Brown's speech

[Kizmet]

I liked the speech and to be fair, Labour has made some positive changes in their terms.

I thought it was excellent.

 

[Azrael]

Perhaps untethered should have added, "Disclaimer: this is a general comment, not an attack on individual single-mothers," or words to that effect, to the post. Maybe this would have spared him personal attacks. Or maybe not. Accusing anyone who opposes laissez faire sexuality of cruelty to vulnerable single-mothers is a favourite silencing-tactic. Funny how the counter-accusation is never considered.

 

[Fedayn]

I know perfectly well what happens in my life. A large slice of the money I've earned is taken from my income to pay for people that have never worked a day in their lives and for some bizarre reason think it's fine to claim for a house and all their living expenses from people like me.

Like you i'm opposed to the royal family too, i'm glad we agree.

Is it too much to expect the reckless and immoral, assuming they can't actually be prevented from being such, to actually fund their lifestyles themselves?

I think the royal family should be allowed to retire into obscurity and do real jobs.

 

[Fedayn]

Perhaps untethered should have added, "Disclaimer: this is a general comment, not an attack on individual single-mothers," or words to that effect, to the post. Maybe this would have spared him personal attacks. Or maybe not. Accusing anyone who opposes laissez faire sexuality of cruelty to vulnerable single-mothers is a favourite silencing-tactic. Funny how the counter-accusation is never considered.

No, untethered is consistent in his sweeping attacks on single-parents. He has little idea, or little interest in why people are 'lone' parents, but continues with his finger wagging invective. He is the sort of poisonous little no mark who made the woman who gave birth to me feel ashamed of something that she never chose. He is an odious little cunt.

 

[Fedayn]

Perhaps untethered should have added, "Disclaimer: this is a general comment, not an attack on individual single-mothers," or words to that effect, to the post. Maybe this would have spared him personal attacks. Or maybe not. Accusing anyone who opposes laissez faire sexuality of cruelty to vulnerable single-mothers is a favourite silencing-tactic. Funny how the counter-accusation is never considered.

There is a difference between having a concern that people should make sensible choices and understand the consequences of their actions and the nasty curtain twitching of untethered. Whilst I disagree with your view, you at least make it without the bile fuelled invective of untethered. I can resapectfully disagree with your view because it's at least free of the loathing so readily accompanying untethered's curtain-twitching rants.

 

[untethered]

Perhaps untethered should have added, "Disclaimer: this is a general comment, not an attack on individual single-mothers," or words to that effect, to the post. Maybe this would have spared him personal attacks. Or maybe not. Accusing anyone who opposes laissez faire sexuality of cruelty to vulnerable single-mothers is a favourite silencing-tactic. Funny how the counter-accusation is never considered.

My point is that we should challenge the assumption that there will always be a fairly fixed number of unwed mothers so the only decision we need to make is whether we reward or penalise them for putting themselves in that situation.

We need to start with the social economic measures that ensure that as few people as possible decide to put themselves in that situation or recklessly run the risk of doing so.

Such measures would prevent a considerable amount of human misery. Let's put individual responsibility first and worry about collective provision once that's in place.

 

[untethered]

the bile fuelled invective of untethered

Are you sure we're both reading the same forum?

 

[Fedayn]

Are you sure we're both reading the same forum?

Yes, you haven't got a clue what that nasty little word 'shame' in thios regard does to people do you? Who cares who you damage as long as it fits in with your moral world view. Fuck the consequences for the mother, refuse that mother the right to have an abortion than demand she is 'shamed' for the outcome... Make sure the shame sticks to a young woman, makes sure she carreis that shame around qwith her, fuck the consequences of that shame....

 

[Azrael]

I can resapectfully disagree with your view because it's at least free of the loathing so readily accompanying untethered's curtain-twitching rants.

Fair enough, and I always respect opponents who disagree without turning it into a cyber-brawl. That's why I don't like personal attacks: whatever you think about untethered's attitudes, he's consistently polite, and I've yet to see him make it personal.

My point is that we should challenge the assumption that there will always be a fairly fixed number of unwed mothers so the only decision we need to make is whether we reward or penalise them for putting themselves in that situation.

We need to start with the social economic measures that ensure that as few people as possible decide to put themselves in that situation or recklessly run the risk of doing so.

Such measures would prevent a considerable amount of human misery. Let's put individual responsibility first and worry about collective provision once that's in place.

I agree that ending laissez faire sexuality would decrease human misery, but I couldn't bring myself to support moves that leave single-mothers without support. I'm aware that benefits can encourage single-parenthood, and personally knew one teenager who wanted to have a child to get up on the housing list (she didn't, in the end), but no policy is perfect.

I suspect a general return to the old attitudes around marriage and sexuality, minus the cruelty, would do more good than economic sanctions. Instead of penalising single-mothers, we could reward marriage, by restoring the privileges it used to bring.

While personal responsibility is important, so is showing compassion to people who make mistakes. If people continue to do wrong after they've been given the opportunity to change, then its time for sanctions. They should be a last resort, not a first.

 

[untethered]

Who cares who you damage as long as it fits in with your moral world view.

I could say exactly the same thing about people who take a liberal view towards sex, relationships, marriage and parenting.

The difference between me and them seems to be that I want to reduce the problem and they want to sweep it under the carpet with a generous helping of taxpayers' money.

Well it looks like the tide is turning, whether we get a Labour government or a Conservative one in future. About time too.

 

[belboid]

My point is that we should challenge the assumption that there will always be a fairly fixed number of unwed mothers so the only decision we need to make is whether we reward or penalise them for putting themselves in that situation.

Without wishing to indulge your vile bile, the above is utter nonsense, a faslehood devised by yourself to justify your reactionary views.

It's bullshit, as is everything else you have written on this thread. But if you want to start a discussion on how all teengage mothers are worthless shits, go ahead and start a deifferent thread.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Anyway, Brown's speech:

I think I'm ready to vote Labour for the first time in eight years. The prospect of a tory government certainly focuses the mind.

The promise of a referendum on electoral reform is apealing (even though it's clearly to pull the rug from under the Lib.Dems). I know Blair promised the same thing but I tend to believe Brown more. Also I admire the way he shuns the presidential, slick, media savvy style that I'm sure he's always under pressure to adopt. I'm becoming a fan if that's allowed!

 

[Azrael]

Will this referendum have binding rules about balance in broadcasting? If not, it'll just be another rigged mess that leads to PR replacing FPTP on a wave of breezy slogans about "fairness" and "democracy". As ever, slogans are a substitute for thought, and FPTP, while loathed by idealists, is an excellent system with much to recommend it.

 

[Fedayn]

Fair enough, and I always respect opponents who disagree without turning it into a cyber-brawl. That's why I don't like personal attacks: whatever you think about untethered's attitudes, he's consistently polite, and I've yet to see him make it personal.

His 'polite' ie backward views = shaming women, and emotionally tar and feathering them for their transgressions of his morality. His politeness is frankly irrelevant, it's like saying please and thankyou before and after sticking a knife in someones back. His ideas damaged women and damged peoples lives. Even nif he's polite when he's doing it he remains the nasty little curtain-twitcher he really is.

 

[untethered]

Without wishing to indulge your vile bile, the above is utter nonsense, a faslehood devised by yourself to justify your reactionary views.

Perhaps you could outline some common sense measures to reduce the number of unwed mothers, including making it less likely for those that already are in that condition to have further children.

 

[Fedayn]

I could say exactly the same thing about people who take a liberal view towards sex, relationships, marriage and parenting.

The difference between me and them seems to be that I want to reduce the problem and they want to sweep it under the carpet with a generous helping of taxpayers' money.

Well it looks like the tide is turning, whether we get a Labour government or a Conservative one in future. About time too.

Your reduction of the problem would be state sponsored victimisation and bullying, no more no less. Such a nasty grubby policy damages people, but they what do you are as long as there's a few quid extra in your pocket.

 

[untethered]

Anyway, Brown's speech:

We are discussing the proposal in Mr Brown's speech to provide secure accommodation for unwed mothers aged 16-17.

 

[untethered]

Your reduction of the problem would be state sponsored victimisation and bullying, no more no less. Such a nasty grubby policy damages people, but they what do you are as long as there's a few quid extra in your pocket.

The "state-sponsored victimisation and bullying" are the requests, backed up with the threat of violence, made to me and my family for our taxes.

We will pay for the infrastructure needed to run this country, the public goods. It's not our job to fund anyone else's reckless, selfish lifestyle.

Which is why your "curtain twitching" accusations are almost the complete opposite of the actual situation. It's not me wanting to interfere in others' lives or have the state interfere on my behalf. It's me not wanting others to abdicate common sense and sexual continence and expect me and my family to pay for it.

If they were paying for it themselves I'd disapprove but I'd have far fewer grounds for complaint.

 

[Dan U]

It'll cost more to provide supported hostel places than it will council flats .

Not that many under 18's get "given the keys to a council house" like so many seem to think, anyway.

Not sure denying kids of teen mums their own house/ place with their own bedroom is going to help with their general "stability" .

Will they be allowed to get HB for a private rent ??

Will this ever happen - I somehow doubt.

i'm guessing these schemes will be done through existing Supported Housing providers (mostly RSL's or in RSL properties) and as such HB will cover rent.

although the Supporting People budget which funds floating support in such schemes for housing related support (tenancies, accessing education/work etc) is often under spent in a lot of councils, suddenly commissioning a shed load more teenage parent schemes and expecting the SP budget to fund it without a significant increase in the grants will lead to your last point.

i.e it won't happen.

particularly as CLG have recently unringfenced the grant and relaxed the conditions on what it can be spent on and Children's and Adult Social Services with big over spends (lots!) are circling available funds already...

 

[Fedayn]

The "state-sponsored victimisation and bullying" are the requests, backed up with the threat of violence, made to me and my family for our taxes.

We will pay for the infrastructure needed to run this country, the public goods. It's not our job to fund anyone else's reckless, selfish lifestyle.

Which is why your "curtain twitching" accusations are almost the complete opposite of the actual situation. It's not me wanting to interfere in others' lives or have the state interfere on my behalf. It's me not wanting others to abdicate common sense and sexual continence and expect me and my family to pay for it.

If they were paying for it themselves I'd disapprove but I'd have far fewer grounds for complaint.

You can't wait to interfere in peoples lives, reduce their already meagre income because they have transgressed your moral preferences. You want to impose your morality on everyone else to the point of financially attacking them if they dont'.

 

[Azrael]

If they were paying for it themselves I'd disapprove but I'd have far fewer grounds for complaint.

This is exactly the line I take with drug abusers. If they fund their own habit via lawful means, and take drugs in private, I think it should be legal. As Archbishop Fisher said, "There is a sacred realm of privacy ... into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude."

But if you ask other people to fund aspects of your lifestyle, part of the price is giving them the right to comment on it.

 

[belboid]

We are discussing the proposal in Mr Brown's speech to provide secure accommodation for unwed mothers aged 16-17.

We are discussing the overall speech. As said, if you want to discuss yor right-wing idiocy on the above subject, start a thread on it where anyone can join in.

 

[untethered]

We are discussing the overall speech. As said, if you want to discuss yor right-wing idiocy on the above subject, start a thread on it where anyone can join in.

So you'd like to discuss the speech as a whole without going into the detail?

Fine.

I thought the way he stood at the lectern and spoke the words on the teleprompter was admirable. He started at the beginning, proceeded to the end, stopping occasionally to accept the audience's applause.

No doubt this will stand him in incredibly good stead for the general election. The British people love politicians that can do that.

 

[untethered]

You can't wait to interfere in peoples lives

No, I want the government to interfere less in my life by not requiring me to pay for others' reckless sexual behaviour.

You want to impose your morality on everyone else to the point of financially attacking them if they dont'.

I think you'll find it's people like me that are being financially attacked.

But whether you see that or not, the fact remains that the game is up. Labour have finally discovered that the vast majority of taxpayers will not fund the indolent. I suspect it will be a Conservative government that actually makes the change, however.

 

[agricola]

You can't wait to interfere in peoples lives, reduce their already meagre income because they have transgressed your moral preferences. You want to impose your morality on everyone else to the point of financially attacking them if they dont'.

The worrying thing about this is not the policy itself (though its pretty bad and has a host of awful points) but the other stuff that it legitimizes.

i'm guessing these schemes will be done through existing Supported Housing providers (mostly RSL's or in RSL properties) and as such HB will cover rent.

although the Supporting People budget which funds floating support in such schemes for housing related support (tenancies, accessing education/work etc) is often under spent in a lot of councils, suddenly commissioning a shed load more teenage parent schemes and expecting the SP budget to fund it without a significant increase in the grants will lead to your last point.

i.e it won't happen.

particularly as CLG have recently unringfenced the grant and relaxed the conditions on what it can be spent on and Children's and Adult Social Services with big over spends (lots!) are circling available funds already...

I think theyll just dump them into the existing care-home system (those of them who arent already there, that is), which will have the dual benefit of both encouraging/terrifying the girls parent(s) to keep her at home and wouldnt require that much extra funding. Certainly there wont be a new network of homes, as they cant afford them.

 

[Dan U]

I think theyll just dump them into the existing care-home system (those of them who arent already there, that is), which will have the dual benefit of both encouraging/terrifying the girls parent(s) to keep her at home and wouldnt require that much extra funding. Certainly there wont be a new network of homes, as they cant afford them.

they certainly won't do that i don't think.

firstly Care Homes for Children are few and far between these days and secondly they cost up to £4,000 per week to care for a child.

Although £4k a week is for a bat shit kid who needs 2:1 i admit.

Supported Housing would be much much cheaper.

i may be wrong of course, this is just ime through work.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I could say exactly the same thing about people who take a liberal view towards sex, relationships, marriage and parenting.

bwuh?

Are you a Viz character?

 

[agricola]

they certainly won't do that i don't think.

firstly Care Homes for Children are few and far between these days and secondly they cost up to £4,000 per week to care for a child.

Although £4k a week is for a bat shit kid who needs 2:1 i admit.

Supported Housing would be much much cheaper.

i may be wrong of course, this is just ime through work.

Really? There seem to be enough of them where one has worked in South London, at least judging by how often kids go missing / absent from them.

 

[Azrael]

His politeness is frankly irrelevant, it's like saying please and thankyou before and after sticking a knife in someones back.

Perhaps. And perhaps he thinks the same about your views. Perhaps not. Point is, people who make personal attacks invite the same tactic against themselves. Some are fine with that, and enjoy trading insults. Two problems: lots of people don't like it, and don't deserve to be subjected to it. And pragmatically, it turns a debate into a brawl, and the issue gets lost in the resulting slagging match. Whatever you think of other posters, keeping to rules of engagement helps keep things on topic.

 

[Dan U]

Really? There seem to be enough of them where one has worked in South London, at least judging by how often kids go missing / absent from them.

i may be incorrect but my impression is they are being shut down in favour of fostering.

the last council run secure childrens home in London shut recently for example, although i am buggered if i can find the link now as i can't remember the name of the provider who ran it.

eta - found it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/01/staff-occupy-london-childrens-home