Limiting child benefit to the first two children is a great idea and one I've been banging on about for years. The state helps with the healthcare of the pregnancy and the birth, will educate the child until it's 19 and will even pay the parents a monthly fee for doing so.
Why shouldn't the monthly pay packet be limited to the first two children? No one is saying that you can't have more, and we'll still cover the healthcare and education, just saying that if you do want more you'll have to be responsible and ensure that you have considered the financial implications.
Doesn't work though. It doesn't save any significant money between now and 2020 - because you can't make it retrospective. And, if its intended to condition behaviour, you still have the problem of the irresponsible, the religious and the accidental - you can't just leave the children with no money to live on when they do arrive. Its the sort of idea IDS would come up - with that any serious political leader will veto.
As someone said above, if you don't care about the children. you just cap the allowance total - that doesn't impact most poeple not on benefits. and its not specifically a cut in anything with the word child in its name.
The Conservatives have discussed other options too such as tightening up the eligibility for Carer's Allowance and those cuts options are listed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722
Alexander's remarks are almost certainly true, despite the Conservative denials, and the harsh cuts that have listed in those two news reports above, or similar ones, will almost certainly be back on the drawing board again as part of the £12 billion benefit cuts if the Conservatives form part of the next government.
This announcement by Alexander was almost certainly cleared by Clegg and it was presumably issued today to cause maximum destabilisation to the Conservatives on the day of the live Question Time sessions with the party leaders. Although I doubt it will help to save Alexander in Inverness, it might cause some wavering voters to think again about how they're going to vote now that they know what the implications of voting Conservative will mean.
What is a "state funded kid"? Anybody who receives child benefit? Those aren't just the poor.
Any child that uses the NHS, goes to a state school, enjoys the protection of the police and social services, walks on pavements maintained at public expense - well, I think that must be all of them.
"Pot etc" is not proving a point, it's avoiding the matter. It's used by people who are unable or unwilling to answer a question with the truth.
OK, so let's get this right.
1. You stated you could not have discussed regionalisation of public sector salaries because you were out of the country and away from any tech.
2. I did a simple search that showed that ethel_fred posted on 5/5/2010 on this site, this being the date before the last general election. Therefore, your claim mentioned above is untrue.
3. You accused David Cameron of being untruthful, I called you out on it because you did exactly the same thing.
4. You are now deflecting that. The internet does not lie. You were posting on this site regardless of where you were in the world despite you denying it utterly.
damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
if you are calling him a liar, then if he had said "yes i am cutting child benefit" would you have believed him then?
Comments
Doesn't work though. It doesn't save any significant money between now and 2020 - because you can't make it retrospective. And, if its intended to condition behaviour, you still have the problem of the irresponsible, the religious and the accidental - you can't just leave the children with no money to live on when they do arrive. Its the sort of idea IDS would come up - with that any serious political leader will veto.
As someone said above, if you don't care about the children. you just cap the allowance total - that doesn't impact most poeple not on benefits. and its not specifically a cut in anything with the word child in its name.
The Conservatives have discussed other options too such as tightening up the eligibility for Carer's Allowance and those cuts options are listed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722
Alexander's remarks are almost certainly true, despite the Conservative denials, and the harsh cuts that have listed in those two news reports above, or similar ones, will almost certainly be back on the drawing board again as part of the £12 billion benefit cuts if the Conservatives form part of the next government.
This announcement by Alexander was almost certainly cleared by Clegg and it was presumably issued today to cause maximum destabilisation to the Conservatives on the day of the live Question Time sessions with the party leaders. Although I doubt it will help to save Alexander in Inverness, it might cause some wavering voters to think again about how they're going to vote now that they know what the implications of voting Conservative will mean.
He's a liar, a cad and a bounder.
Because it's cheaper than taking their children into care.
Any child that uses the NHS, goes to a state school, enjoys the protection of the police and social services, walks on pavements maintained at public expense - well, I think that must be all of them.
Do you often stalk other posters?
Stalk!! How funny, I just know how to prove a point ethel. Which I have.
1. You stated you could not have discussed regionalisation of public sector salaries because you were out of the country and away from any tech.
2. I did a simple search that showed that ethel_fred posted on 5/5/2010 on this site, this being the date before the last general election. Therefore, your claim mentioned above is untrue.
3. You accused David Cameron of being untruthful, I called you out on it because you did exactly the same thing.
4. You are now deflecting that. The internet does not lie. You were posting on this site regardless of where you were in the world despite you denying it utterly.
QED.
True
After seeing how Clegg was torn apart for t his betrayal because of tuition fees he's probably being careful
yes he did. i watched todays interview on itv news at 6.30pm. he was asked if child benefit levels would remain the same and he said "correct".
feel free to watch on itvplayer.
And you believed him?
Do you also believe in unicorns and leprechauns?
damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
if you are calling him a liar, then if he had said "yes i am cutting child benefit" would you have believed him then?
no. only trolls.;-)