Fewer children? Where?

Sir David Attenborough’s ideas would definitely work out if it were only possible to get all people throughout the world to have fewer children. Yet it is those child-rich countries that keep on hassling us for aid and then overtake us economically that cause the mayhem.

Childcare costs are only high in our region, and that is where Sir Attenborough’ theory has a serious hole. It would only be us to reduce child numbers but those with no child care costs they keep on having them and then in the end we – as a people – will be completely dying out.

Populations in Asia and Africa will still be rocketing when we Europeans are down to 1 child per family to reduce our high child care costs. Sir David doesn’t seem to know how the world works.

Studio Studiosis

Having just read about Studio schools I think they are an excellent idea and exactly the best path to help young people into employment. Some of my children also gotten employment from similar schemes and have never been unemployed since.

It is a bit silly to say that it is too early to cement a young person into any particular career. Just look at the off-spring of many celebrities who mostly follow in their parents’ footsteps because that is what young people do, they grow into an environment and like to stay in it as they know it well.

Sadly today many young people do not have parents with businesses to rely upon, so they have to carve their own paths but many like to start working earlier rather than later.

When I was young one started an apprenticeship, working at least 40 hours per week and spending 8 of those in school to learn the theory.

Studio schools are the next best thing to apprenticeship and are also sponsored by companies. Of course it would be one better if those companies could teach and let learn by employing the young people outright whilst doing so.

Just to see that Studio schools are themed around one particular science or practical craft is very encouraging. For example

  1. Dorset Studio School in Dorchester, will focus on environmental and land-based studies and is backed by groups including the National Trust, RSPCA and the Royal Veterinary College
  2. Sir Frank Whittle Studio College in Leicestershire, will specialise in engineering, retail and logistics and hospitality and leisure
  3. Space Studio Banbury in Oxfordshire, will focus on space, science and maths, with the involvement of The National Space Centre, UK Space Agency and European Space Agency
  4. Apollo Studio Academy in Durham, specialising in Stem (science and maths) subjects, health, care and early years and with the involvement of the NHS Northumbria Healthcare Foundation Trust
  5. De Salis Studio College in Hillingdon, which will specialise in business and finance and be supported by Accenture, PWC, and HMRC, among others
  6. Future Tech Studio in Warrington, specialising in ICT, with involvement of National Nuclear Laboratories, Barclays Global Technology Centre, and Talk Talk
  7. Island Studio School on the Isle of Wight, jointly proposed by Southampton City College and the Isle of Wight Council, specialising in marine manufacturing
  8. Knutsford Academy: The Studio in Cheshire East, specialising in digital technologies and “employability skills”; links with Barclays, Deloitte and Manchester Airport
  9. Manchester Creative Studio, led by the founder of the Collective Spirit Free School in Oldham which is due to open in September this year. It will specialise in the creative industries, particularly in design, interactive media and digital technology
  10. Studio West in Newcastle, proposed by Kenton Academy and with links to various local employers
  11. The Bath Studio School, proposed by a group of five schools; specialising in business, IT and administration
  12. The Digital Studio College in Derbyshire, proposed by Derby College and backed by local employers including Age UK
  13. Vision Studio School in Nottinghamshire, proposed by West Nottinghamshire College; specialising in health, care, engineering and transport and backed by employers including Sherwood Forest NHS Trust and Ilkeston football club

All these school ideas sound fantastic and I am just wondering how a kid from London can go there because they are all over the country and I am not sure if people from further away can attend and get somewhere to live if not from the vicinity.

Doctors against obesity

I am really glad that doctors have spoken out on obesity and about taking positive steps to make the purchase of fizzy drinks and sweets more difficult.

Of course it also doesn’t help to constantly get junk food shops, junk food advertisements and the sweets always near the cashier’s desk at the shops.

Yet I think fizzy drinks have gone up in price. A bottle of coke is dear and so are cans of fizzy in small shops though they are cheaper to buy in supermarkets.

Often parents buy a carton of fries at the nearest take-away shop rather than prepare a healthier option at home. It is now cheaper to buy ready meals rather than cook yourself.

I can testify to this because when I raised my own children 25 years ago, it was cheaper to cook at home. Nowadays it is cheaper to purchase the ready made product, from cakes to Hot Cross Buns.

But when I make my own I know what’s in it, I choose the ingredients and I tend to cook more healthy and with a conscience.

But I would like to point out that I was at my leanest and healthiest when my washing machine was broken and I had to wash by hand the laundry for a family of 7, and could not afford taxis and had to walk 2 miles to the nearest supermarkets to get the cheapest offers. We had no computers and the TV was so small it could hardly be seen.

No housing, just hotels

It will only get worst, the amount of people that are going to present as homeless when benefit caps come in soon. Westminster doesn’t know what to do with large homeless families and whilst keeping them on the old housing benefits at £700 per week was cheaper, the new 4-star hotel solutions  cost that per night.

Where are councils supposed to house the homeless that will be evicted when they are unable to afford their rents? Are there any housing solutions available that fit their budgets, after the benefit caps have been fully implemented. Perhaps garden sheds would be affordable but then that is not in keeping with Human Rights legislation.

Another fine mess this government has gotten us into and an ill thought through policy is going to fill our news papers and Internet news channels with ever increasing problem reports about housing from April 2013.

It is possible that landlords will have to lower rents if they had no choice but to evict their tenants on the high rents they can’t afford but the chances are that in London there will be plenty of takers for expensive flats.

Will it all pan out or will somebody scratch their heads and wonder how it all came about?

Obviously we cannot place families into sheds and bunkers or even let them sleep under bridges, so where is all the cheap housing going to come from?

It’s quite amazing that the government warned Westminster council that they are breaking the law by paying hundreds of thousands of pounds to 4-star hotels to house the homeless but where are they supposed to put the people? Will they have forcibly to be moved into the cheap country side or will they try to house them all in East London,which is already a favourite dumping place for homeless people?

Tower Hamlets is trying to accommodate the situation by building the highest residential tower block,the Canary Wharf Tower, which doesn’t sound too safe, considering the fire stations in the area are going to be reduced. If I had to live on the 50th floor I definitely would buy a parachute, just in case a fire breaks out at floor 41.

Videos as this one from the BBC website will send a chilling message around the world that large families seeking asylum in Britain are no longer receiving the luxury large houses they used to get.

downtrodden mums

It doesn’t surprise me at all to read that both ante-natal and post-natal depression amongst mothers is on a steep rise. After all the DWP makes sure that every new mum doesn’t enjoy their motherhood.

Especially single mothers are ordered to attend employment interviews within a day of being due or 3 days after having given birth or they get threatened that their benefits are cut. Many young mothers get their benefits withdrawn completely once their child reaches the age of 7, with the excuse that they do not do enough to find work.

Being a mother has become out of fashion in public perception and Iain Duncan Smith’s department has a lot to do with that.

It used to be more fun getting pregnant and becoming a mum as one used to get much more support from benefits agencies in the past.

Even if a woman is not on benefits, the expectation of having to earn before conception is very much greater nowadays.

Universal benefits could break up families

To avoid poverty I think some larger families will resolve to breaking up as a family and re-group as smaller families and splitting up children between them.  That seems the only way of avoiding the less money trap that the government has laid for those in large families with many children.

It seems ironic that such a resolve will be the almost only way out of the poverty trap that universal benefits have laid for us.  It will increase the strain on housing resources, will be less environmentally friendly as smaller family units will consume larger amounts of white goods etc.

Old-fashioned values

What the Conservatives always wanted to make us belief is the fact they they defend the “good old-fashioned” values. We often enough get the comparisons to Victorian Times, how well the economy was then, and how powerful the British Emporium worked worldwide.

Today we have a Conservative government that makes up numbers with the Liberal Democrats and it is this partnership that waters down government. In fact we are in such a puddle by now, that there is nothing left of the “good” old-fashioned values but what is left now is a lot of old cobbles. But then in Victorian times we did have cobbled roads.

This government now wants to make us belief that the institution of marriage is as important as ever but in Victorian times no 2 men or 2 women would have dared live together as man and wife or asked to get formally married.

Family values were grouped around raising children and women were unable to make a career for themselves but were tied to the stove. Women had no choice but to find a man or end up in the workhouse. We are very tolerant these days but want to see good old-fashioned stern discipline and workaholic people who work hard and save hard. But the singles lifestyle these days is very expensive more expensive than living in a tightly knit family that can save a few pennies by doing things in a type of cooperative way. When large families still lived under one roof, where several generations shared a household,then savings could be made but today they all live in single flats, all need their own washing machines and pay their own individual rents.

What the government has forgotten is the fact that family is a child-related matter and not a marriage certificate related matter alone.  We do not get married to own the other person to say that is the only person I am going to live with for the rest of my life, we used to get married to have a firm basis to bring up our children and build a business or make a career to support that family.  But now, since so many jobs are being done by those who do not have the time to have a family, those with family are increasingly dependant on handouts.

What government now does is run after donors who have the most money and they say anything to get to that cash. In the end the customer is always right and in the end powerful men always ruled the world.

From G(c)rime to shine

It is an extraordinary public drama and mind-boggling to follow the public discussion that is the result of the decriminalization of homosexuality and the efforts of governments world-wide (almost) by now to change laws to enable gay couples equality to same-sex couples.

Looking at the history of it, same-sex marriage has always been the way to create a partnership, in which property was shared and it enabled the ground for a married couple to reproduce and leave possessions and often land and property to the off-spring.

Marriages were made for the purpose to amalgamate whole kingdoms, properties were made larger by using marriage and children could inherit considerable fortunes and power when they were in the best households.

The idea of gay marriage is entirely not fitting into this concept as gay couples cannot produce any children but can only adopt them. So it does not surprise me that Ben Summerskill chief executive of Stonewall, a pro-gay lobby group, argues that gay couples could produce a stable home for children who are condemned to grow up in single parent households because regular couples have broken up. He practically supports, in my personal view, that gay couples could take over raising children in a ‘stable gay family’ once the heterosexual couple has broken up and therefore save children from growing up in single parent households.

As if that is the most important thing to consider.

The fact is that gay couples have no reason to marry within the traditional boundaries of marriage because they do not produce off-spring to pass possessions onto.

An important fact has to be established and that is the first reason for marriage in he first place is to form a hub for raising off-spring produced within that marriage and not just to get married for the sake of being married and that is what Stonewall tries to achieve I think, they try to achieve that you can get married for the sake of being married without further purpose.

I think that law makers have fundamentally mishandled the marriage question and equalised something that has no equal because it naturally is incapable of producing children. It would be wholly inappropriate to allow gay marriage just to produce a gay subsidy where heterosexual families have failed.

There is another mistake in Stonewall’s argument in that gay marriage does not guarantee that it lasts forever, gay couples break up just as other ones do. So just because gay marriage exists, this does not guarantee the ability to place children into ‘stable families’ forever.

I think it is more than obvious that some very influential and rich gay men could influence the law making process into allowing homosexuality and now the rest of the legal world struggles to integrate this newly produced equality into all areas of life.

It is not possible to produce a legal total equality where nature has not gotten the ability to be totally equal itself. Nature and/or God’s creation is not equal for all, it is for those who follow the correct path of life, which is very well described in the bible.

The Independent online newspaper reports that David Cameron was today presented with a 500.000 strong petition against gay marriage.

added 26/12/12, apparently this article supports everything I said. Frankly it is a complete shambles that the Conservatives emphasize gay marriage so much, presumably just because they have some strong donors among them. Political parties should be forced to declare money donations from homosexual people.

Obama accommodates the church

Obama is a man who has been rumoured to support birth terminations, which are gruesome killings of babies who are about to be born by literally sucking out their brains at the moment they enter our world from the birth canal, he had been severely criticised for that prior to being elected.

But now he seems to have made a u-turn on abortions and this break-through is the first time that a western leader lately made concessions to religious concerns over conception and the right to abort and admits that there is a religious concerns over birth control.

Here in the UK political leaders want to make us all the same constantly and births of children are to be strictly rationed by harsh benefit controls. We are practically being forced into a situation where nobody can have more than 2.4 children whether working or not working.

Family size had been discussed previously a lot when those against abortion argued that many genius artists for example came from large poor families.

Here in the UK Cameron has abandoned his plans to force all single mothers to work 16 hours per week at least. I previously posted that it is impossible and not practicable to force employers to make 16 hour working slots available and now Cameron has changed it to at least 24 hours per week before one is entitled to working tax credits.

The churches have long objected to making contraception a general knowledge subject as it implies so much more than just the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is terminated. It includes the whole lifestyle of free sex for all and then get rid of the unwanted babies after. And I am glad that the Americans at least see sense.

The western world is very busy making those who do not work but do have children feel outsiders from the usual productive earners who live in wonderful families and earn lots of money and who can afford to have children as compared to those who just bring them up on benefits.

Ideally politicians want to make us all go to school, get a job or degree, then get married and have a family but there are so many stumbling blocks that prevent this from happening. Shortage of housing is one of them. There are now so many other laws, which allow same-sex relationships and forbid the discrimination against those who do not chose the heterosexual path.

I am glad that at lest a small step has been taken to defend those who do not wish to abort, regardless of employment status and that churches in the US are no longer required to provide birth control as part of their insurance package.

There is a distinct difference in he delivery of health insurance, if we compare the US to the UK. But the muddle that has been created by the latest UK NHS changes are incomprehensible for me. I just think that the German health model is quite good whereby you are always privately insured whether you are employed or not but if you are not employed the state pays your insurance contributions, which allows choice of doctor and gives equal treatment to all.

What bothers me here in the UK with the dual treatment of paying and non paying patients is that you actually pay cash at the doctor and the receptionist deal with paying and not paying patients whereby some have to pay and some have to sign when treated. In Germany that is not so because all patients get the same vouchers and give them to the doctor and they don’t see whether you pay or not so that there is no discrimination possible. It is all dealt with when the doctors then claim payment from the insurance companies and there is no money being exchanged at the time of treatment but the patients pay via their insurance companies and not directly.

It is often more than embarrassing here in the UK to stand next to a cash paying patient at the dentist when one just has to sign a piece of paper and that leads to discrimination of those who do not have to pay especially also as doctors can charge higher rates to private patients.

I am not quite sure how the American system works but here in the UK, we are in a bit of a muddle.

From Home maker to Home Office

I am having the impression that women’s traditional role as home maker has now been transferred into politics as being in charge of the Home Office. Since the last Labour administration we started the trend of women as Home Office minister when Jackie Smith tried out the post. Now we have Theresa May MP, who at times suffers quite stringed criticism from the Top of the table leader of Justice Mr Clarke.

When our communities can be compared as children of our big home, which is our country, another lady has been put in charge of this with Baroness Newlove, who is the widow of a sadly murdered headmaster. She has been put in charge of active, safer communities. We even had a woman in charge of MI5 for some time.  In 1992, for the first time a lady took charge of MI5 with Dame Stella Rimington.

The dismantling of old-fashioned male dominated governance is in full swing.

Putting matters in the hands of communities has never been the strongest point in British society, which is trying hard to overcome strict class division, which starts at schooling and ends in stately homes and the top jobs, all allocated to the Upper Classes, with very few coming from a Unionist background like Alan Johnson. Apparently though the Right doesn’t like them, the Unions are the only breeding ground for alternative politicians in this country, with the small exception of the Liberals who managed to get the top job from sheer opportunist luck. Ever since the Magna Carta on 15/6/1215, Britain strived to imply equality for all.

From that date the Liberals were the first and the Tories the second political parties in existence whereby the Liberals wanted to free us from the peril of the aristocracy. A sort of love-hate relationship between Conservatives and Liberals has developed ever since. And ironically it is under a descendant of not only Moses but William IV, as David Cameron is rumoured to be, that a marriage of opposing British politics takes place.

Yet in this turmoil of contradictions, its the role of women that take over as being in charge of the house. How traditional is that?

But looking at the fact that Britain increasingly loses international status, even with the Commonwealth countries included, and slips down the economic success ladder, how much can Britain really afford to be romantic with internal affairs and leave it to the ladies to re-structure the house, as if it was up to them alone?

I am not employed by the Home Office and I am only a volunteer, so my ability to spill the beans is quite obvious, when I disclose short-comings in policy. My desire for a good home/county to live in is very strong, since I have got now 7 grandchildren in Britain. For me it is a very personal desire to see this country strong and forward facing rather than dwindle around in unnecessary policies that only hinder and are not very effective.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,254 hits