Have you ever worked directly with them. I have, agenda driven idealists.

I'd love to see any claims made by the JRF ranked alongside any from the incumbent government.



I already know whose would stand scrutiny best

We do seem to be in an era where politicians can stand up and claim to have knowledge of some outrageous FACT without ever having to show where the FACT came from or who has checked its provenance, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then base their policies and law-making on that FACT that is unproven.



The sad thing is that many of the public are eager to lap up these FACTS as gospel truth without question and to turn against this weeks vilified sector of society (whoever's turn it is).



But hey, it worked for the Nazi Party in the 1930s.

In days gone by the rate of attrition for children was quite high - so that would also have to be considered. Regarding larger families if the welfare didn't exist as it does you would have significantly lower numbers of families with 6+ kids and I bet the numbers of young girls choosing single parenthood as a career would also fall significantly

You can't expect Cod'ed to be clever enough to understand that!! These lefty idealists are pure as driven snow.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hayley-meachin/welfare-reform-fishing-expeditions-government-media-_b_2732749.htmlThe Huffington Post[/url - just get the media to run with it

Most genealogists come across large families in their tree very quickly.

My own paternal grandfather was one of eleven children who made it to adulthood (a further one died in infancy).

His father's brothers all had large families with a low-ish infant mortality.

By the next generation, birthrates dropped to three or four kids per family.



Granted, the infant mortality rate was higher in cities but families of 6 or 7 kids achieving adulthood were still commonplace until incomes and standards rose.





Already countered by global studies.

The better the income and standard of living, the lower the reproductive rate.

What needs to change is the income and the standard of living ... upwards.





How significant is it?

I don't mean just anecdotaly, like Cameron's pronouncemnts, but how many really?

Here's a clue: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has little to do with comparing the relative benefits of Fruit Gums over Fruit Pastilles.



Now back in your box, I whistle when I need you

And Cameron isn't?

At least the Foundation do the legwork.





And Cameron isn't an agenda-driven dogmatist?





And Cameron?

Where are his stats and findings?



Predictable responses from Standee and Sal ... i.e. if you don't like what you are hearing and it goes against the grain of your own dogma but you have no evidence to the contrary, shoot the messenger eh?

Come up with any real counter-argument and I'll be listening.

Again Mr Fish - once again - shows his total inability to read and comprehend.

Look numb-nuts, have you any contribution to make to this discussion, or are you simply on yet another flaming exercise?

Cameron is a politician - he is agenda-driven - that is his job. The problem is us we don't want our government to be honest if we did we would demand a higher level of debate. Cameron is a complete empty jacket, so was Blair, so is Milliband - style over substance, don't blame them blame the electorate.



JRF is one of the very best charitable trusts around who do lots of good work - but suggest they don't an agenda to push is niave. It is like the views on the Guardian on here - to some everything they say is gospel, we all know they have every much of an agenda as the DM.