Well said the Aardvark.

Well said the Aardvark.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191And welfare-to-work programme isn't working[/url.

How do you know if my Dad's parents could afford it? They managed of course but the idea it was a carefully considered decision based on finance is far from the truth. My dad who was the youngest was a twin so they didn't plan for twins I am sure. Things [iwere[/i different back then with kids starting work at 14 and expected to bring in money into the family home so I am sure that helped how they financed things as the older children went out to work but of course that option is not open to families these days.



That is not the point though. Your stance is without the welfare state we wouldn't have anyone with such large families. This is absolute b@ll@ocks.

Indeed, it's been shown more than once and in more than one place that access to opportunities, education etc are factors that bring birth rates down.



One could argue that the welfare state was actually a factor that helped to reduce family sizes. Certainly, if we include the NHS within that, then free contraception has made a massive difference – combined with education and many more opportunities for women.

Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron.



[url=http://www.tees.ac.uk/sections/research/social_futures/worklessness.cfmMore here.[/url

Isn't the whole point of technological advancement to make sure we don't have to work (as much) anyway? Where's my robot butler, goddammit?

I'm sure that was what we told back in the 1970s, at any rate.

The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Hmmmmm, who to believe?



A tory spin-doctor turned prime minister or a charitable trust set up by a truly philanthropic Quaker.



I can see where someone would get confused

Yeah, with their ridiculous bias against poverty. Laughable that they even bother.