Idiot damn stupidity

No doubt, unless it was a coded message to his own four children, David Mowat, the junior health minister, meant well last week when he floated a proposal that “we start thinking as a society about how we deal with the care of our own parents”.

Around six months into the job, it has occurred to the primary care minister, he told the communities and local government committee, that a less formal set-up might work wonders. “One thing that has always struck me as I have been doing this role,” he said, “is that nobody ever questions the fact that we look after our children. That is obvious and nobody ever says that is a caring responsibility; it is just what you do.”

Perhaps he has yet to learn about the work, not only of social services and family courts, but of the often unfairly maligned Child Support Agency, created precisely because of the hundreds of thousands of parents, from all kinds of backgrounds, who reject their obligations. In those cases, the state can prove, dismaying though this is to accept, more responsible than an absent parent.

It doesn’t seem to occur to an Observer columnist that the CSA is the arm of the State which insists that people do meet their responsibilities to their children.

The new government wheeze to avoid its obligations is to suggest that children bear the burden, not the state

Well, yes, why not?

23 comments on “Idiot damn stupidity

  1. The left helped to piss on marriage and a sense of responsibility for peoples own actions.

    And then boasts about a pack of pricks like the CSA who are notorious for hounding those they can make easy targets of and being largely useless against real-beats.

    The Cult of the State helps breed a society of the feckless and then its “more power needed for the State” to solve the problems the state and socialism have created. An old and by now very tired refrain.

    Those with good incomes should indeed look after their parents. Unfortunately there are many “families” who have little love and are more akin to a collection of turds who just happen to be floating in the same pot.

  2. Round here children do look after their elderly neighbours. The problem is that many of those children are retired and elderly themselves and find it hard to cope. One of my retired neighbours spent Christmas visiting her father who still lives at home and her mother who is in a care home because her father can’t cope with looking after her.

  3. The idea that you will be dependent upon your sprogs in old age, would greatly alter child rearing practices in a selfinterested attempt to raise sensible responsible caring people. If the state’s going to care for you, there’s no point in civilising your children.

  4. What Mr Ecks said, in spades. And the CSA has been about as competent as any other civil serpent organisation, which is to say, not much…

  5. I have no kids.

    Out of the blue, no prior checks with me, the CSA set debt collectors on my case for thousands in unpaid child support.

    I complained and they promised a letter of apology.

    No apology.

    I complained again. They denied all knowledge and said the unique case reference I passed them did not exist.

  6. They tax you to buggery to pay for welfare for folks you’ve never met and have no duty toward.

    It takes longer to save up for a mortgage and start a family. Mum and Dad are pensioners by the time you’ve made a start on either.

    Then they complain you don’t look after your parents.

  7. “Needs a big house if you are going to have three generations running around in it. Who can afford that?”

    Well for a starter if Granny isn’t going into a home, then all her house equity/savings are on the table to help fund a bigger house. Then if the kids stay at home they’re working too so you’ve got more income coming into the pot to fund a large house purchase. And once the house is paid for it would run on a generation in/generation out basis. It would be a sort of social insurance scheme in miniature.

    And we’re back to the 70s lifestyle thing again – having multiple families crammed into one house was the way things were until only the last few decades, the idea everyone gets a house and space of their own from early adulthood is relatively new.

  8. The CSA didn’t target the easy targets, they were just the ones who you knew where they lived and worked.
    The ones that were not the easy targets were such as ‘he owned a red Ford car with brown fake fur seat covers 12 years ago and his name was Paul’.
    Want to try tracking down Paul?

  9. “The CSA didn’t target the easy targets, they were just the ones who you knew where they lived and worked.”

    The crucial word there being ‘worked’. If the male in question was one of the benefits underclass what point would there be in chasing them for child support? Thus the whole system was a way of making working men support their children, while ignoring entirely a vast (and growing) swathe of other feckless men.

  10. “The CSA didn’t target the easy targets, they were just the ones who you knew where they lived and worked.”

    Or in my case, anyone with a dick and some money will do for a punt. Doesn’t matter if they have kids or not.

  11. Your parents look after you for the first 16 (or 18, or 21 or 30) years so it seems reasonable to then help your parents.

    Me, my brothers and sister all pay our mum some money each month. It’s nothing compared to what she did for us.

    Like the suggestion that putting on a jumper is cheaper than turning up your central heating, it’s another sensible thought derided by the left because it doesn’t involve the state sticking its nose in.

  12. My mother suffered badly during the winters because she had poor circulation and my dad was a mean old bastard who would never put the heating on unless the water in the toilet was frozen (some exaggeration here obviously, but we’ve all met the type).

    When she finally got rid of the old bastard and moved into a place on her own she feared the cost of heating so much that she would only put it on in extremis.

    This problem was easily resolved by just putting the bill on my direct debit and telling her that I’d arranged with the council for “free heating” because she was disabled.

    It was the only way I could get her to put the bloody heating on. She lived into her eighties and often said her last years away from my damn father were the best years of her life.

    Look after your mum chaps. You only get one, especially if your dad is a swine as many were in those days.

  13. What’s the plan? For a kind of elderly support agency, extracting funds from thankless children?

    Don’t give them any ideas!

    Japan’s demographic profile is far worse. How do they cope?

  14. John Galt: ‘This problem was easily resolved by just putting the bill on my direct debit and telling her that I’d arranged with the council for “free heating” because she was disabled.’

    *salutes*

  15. Middle class people don’t want to look after their parents but they do want their rightful inheritance, cue more calls for euthanasia.

  16. Look after your mum chaps. You only get one, especially if your dad is a swine as many were in those days.

    Or look after your dad if your mom is a swine.

  17. “The Cult of the State helps breed a society of the feckless and then its “more power needed for the State” to solve the problems the state and socialism have created. An old and by now very tired refrain.”

    That can’t be repeated too often, Ecksy.

  18. “Look after your mum chaps. ”

    Good advice, sadly mine died when I was 18 and father, a good guy, when I was 25. I’d gladly swap more years with them, especially seeing their grand children, for the cost of supporting their old age.

  19. “More power needed for the State” came first. This quirk of the culture is just another tool to accomplish that end. Ms Bennett couldn’t care less about the elderly; she cares about state power.

    There is nothing about charity that requires government involvement. There is nothing the statist doesn’t want the government involved in.

  20. Cynic, you are not alone. I was hounded by the CSA some years ago – apparently I had fathered a bastard 13 years previously to a woman I had never heard of in a place I had never visited. The first I heard of it was a huge parcel of documents arriving at home which I opened in front of my very pissed off partner of 15 years. They sent letters referring to conversations that never took place, there was an attachment of earnings arranged with my employer, I was called a liar on the telephone….and then after months of anguish and argument, it all stopped. Not a word of apology or regret. I complained again and again, demanding that they write again to my employer and my partner to explain it was their mistake, but not a word came. The CSA are a vile cesspit of unfeeling, ignorant, arrogant turds.

  21. “Your parents look after you for the first 16 (or 18, or 21 or 30) years so it seems reasonable to then help your parents.”

    Of course, if both your parents piss off back to work at the earliest opportunity and palm you off to some baby-care factory, you may have a different view when it comes their turn to be vulnerable and in need of care…

    Of course, if you don’t want to look after your parents, you have to accept that their money is going to go into care, so you won’t be inheriting much/any of it. Price worth paying? That’s probably a largely personal decision.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.