OV9

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 1:55 pm But it won’t stop folk who can afford them having loads of kids, your suggestion is just a punishment for being poor.

Using your logic they should also get free cars, free holidays, free everything someone who has money can get.

I grew up surrounded by piss takers who were lazy. The people truly struggling or poor will have more help if those taking the piss are not incentivised to have children they cannot otherwise afford. It’s the exact opposite of what you say, there will be more financial help for those who truly need it.

Dave!

Only for schrodinger’s deserving poor.

I watched lots of hard working people really struggle while others got all the help and did nothing.

I genuinely don’t think you have a clue about what it’s like in that environment so am leaving it there.

Dave!

Mate, my parents bought an ex council house then spent my childhood struggling to pay the mortgage.

You know fuck all.

mik wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 12:17 pm There has to be active encouragement (without strict controls) to not have loads of kids. But as nobody is really talking about population explosion being a problem (as it's a sensitive topic) - very little obvious is happening there.

It needs to be recognised that everyone reducing their personal carbon footprint by x% is of no value if the population increase means no net reduction in human carbon footprint.

the birth rate is already below the number to maintain our population. with an ever aging population, who’s going to pay for us when we’re old?

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 2:28 pm Mate, my parents bought an ex council house then spent my childhood struggling to pay the mortgage.

You know fuck all.

So you would have seen the pisstakers, who didn’t have to buy, didn’t have to struggle and didn’t contribute.

Maybe you lived in an idyllic area where people didn’t flood kitchens to get a new one, left to do cash in hand work, had various reasons they couldn’t work etc. That’s not what we saw as my parents also struggled, doing by the sounds of it exactly the same as yours did.

Dave!

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 2:33 pm

mik wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 12:17 pm There has to be active encouragement (without strict controls) to not have loads of kids. But as nobody is really talking about population explosion being a problem (as it's a sensitive topic) - very little obvious is happening there.

It needs to be recognised that everyone reducing their personal carbon footprint by x% is of no value if the population increase means no net reduction in human carbon footprint.

the birth rate is already below the number to maintain our population. with an ever aging population, who’s going to pay for us when we’re old?

We'll all have Tesla robots wiping our bums

The folk who really take the piss are a tiny minority and everyone else is just trying to get by.

I don’t understand how someone who apparently grew up amongst it can buy into the undeserving poor schtick tbh. It’s just another right wing divide and conquer tactic.

It’s also still beside the point that a financial deterrent for having too many kids isn’t any use as an environmental improvement policy.

The ones who take the piss are not deserving, if you struggle to see that then fair enough. It’s certainly not tiny financially.

Dave!

The current population increase is pretty irrelevant in the West, it's mainly a developing countries thing. How do you fix it? Raise their standard of living to Western standards. What will that do from an emissions perspective? Increase their emissions by 10 times per person. They'll also live far longer too. Net effect for the planet? Not great. Someone in the WEC is crying each time one poor person pulls themselves out the hole and can afford a home and 2 meals a day.

We haven't been sustainable since being hunter gatherers. That's the elephant in the room. Reducing the population by even 1 billion people will barely dent what's happening. The only thing left is to see how you can minimise the impact. The current strategy here is a silly game of increasing inflation, exporting emissions, buying ever more from aboard, moving money to China, exporting rubbish to other places, kidding everyone that planting some trees is fixing it all, creating more taxes and charges whilst the politicians all backslap themselves over a job well done.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 2:42 pm
I don’t understand how someone who apparently grew up amongst it can buy into the undeserving poor schtick tbh. It’s just another right wing divide and conquer tactic.

Isn't it because they've worked hard to improve their situation and move out of poverty? So to see others who refuse to put the graft in expect it or get given it, might seem a tad unfair?

If what you're saying is true, and that it is a tiny minority should mean that all the people who have climbed their way out of poverty should be fully supportive of your agenda... but it seems far from it.

I think it's a bit easy to just say it's a right wing divide and conquer tactic, and you'd be sure to call out all the anti-left equivalents of that.

I can’t really answer any of that Duncs. Like I said, I don’t understand the attitude.

As far as divide and conquer, you have two people with nothing and the guy with all the stuff is telling one of them it’s the other guy’s fault he has nothing. They should both be trying to get their stuff from the guy who has it.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:11 pm They should both be trying to get their stuff from the guy who has it.

No, they should be trying to get their own stuff and leave the other guys stuff alone. It’s his, not theirs

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:11 pm
As far as divide and conquer, you have two people with nothing and the guy with all the stuff is telling one of them it’s the other guy’s fault he has nothing. They should both be trying to get their stuff from the guy who has it.

WTF

Sorry guys, I forgot I wasn’t on NP&E anymore for a second there

Realistically the two people with nothing should be trying to get the help they deserve, because the government doesn't - last I checked, underpaid benefits were greater than benefit fraud (granted that was a while ago and Google is being shit about it )

That’s what I meant tbh, that and wage theft being a bigger number than shoplifting.

Pray for Cressida.

No

It's such poetic justice TBH that after she held hundreds of other people hostage, and caused many to miss more important events than a fucking destination wedding, that she should be crying about this. Suck it up buttercup.

FAFO.