Interesting to see our wonderful state broadcaster being extremely reticent to spell out the gory details of how the UK benefits system is little more than a Labour party inspired breeding program for the entitled underclass.
Compare and contrast, firstly The BBC :
George Osborne’s plan to put an upper limit on the amount of benefits families can claim in a year will not apply to all, a minister has indicated.
When he announced the £26,000 cap last year, the chancellor said it would cover all households “unless they have disabilities to cope with”.
But welfare reform minister Lord Freud told the BBC the government was looking at other “protections” for people in “exceptional circumstances”.
No 10 said the policy was unchanged.
About 50,000 families were expected to be affected by the cap, planned for 2013, and were likely to lose an average of £93 a week.
Apart from the last paragraph there, little else is actually said in the whole article as to why all these families are receiving so much.
If you read the whoel thing you will spot this in passing which gives a hint but no details :
The government insisted the cap would encourage “responsibility” about the number of children people choose to have, but a number of Liberal Democrats were known to oppose the policy.
Jenny Willott, co-chair of the Lib Dem backbench committee on welfare reform, told the BBC: “We do need to make sure that those larger families where there are exceptional circumstances, they get the benefits that they need, rather than it being capped too low so they don’t have enough to be able to pay for the daily costs of living, or even to pay the costs of their housing.”
If you only get your news from The BBC then you are missing out on some hair raising statistics to go with that article and, thankfully, The Telegraph has the nasty little details :
The new benefit limit will affect about 50,000 families, and will come into force in 2013, costing an average of £93 a week in benefits.
One in three of the families affected consists of a single mother with more than five children.
…
Almost 100,000 benefit claimants have four or more children, with more than 900 having eight or more.
…
Last year Jeremy Hunt was criticised for suggesting that unemployed people should not have children if they could not afford to take care of them.
More than enough to make you wonder why you bother getting up in a morning to go to work to earn a living instead of remaining horizontal all day whilst knocking up the latest squeeze to keep your benefits topped up.
I am sure we will hear the screech of coaltion tyres shortly as the next high speed U-turn is taken to appease the shroud wavers and Limp Dumbs.
Isn’t it interesting how the ‘greenies’ amongst the Limp Dims and Labour suddenly cry off when the major green issue of human numbers comes up. Suddenly, it’s perfectly OK to have a gazillion children and all the subsequent resources they’ll need. What’s wrong with these morons and why doesn’t anyone in the MSM ever ask pertinent questions. Are they just all thick?
David – indeed and it also exposes just how much gerrymandering Labour were doing by shoring up their core vote with paid for voters who were never going to vote to have their easy life cut, not to mention the millions who arrived here and were granted citizenship just because they had bothered to turn up.
Piano wire and lamp posts for the lot of them I think closely followed by most of the MSM if they can’t be bothered to treat us liek adults and call a spade a sapde.
And as to that u-turn, I’m sure it is just around the corner.
Bucko – we obviously missed out on the Labour school propaganda program where the state provides for all and pays you to stay at home and fuck if you didn’t bother paying attention in class.
The U-turns seem to come thick and fast from this lot – I have posted a few times on the about faces that have already been done. Labour were bad enough at formulating policy by press reaction but this lot just take the piss – trot out an initiatve, wait a day or two, tone it down or quietly smother it in its sleep when no one is watching.
“Last year Jeremy Hunt was criticised for suggesting that unemployed people should not have children if they could not afford to take care of them.”
How can anyone criticise that? It beggars beleif that some people think the taxpayer should fund other peoples kids, no matter how many they choose to have. *boggle*
(‘Wizards sleeve’. LOL!)
“One in three of the families affected consists of a single mother with more than five children.”
I need a lie down….
microdave – indeed – that article made me splutter when I read it this morning in the print version.
The 900 with 8 or more kids is something else though – as a friend of mine would say I bet its like a wizards sleeve after that little lot.