor and have four younger siblings and do in fact think that my youngest brothers and sister deserve the same support from the state that I do?

hmsbulmer.bsky.social•16 days ago

Does the two child limit still apply when twins/multiples are part of the family? I'm the third child and the younger twin. I know full well my parents didn't intend to have three children.

chrisbrooke.bsky.social•16 days ago

(Third child & older twin here!)

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

I think there is actually a twins policy, as well as the infamous rape clause.

kateweb.bsky.social•16 days ago

I also wondered about this. A colleague who had a daughter decided to have a second child - ended up with triplets.

pgbarebones.bsky.social•16 days ago

Or bereaved.

centristmum.bsky.social•16 days ago

Or a single parent of two kids who has married a single parent with one kid. The official position of the state is apparently that these people should split up.

rob042.bsky.social•16 days ago

And it is so callously (or evilly) indifferent to the fact that it is primarily the children who suffer as a result.

jonnelledge.bsky.social•16 days ago

Not to mention that, given the state of the economy these last two bleedin' decades, "waiting til you can definitely provide for them" would mean "even fewer children than we're having now", and this would generally be seen as a bad thing.

cobrien.bsky.social•16 days ago

Also, the ‘until you can definitely provide for them’ rationale is disingenuous. The ONLY way to def never be in need due to unemployment, bereavement, family breakdown etc, is not through income - it’s through capital, and lots of it. It’s a policy that says only aristos should have more kids.

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

Yep. And conversely if the policy *were* aimed at cutting birth rates — for some, presumably secret, reason — it has also failed on those terms? So it’s really impossible to argue it’s anything but pennypinching from literal babies.

jonnelledge.bsky.social•16 days ago

Pennypinching combined with "turning a big dial marked 'poorbashing' on it and constantly looking back at the electorate for approval like a contestant on the price is right", yeah

indy.bsky.social•16 days ago

It's always interesting how unrealistic the "realism" of politicians governing us seems to be these days.

mikerobson.bsky.social•16 days ago

Sadly it’s not just politicians. There’s an uncomfortably large number of the general public who strongly chime in with this view.

thombeckett.com•16 days ago

My angle of this is that it’s clearly not the child’s choice in any way. I agree that the state telling people how many children they should have is something they shouldn’t be doing, but punishing the child for it is both barbaric and insane.

lottelydia.bsky.social•16 days ago

Well, exactly. “Your parents shouldn’t have had you so you should grow up in deprivation” is deranged Victorian morality.

cobrien.bsky.social•16 days ago

These kids, having the audacity to be born.

thombeckett.com•16 days ago

Also, since households change a lot, if I understand the policy on GOV.UK, if someone with two children has a step child join their family, that child loses the benefit. And if your child has a child and you’re left caring for the grandchild after the child leaves, you lose the benefit for them too.

thombeckett.com•16 days ago

Couldn’t be more nanny state if it tried and yet the people complaining of the state’s interference in the family seem remarkably quiet on the matter.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply