NHS Problems

[smudger]

Make your mind up Dominic! You either quoted directly from my post - which you did not, OR, after amending your post after realising you were wrong, you reached your own interpretation, which you did.

Nowhere did I say or imply that all parents sent their children to private schools and have huge benefits, any more than I said or implied that they all had two cars etc etc. I quoted a range of 'must haves' that many parents see as the norm, along with a range of benefits available to parents, most of which are not income driven.

Many of the parents in the programme I quoted had many of the 'must haves', yet complained about the costs of child care which was why they were moving back to live with parents. I didn't hear any of them planning on foregoing the 'must haves' in order to meet the child care costs, rather just moving back to the parents home in order to not have to pay the child care costs.

How you interpreted it is rather more your concern than mine.

[Rita Sherry]

Good posts Jackie and Smudger (Jacs) - says it how it was and is.

To Jimgward how do I fit in with your theories? I am not a babyboomer I was born in 1932 i.e. before WW2 when there was no welfare state but I can resonate with the two ladies you appear to decry. I have already described my background in an earlier post on another subject and I can put my hand on my heart and say my parents (unfortunately Dad died in 1949 following service in the Army) never had a handout in all their lives. During the war my mother worked in a munitions factory doing 3 shifts i.e. mornings, afternoons and nights when my brother and I stayed with my grandparents. After the war my Mum returned to her old job as a tilemaker and once I went to University and my brother to Technical College she took on two other jobs in order that we could continue our education. When at school it was always prudent not to report back home one had been in trouble with teacher (pure minor stuff this) because the retort would have been "you must have done something wrong so deserved the chastisement" and if not careful got more punishment from parents - you see Jim life was pretty unfair to us kids but we got over it. I grant you my education was free (save for clothing and books etc.) the latter being paid for by my Mum. My second degree was obtained once I had started to work(which incidentally was unpaid whilst I did my articles - so once more Mum) and I can tell you I spent more than 4 years gaining my qualifications and entering fully paid employment

Like the two ladies you criticise I receive a private pension paid for by me out of my salary on which I paid tax and, of course, pay tax on said pension including my State Pension as they are lumped together for income purposes . You accuse Smudger of possibly being jealous but is there not an element of envy coming from your goodself disguised by what you see as unfairness to the poor?

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" Winston Churchill

The Welfare State was envisaged by Lord Beveridge and brought into being in 1948 as a safety net for those who temporarily were unable to work due to illness or unemployment it was not designed as a life style which unfortunately it appears to have become. Its total overhaul is long, long overdue imho.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Rita

Many retired and working ladies and gentlemen here in Cyprus as well as elsewhere do many voluntary tasks (the two ladies in question qualify) for those less fortunate than others.

[smudger]

Specific and eloquent as always Rita!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" Winston Churchill"

Always been a huge fan of the great man, albeit this is not a quote with which I was too familiar, but succinct in the extreme and one I will remember! Corbynites take note!!

Would just add to your comments about the trouble in school, it wasn't unusual to get another clip round the ear from mam for getting into trouble in the first place!!

[Jimgward]

Rita. If you read carefully what I wrote, I never decried baby boomers. In fact, I have nothing against them in the slightest. I was decrying the usual condemnation of a supposed society where people send kids to private school on benefits. In smudges case, I asked her why she ignored most of my post but honed in on part. Then decried socialism and ranted about teachers and all the rest.

I was brought up in a very working class home, where it was instilled in us never to take, my mother never owed anyone.
I did a second degree while bringing up kids and working full time. I even complimented smudged for what she had done. Of course, you ladies stick together and gang up to have a go. Check exactly what I wrote and see if I did as you say.

[Jimgward]

Churchill was a good wartime leader. The only good period of his life. In WW1 he was a disaster of a commander. He was instrumental n the Black and Tans in Ireland. A travesty. He was also a pompous alcoholic. I forgive the last part based on his wartime leadership, although if truth be told, he also had disastrous parts to his leadership then as well.

As to his upper crust views on socialism. God forbid. He was in no way a model leader n terms of teaching the country on how to live. That's why we rightly got rid of him right away. If socialism and liberalism hadn't taken power, most would still be living as serfs with no NHS and little education. Remember that Britain Pre WW2 was a land where 2% of he population had almost all the wealth. Most of the population lived in abject poverty. Churchill and his like were the cause of that.

[jeba]

Well no, but are you sure the current system increases the birth rate in a way that is practical or socially desirable?

The ability of young women to effectively 'marry the state' and start a family with the DSS as father has massive financial costs, as some posters have previously stated, but I think the major cost is that to the future of the state and, more importantly, the children who are the victims of the 'revenue generation' scheme of their parent[s]

It appears to me there is a huge swathe of children in the UK at the moment where children from quite large single parent families [just for clarity, I'm using the term 'single parent families in the sociological sense as in children who have only even known one parent, rather than children from families originally having two parents, who have subsequently separated], where the [usually] mothers, in emotional and educational terms barely more than children themselves, have effectively abrogated any parental responsibility with the State as family breadwinner, and the child's teacher effectively takes over all of the other duties, including just general socialization.

This in turn puts an intolerable burden on the teachers. I personally know of teachers in inner city schools purchasing food with their own money to feed children whose parents have other priorities, and even more worryingly come parents evening, having previously suggested ways that the parent might help in their childs own education, faced with an incandescent mother, often with latest boyfriend in tow to provide the requisite muscle, reminding the teacher that educating and socializing the child is entirely the teachers problem, and all too often back this opinion up with threats of violence.

To be a good teacher in an inner city school nowadays requires a heart of gold, nerves of steel and requirement for absolutely no recognition of the job they do, or the pressure put on them by feckless parents.

And what chance do the children stand? Just to repeat the experience of their mother or absentee father?

Photolady's suggestion may seem a little harsh, but it seems to me to be a much more positive suggestion than the status quo.

I personally would be campaigning [were I still resident in the UK] where the level of benefit payment for children was fixed at the number of children present when the claimant entered the benefit system, to ensure the protection of children from two parent families who have fallen on hard times, or separated.

I know nothing about the UK´s social benefit system (only spent half a day in London for a stop-over flight) and my comments weren´t specific for it but meant more general. While I have no doubt that there the problems you describe exist I doubt that they should be adressed via cutting child benefits. They should rather be adressed by reforming the education system to emulate e. g. the Finish system. There e. g. the correlation between parent´s socioeconomic status and the likeliyhood of kids to perform well is very weak (i. e. even kids from poor backgrounds have a good chance to get a decent education). That shows that it is possible to fix a good deal of social ills by investing in education, avoiding the problems you mentioned to a large extent while still giving even kids from poor families a fair chance. By the way I think that even part of Germany´s education system deserve to be emulated (thinking of the dual system of apprenticeships combined with schooling).

Anyway, it is in the interest of society that there are enough kids born and I´m sure that child benefits make it easier for people to opt for having more kids.

[jeba]

Utter rubbish. I paid for my own training whilst holding down a full time job and bringing up 3 children on my own!! Who paid my training????

Are you thinking it´s wrong that people nowadays have it better than those 50 years ago? That´s called progress.

[jeba]

Jeba

Often in the UK, the benefits paid to parents for the upkeep of their children, are used for other purposes. I don't know what experience you have of UK benefits, but you are mistaken if you think that all parents here are hard working poor people, who's first consideration is the welfare of their children. Simply not true.

As I said above I don´t know the English system. However, I think that even kids of irresponsible parents deserve help and shouldn´t be abandoned - for their own sake as well as for that of society. If they don´t get the help needed chances are they will turn out just like their parents, producing another generation of kids like them. Apart from that I guess that at least a large majority of parents want a good life for their children - even though unfortunately there are a few exceptions. To not abandon the kids of those you need to upgrade the education system, not cut benefits.

[jeba]

Jimgward

Why the problem with baby boomers ? We have pensions, yes which WE paid for, out of OUR earnings, we don't live on benefits. We enjoyed our lives, worked hard and played hard. We didn't look to the state or our parents for financial support. Sounds to me like your the jealous one here. You should get what you pay for, end of.

Well, if the UK´s system is anything like the German one you better have enough kids (as a society) earning your pension. Because what you´ve paid into the system has already been used to fund your parent´s generation pension. So you didn´t pay for your pension but for your parent´s.

[Rita Sherry]

Jimgward

Why the problem with baby boomers ? We have pensions, yes which WE paid for, out of OUR earnings, we don't live on benefits. We enjoyed our lives, worked hard and played hard. We didn't look to the state or our parents for financial support. Sounds to me like your the jealous one here. You should get what you pay for, end of.

Well, if the UK´s system is anything like the German one you better have enough kids (as a society) earning your pension. Because what you´ve paid into the system has already been used to fund your parent´s generation pension. So you didn´t pay for your pension but for your parent´s.

Jeba

I think you will discover that Firefly, Smudger and myself are referring to "private pensions" as opposed to the State Pension and the former were funded by ourselves out of our salaries (mine most certainly was) not by our or anyone elses children - that is the State Pension and yes we are in receipt, if of the relevant age, of State Pensions funded as you say by today's working children as we did for our parents' generation and on which we still pay tax. In my own case I paid additional sums into my Pension pot up to the maximum permitted by the Inland Revenue in order to have a better pension when I retired and I am certainly pleased that I did. It was called prudence but there are unfortunately those who call it "lucky".

If you will permit me to say so you are not completely au fait with the system pertaining to the UK by your own admission so are doubtless unaware of the relevant choices available for future pension provisions. The Welfare provisions provided by the State (the taxpayers) are unsustainable and getting worse but successive Governments have dodged the issue time and time again and use borrowed money which has to be repaid and therein lies the problem. I have personally advocated, as have many others including some politicians (but not enough) there should be a cross party group to look into the total reform of the Welfare system without playing politics in their deliberations.

Rita

[Rita Sherry]

Jimgward

On 15th May you wrote, inter alia, "You sound like a 'baby boomer' whose generation will be better off than their children and grandchildren, due to pensions, benefits and real earnings" Your words Jim not mine. I asked in my post did you consider me to be one of those when I was born in 1932 etc etc.

I am not intending to join a slanging match over this subject but there too many sweeping generalisations being made some of which are inaccurate. You have your views and I have mine as do Firefly and Smudger. You are clearly a Socialist and that is your prerogative but please do not try to convince me I, as one of those wicked Conservatives, am entirely wrong in my views because proof is all around us of the failures of successive Governments of whatever hue as well as their successes. Personally as one who has worked for more than 40 years with politicians of varying persuasions I have admiration for some of those of a different political persuasion as myself and it is purely the philosophy which underlies their beliefs I am at odds with not personalities.

You agree for instance that Winston Churchill was a good wartime leader but qualify that statement with the words "he made mistakes" Goodness me show me a leader anywhere in the democratic world that has or does not make mistakes they are human beings and as infallible as the rest of us. Incidentally you may have got "rid of him quickly when war ended" but he did come back and you are incorrect to say there would have been no NHS etc had he been retained immediately following the cessation of hostilities because there was provision in Churchill's plans for such. If not why then when he was returned to power did his Government not repeal the 1946 Act? The doctors at the time were very much against it as was Bevin.

You assert "You ladies stick together and gang up to have a go" wrong again in my case. I have a God given independent mind of my own which in the present topic coincides with the two other ladies thoughts and views who I am sure are as independently minded as myself.

You have in another post referred to maternity leave being 6 weeks at 90% of pay then 33 weeks at 140 pounds per week. Well when I had my two children the entitlement was 6 weeks at whatever rate was applicable at the time and that was it. If we took extra time it was without pay.

Let us just say Jim one cannot convert the unconvertible.

Regards

Rita

[jeba]

Jeba

I think you will discover that Firefly, Smudger and myself are referring to "private pensions" as opposed to the State Pension and the former were funded by ourselves out of our salaries (mine most certainly was) not by our or anyone elses children

Yes, you´re right. I hadn´t realised that you were talking about private pensions. However, that doesn´t invalidate my argument that having enough children is necessary for the state pension system to function and that cutting child benefits will be counterproductive since it will discourage people from having children (of course, money isn´t the only problem for many) and that many of the wrongs mentioned before in other postings should be adressed via improving the education system, not by trying to discourage people from having children they couldn´t afford without financial assistance.

[Firefly]

Jeba

I don't consider that your argument holds water, In Germany maybe this is the accepted way, but it doesn't make it right for us. I don't think that we are thinking family allowances here, but all the other benefits that people claim because they have so many children, without the income to support them as they should. Not everyone is honest and our system is abused.

I'm sure that the state pension system as we know it will be fazed out in time, so more children will NOT be needed to fund it. It will be interesting to see if at that time, the government of the day will be prepared to forego the payments to them from wages to cover pensions, or will they just call it something else, as they did with the Road Fund Licence.

Jackie

[Jimgward]

Rita. I would never, for a moment try to 'convert' someone's political persuasion.

My wife is a died in the wool conservative and I do nothing,to persuade her otherwise.

I actually have socialist ideals, but also capitalist ideals and mix them into my view of what I personally think a future could/should be. That means I do not support labour, conservative or lindem. I voted labour in the past but I see no reason to at present. Not because they're too right or left of any ideal, because my centrist thinking would actually prefer a part more christian democrat in nature.

Too many on this forum want to brand views as 'socialist claptrap' or 'Tory guff' instead of personal views, of which everyone is entitled. Similarly, everyone is entitled to disagree with them.

I personally find the polar views interesting, albeit some get their proverbial knickers in a twist...

[Pete G]

Anyway, it is in the interest of society that there are enough kids born and I´m sure that child benefits make it easier for people to opt for having more kids.

No not really.

This more kids to fuel the pension pot only works if

1) They all grow into productive taxpayers
2) They are supported by their parents for the duration of their childhood and never dependant on the state
3) They thoughtfully die or return to their parent's country of origin before it is their turn to claim pension.

Otherwise you are just at best kicking the can down the road, or at worst making a hyperbolically greater problem for the next generation.

Still, at least that won't be our problem, eh?

[Dominic]

Make your mind up Dominic! You either quoted directly from my post - which you did not, OR, after amending your post after realising you were wrong, you reached your own interpretation, which you did.

Nowhere did I say or imply that all parents sent their children to private schools and have huge benefits, any more than I said or implied that they all had two cars etc etc. I quoted a range of 'must haves' that many parents see as the norm, along with a range of benefits available to parents, most of which are not income driven.

Many of the parents in the programme I quoted had many of the 'must haves', yet complained about the costs of child care which was why they were moving back to live with parents. I didn't hear any of them planning on foregoing the 'must haves' in order to meet the child care costs, rather just moving back to the parents home in order to not have to pay the child care costs.

How you interpreted it is rather more your concern than mine.

If you aren't concerned how people interpret your posts, why post at all? Surely you want people to interpret your post in the correct fashion?

[cyprusgrump]

Make your mind up Dominic! You either quoted directly from my post - which you did not, OR, after amending your post after realising you were wrong, you reached your own interpretation, which you did.

Nowhere did I say or imply that all parents sent their children to private schools and have huge benefits, any more than I said or implied that they all had two cars etc etc. I quoted a range of 'must haves' that many parents see as the norm, along with a range of benefits available to parents, most of which are not income driven.

Many of the parents in the programme I quoted had many of the 'must haves', yet complained about the costs of child care which was why they were moving back to live with parents. I didn't hear any of them planning on foregoing the 'must haves' in order to meet the child care costs, rather just moving back to the parents home in order to not have to pay the child care costs.

How you interpreted it is rather more your concern than mine.

If you aren't concerned how people interpret your posts, why post at all? Surely you want people to interpret your post in the correct fashion?

People will choose to interpret posts as they choose...

We can't decide what slant (if any) they put on them...

But we are all surely free to post our opinions nonetheless...?

[Dominic]

Yes of course we all are. That wasn't my point. My point was that I couldn't see the point of posting something, if I wasn't concerned that people would misinterpret what I said.

I am sure when you post, CG, you would rather people got what you meant, than didn't.

[cyprusgrump]

Yes of course we all are. That wasn't my point. My point was that I couldn't see the point of posting something, if I wasn't concerned that people would misinterpret what I said.

I am sure when you post, CG, you would rather people got what you meant, than didn't.

Honestly, I really don't care!

For instance, no matter what I reply to HiC I know I will never convince him that I am right and he is (obviously) wrong... Do I care? No.

In many cases, in order to change opinion you have to change whole lifestyles which isn't ever going to happen...

For instance, in order to change HiC's view of Brexit I'd have to stop him getting his 'news' from Yahooo which is clearly not ever going to happen...

[Dominic]

I'm sure both of you would miss each other if either of you stopped posting though.