Mon 21st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Sun 20th Jul 2014 at 22:49pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

David, I thought you were a sensible chap. What happened with child benefits?

Any student of psychology could have told you how it would play out

By on Friday, 8 October 2010

David Cameron: suffering from the law of unintended consequences (Photo: PA)

David Cameron: suffering from the law of unintended consequences (Photo: PA)

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.

  • louella

    There seems to be the odd belief among secularists ….that children are an optional extra for a society! In fact everything folds up and collapses without a constant supply of children.

    Secularism is indeed is a very creepy illogical beast.

  • David Lindsay

    Whenever this Government has wanted to cut anything, then it has gone for things that benefit children, and the latest wheeze incentivises divorce. I'll say that again: it incentivises divorce. As befits Osborne, who voted to abolish fatherhood and to retain very late-term abortion, positions necessarily held by a frequenter of prostitutes. The “free” market in action, of course. Like cocaine.

    Meanwhile, his fellow economically neoliberal, socially liberal foreign policy hawk, Michael Gove, has announced that schools, arms of the State, are to have the final authority over their pupils even miles away, even out of school hours, and no doubt even out of term soon enough. As much as anything else, that will let parents off the hook.

    The very real problem to which Gove refers as his excuse, and many other very real problems like it, would not arise if, and did not arise when, there were not CCTV cameras on the street corners, but conductors on the buses, guards on the trains, park keepers in the parks, and Police on the streets.

    All forms of State action, in the better days before the privatisation of public transport and the contracting out of municipal services, which were also the better days before unruly children and unruly teenagers on their way to and from school. When the State understood its own proper sphere, then it understood and respected the proper sphere of the family.

  • Pauline

    The Government is telling the poor not to have children if they can't afford them. Unfortunately it is failing to tell them that if they don't want children then they need to restrain themselves. I guess that wouldn't play too well at the polls. So more of our taxes to the abortoirs then.