Oh dear, David – and I thought that you were the sensible chap who would insist on policies being properly thought out, and the “law of unintended consequences” evaded.
And then you allowed that moronic proposal on child allowances. It took no more than a second to work out that a household with only one earner would feel hard done by when the neighbouring household with nearly twice the income would not be penalised. If you don’t know how that kind of comparison plays out with the public, any first year student of psychology could have told you. Perhaps you should employ one.
And that bright idea about people having to take the financial consequences of having large families. Who could argue with that? I have news for you. Unless some people have large families our population will be bankrupted by having too few taxpayers and too many centenarians. And a few generations later it will become extinct anyhow.
Oh, sorry – you meant only poor families. It’s OK for the rich to breed. But isn’t that what the eugenicists intended by facilitating abortion for the poor? A pity it worked in reverse. And I know you didn’t intend the Big Society to dictate to people how many children they should have. But that’s “unintended consequences” for you. They have a habit of being unintended.