Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Daily Telegraph article 22.6.11
7 Answers
Do you think David Cameron should be comparing "absent fathers to Drink drivers"? Seems a funny comparison to me!
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by midagetrolop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He was not really comparing the two saying they are similar. His point (and I think he is right) is that we all know that drink drivers are selfish, irresponsible and and can cause misery, but absent fathers, who should also face such scorn get away with it because they are 'laddish'.
Totally agree with U-Turn Dave on this one.
Totally agree with U-Turn Dave on this one.
I'm not so sure, Gromit. According to a piece in the Guardian (which I can't find at the moment), he also plans to make mothers pay £100 for getting the CSA to chase up absent fathers - and the CSA will then take a cut of the payments.
Telling solo mums what heroines they are and then screwing money out of them when they seek help does not seem very useful.
Telling solo mums what heroines they are and then screwing money out of them when they seek help does not seem very useful.
found it
http://www.guardian.c...t-fathers?INTCMP=SRCH
The usual virulent comment after it, which I haven't read. Guardian blogs are often swamped by rabid rightists.
http://www.guardian.c...t-fathers?INTCMP=SRCH
The usual virulent comment after it, which I haven't read. Guardian blogs are often swamped by rabid rightists.
Thanks for that jno, I had not seen that, truely bizarre!
// But Cameron's words came only days after his own welfare reform bill passed through the Commons with a section designed to do precisely the opposite of what he said, a case of doublespeak beyond parody. The bill will make the Child Support Agency charge mothers an upfront fee of £100 for pursuing won't-pay fathers, and will then take a permanent commission of between 7% and 12% for collecting the money. //
So these women are reluctant to grass on ex-partners in the first place, but now they will be financially penalised as well if they do so? Unless the Grauniad are putting a spin on the bill that will be very counter-productive. Are they on another planet?
// But Cameron's words came only days after his own welfare reform bill passed through the Commons with a section designed to do precisely the opposite of what he said, a case of doublespeak beyond parody. The bill will make the Child Support Agency charge mothers an upfront fee of £100 for pursuing won't-pay fathers, and will then take a permanent commission of between 7% and 12% for collecting the money. //
So these women are reluctant to grass on ex-partners in the first place, but now they will be financially penalised as well if they do so? Unless the Grauniad are putting a spin on the bill that will be very counter-productive. Are they on another planet?
as far as I can see, the 'big society' idea is a way of saving money by getting the state to do as little as possible, and devolving everything to 'society'. Thus single mothers will be able to call on the state for help but will in fact be unable to afford to do so (and the state will cream off some of the profit like an ambulance-chasing law firm).
Instead, the deadbeat dads will be 'named and shamed', which appears to mean their names will be posted on trees, and they will be pursued down the high street by villagers waving pitchforks until caught and forced to pay up.
I cannot for the life of me see any of this working.
Instead, the deadbeat dads will be 'named and shamed', which appears to mean their names will be posted on trees, and they will be pursued down the high street by villagers waving pitchforks until caught and forced to pay up.
I cannot for the life of me see any of this working.
Why do Conservative administrations have to have 'Themes'?
John Major had 'Family Values' while he and half his cabinet were having extra-marital affairs. It collapsed because it had no substance, and the 'Big Society' could go the same way.
Both Big ideas are good, because they expect society to sort istelf out without any Government help (or extra expense) but they are both doomed to fail because apart from wishful thinking, there is nothing (especially money) to push these forward.
Maybe even worse than that, with the 'Big Society' the local community is expected to volunteer and work for nothing when funding for local projects is withdrawn under the guise of reducing the deficit. Some people will come forward and volunteer because the British public is generous, but the people who rely on these services will end up with an amateur service.
John Major had 'Family Values' while he and half his cabinet were having extra-marital affairs. It collapsed because it had no substance, and the 'Big Society' could go the same way.
Both Big ideas are good, because they expect society to sort istelf out without any Government help (or extra expense) but they are both doomed to fail because apart from wishful thinking, there is nothing (especially money) to push these forward.
Maybe even worse than that, with the 'Big Society' the local community is expected to volunteer and work for nothing when funding for local projects is withdrawn under the guise of reducing the deficit. Some people will come forward and volunteer because the British public is generous, but the people who rely on these services will end up with an amateur service.
1 to 7 of 7
