NZ Green Party
Children’s policy

Sue Bradford has just released the Green Party’s Children’s Policy on the eve of the Every Child Counts Conference which starts tomorrow.

As expected the policy signals the Greens will work to retain the amendments to s 59 of the Crimes Act.  It also has important health provisions (such as free dental care), environmental provisions (such as creating a “mainland island” in or near each of the 5 main centres by 2010 so that urban children can enjoy their natural heritage), investment in education (as a percentage of GDP across all education sectors), the rights of children who are adopted, 13 months paid parental leave and more.

But one of the areas I find most innovative and powerful is the stuff around changes to the benefit system. Sue Bradford is setting a goal by which Government commits to end child poverty in New Zealand by 2014. That will mean things such as:

  • Introduce a Consumer Price Index-adjusted Universal Child Benefit. The base rate as of September 2007 would be$16.25 per week for the first child and $11.50 per week for every subsequent child. This non-income tested payment to the primary caregiver would be similar to the Family Benefit that was scrapped in 1991 and can be capitalised towards the child’s first home.
  • Remove discriminatory policies to ensure families in and out of work are treated equitably (e.g. the In Work Tax Credit currently discriminates against beneficiaries and those not in the workforce) and incorporate such tax credits into the Universal Child Benefit regime proposed above.
  • Support the provision, without the imposition of a work test, of benefits to single parents and partners of beneficiaries whose primary responsibility is caring for dependent children.
  • Oppose the introduction of any provision that financially penalises single parents who give birth while in receipt of benefit.
  • Repeal section 70A of the Social Security Act, which penalises single parents who refuse, or fail, to identify in law the non-custodial parent of their child or who refuse, or fail, to make a child support formula assessment application. While we believe that that non-custodial parents should be required to take financial responsibility for their children, we believe this would be more effectively achieved through a review of the Child Support Act, together with more effective education of children and young people about the responsibilities of parenting, rather than by financially penalising some of the most vulnerable families in our society.

It will be interesting to see the feedback from the Every Child Counts conference tomorrow.

67 thoughts on “Children’s policy

  1. > More uncosted bribes.

    Yep. You know, the weather is better here over the ditch, & (at least in IT) the pay is light-years ahead. I pay less tax, earn more, see the sun more, and we even escaped a protectionism- and envy-driven luxury car tax (by a single vote).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. Agree typical communist policy from the New Zealand Communist party.

    Of course who really cares about this policy document since in its present form it will never make it into law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. I was just writing a blogpost about question time’s missing question today but David Farrar has just between me to it. It’s definitely funny enough to link to!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. “together with more effective education of children and young people about the responsibilities of parenting”

    If you want to reduce the amount of unwanted children, and ensure children are cared for better, you could start by explaining to kids at school:
    - If you have sex you may become a parent (contraception isn’t foolproof, many of their parents could probably confirm that!)
    - Explain the true cost and responsibility of being a parent, especially for the father (teenage boys can easily ignore that as they aren’t the one getting pregnant)
    - If you really don’t want to get pregnant / make someone pregnant / contract an STD the most foolproof method is abstinence
    - If you decide not to abstain then these are some contraception methods you can consider.

    Very logical. Unfortunately current sex ed policy is just “Free contraception – you’ll do it anyway so we’ll make the state pay for it”. Rubbish. Teens are far more intelligent than that and can make sensible decisions, if you give them all the information rather than just assuming they’re all sex-crazed maniacs that you can only throw free condoms at. Plenty of teens don’t have sex, although the proportion is falling as they have the expectation that they will rammed down their throats at school and through the media.

    I don’t see the Greens proposing anything sensible like this though, you leave that to us conservatives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Okay,
    In response to the five policy bit quoted in the post by frog of the childrens policy;
    1. You are kidding, right? (no pun intended)
    2. Discriminatory? What about those poor people who not only have to work for their subsitance but also have to support these policies?
    3. Oh, more room for bradfords and phils to develop, how joyful!
    4. So the ‘Environmental’ party wants MORE kids? now I get it!
    5. Ah thats right, cause we dont want children learning that actions have consequences, eh? ‘dont worry; the government will bail you out!’.

    And 13 months paid leave! I thought this party stood for equal pay for women? Never mind that the biggist cause for the pay discrepancies is the paid leave and the child days.

    Section 12? Not even worth debating.

    But, apart from the aforementioned and Section 2 Part 1, Section 6 Part 2, and Section 11 Part 6; The policy isint too bad, would likley do some good though Section 6 part 12 needs to be further expanded on, could have some large benifits but could also be quite detrimental.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. They may be a useful tool for some teenagers. But you can’t just say “promise not to have sex and we won’t tell you about contraception”, nor does anyone (except perhaps a few extreme cases in America) – any such scheme comes on top of the detailed information about contraception that students already receive in school. Abstinence education complements contraception and vice versa, having either without the other is deceptive and less effective than the two together.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. “5. Ah thats right, cause we dont want children learning that actions have consequences, eh? ‘dont worry; the government will bail you out!’.”

    Well said Sapient.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Mr Dennis – with the faith you show in the ability of teenagers to choose to abstain, coupled with the effectiveness of education, you’ll support the same programme for drug harm-minimisation I suppose?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. detractors should remember back to the last election when the agencies most concerned with children’s welfare, ranked the parties for their policies and coming out a clear winner then (and, I’m confident, this time round as well) the Green Party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. You forgot the section where you advocate planting money trees to pay for it all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. I wish they’d just cut to the chase and take 100% of my revenue. I hate this passive-aggressive incrementalism….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. Greenfly, that depends entirely which child welfare agencies you ask. The state-appointed ones filled with Labour / Socialist political appointees would of course pick a socialist party as the best.

    A similar education policy may well work for drug-harm minimisation, good suggestion, but I would have to see the details. The balance needs to be encouraging abstention from both sex and drugs, not promoting drugs like the current policy promotes sex. Giving accurate information on the harmful effects of drugs could well reduce their use if done correctly, if done poorly it could just raise awareness of all sorts of new stuff to try the teens hadn’t heard of before.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. Another fiscally irresponsible bit of policy from the Greens.

    Has no Green member read the last Culen budget?

    The one where he is cutting a billion dollars of government spending over the next four year?

    A budget that has not included provisions for the billion dollar kyoto payments NOR the billion dollars promised to insulate state houses.

    So where is the money for these grandious schemes to come from?

    Raised taxation? Cutting of state services? Raising overseas loans? Print some more money?

    The Greens needed an economist on the payroll and rather quickly.

    Or should I be cynical and say that the Greens can promise the earth but cant deliver anything of substance?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. Also if you are going to come out with a Childrens policy how come you don’t have sections in the document dealing with the Enviroment and the Economy. Both of those things have a much larger impact on children and should be addressed in a policy document.

    On the Economy, Why aren’t the greens advocating a policy that first defines the conditions under which the NZ government may borrow money and explicity defines what that money may be spent on. This policy should also state that the country’s budget must be balanced each year, if it doesn’t then either taxes need to rise or services need to be cut.

    Note their is nothing more Unethical a government can do that borrow money today to pay for social entitlement programs. When a government does that they are giving money to people today and making the future generations pay for it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. That policy encourages people to bang away without having to consider the cost…. as Father Christmas will provide. It conflicts with the ecology principle.
    :wink:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Hopefully the next budget presented by the new government (Labour or National) after negotiating with the Greens for confidence and supply in return for this policy will include provisions for this policy.

    Be interesting to see the effect of the child benefit capitalisation part of the policy will have on the governments capital liquidity.

    The child benefit paid out weekly will come from taxation collect that week (in simple terms). The capitilisation for a deposit ($40K?) on a first home (that was how we got our first home so cant stand in the way of good policy) will need to be funded from reserves as the taxation has not been collected yet. That will have an effect on capital liquidity.

    Might see the govenment having to borrow above and beyond the treshhold envisaged by Labour (20% max) and National (22% max)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. jh said: That policy encourages people to bang away without having to consider the cost…. as Father Christmas will provide. It conflicts with the ecology principle.

    jh, New Zealand is a lucky country becuse it doesn’t have an over-population problem. Our ecological population carrying capacity is still significantly greater than our population.

    New Zealand’s current birth rate is below replacement level. If an extra $11.50 per child [which low-income families get already through Working for Families] a week encourages people to have more children to the extent that the birth rate significantly increases (and I don’t think it will), then that can be addressed long-term through immigration policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. >>birth rate is below replacement level

    I though we were supposed to be a liferaft? We should leave spare capacity to accommodate those who must relocate. That would be the humanitarian thing to do. Perhaps, deep down, you don’t believe this AGW disaster scenario after all, eh?

    Gerrit,

    Clearly the money will come from the magical dancing money dragon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. “Our ecological population carrying capacity is still significantly greater than our population.”
    Who sez?
    Surely we aren’t trying to achieve that limit?
    Less people means more resources per person doesn’t it. Resources per person is a real measure of wealth isn’t it?
    One child policy (ie two per couple) is my ideal. Immigrants? Only if they will benefit NZ and I don’t mean by buying real estate either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. samiam – we were all immigrants at some time or other. Aren’t you glad your forebears passed the ‘benefit to NZ’ test back then (did they buy real estate?) It’s not a matter of ‘fewer people = more resources’. It’s how people use and manage the resources that is as important. We can accomodate many more in New Zealand, providing we do it well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. samiam said: Who sez

    Try here, samiam (and Gerrit).

    And no, we don’t want to reach it, and we do need to have spare capacity to accommodate the climate change refugee scenario.

    But my point is that the Greens’ Universal Child Benefit policy will not have a significant impact on the birth rate anyway.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. The last social report shows average (I assume mean) fertility at 2.2, almost exactly at replacement rate. With immegration we surpass that well and truley.
    We have no need to increase the population of New Zealand and if anything should be decreasing it; I mean to say, we are destroying it fast enough as it is.
    And the childrens policy didint mention anything about the baby-boomers! what could be of more relivance to children than the state of the environment and economy as they grow up and try to set themselves up? how will they manage that with the massive costs to provide a retirement fund for all those baby-boomers that will totally destroy the economy when they hit retirement age, with their misguided beleif that a government funded retirement fund is a right/entitlement?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. I guess we had better have an open door policy then. I’d say we should limit to what we have until we sort out our disgraceful practices. Then maybe relook at what an appropriate population should be.
    In my mind (yeah, scary I know) this population issue should be one of the core debates of our society. You never hear it discussed. Why?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. samiam – we were all immigrants at some time or other.

    Yes, and some people on this forum and in the party would do well to remmember that, eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Samiam,
    Prehaps it might seem alittle hypocritical to say ‘hey, stop breeding; your ruining the future of our population’ when their third on the list has five children…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. toad,

    No argument from me regarding the carrying capacity of a sustainable population for New Zealand. Coming from a place where there are 20 million people in the space of half the North Island, we have a ton of room.

    My concern is money supply to pay for the policy.

    Care to address?

    Bering in mind population growth equals an increase of resources required to house, feed, educate and provide vocations for them all. Not to mention public aminities such as electricity, public transport, etc.

    And the budget policy to make this happen and pay for. You know a strategic plan.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Gerrit, you have asked on many occasions for the Greens to provide an alternative Budget. However, in your won post above, you say: “Hopefully the next budget presented by the new government (Labour or National) after negotiating with the Greens for confidence and supply in return for this policy will include provisions for this policy.

    Which really explains why there is not much point. If the Greens were polling at around 30%, there may be a point, because they could call many of the shots and implement most of their policies.

    But barring a polling miracle in the next 10 weeks, the best the Greens can hope for is to be the minority partner in a Government, which means some of their polices won’t get past the post-election negotiations. There seems little point in detailed budgeting for things that won’t be achieved.

    A rough figure for the Universal Child Benefit at the rates the Greens propose is $800m pa, but that doesn’t take into account the extent to which it would be capitalised by families.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. jh: “That policy encourages people to bang away without having to consider the cost…. as Father Christmas will provide. It conflicts with the ecology principle.”

    Toad: “jh, New Zealand is a lucky country becuse it doesn’t have an over-population problem. Our ecological population carrying capacity is still significantly greater than our population.”

    Toad, I think JH was referring to who would actually pay for raising those children, rather than the environment per se. They can have children without worrying about paying to raise them, as Father Christmas will do that. We need to be encouraging responsibility for your own actions, and making fathers pay the cost of their own children (as we have discussed at g.blog), rather than just pulling more cash off the government’s magic money tree to fix everything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. jh asked: What’s the other “Green? MP Kieth Locke got up his sleeve?

    An immigration policy, I’m told. Soon to be released (hopefully not by Trevor Mallard).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. Samiam: “One child policy (ie two per couple) is my ideal.”

    Which makes me glad you aren’t Prime Minister. Anyone who wants that sort of policy can move to China.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. Yes, Mr Dennis, the Green policy does state:

    While we believe that that non-custodial parents should be required to take financial responsibility for their children, we believe this would be more effectively achieved through a review of the Child Support Act, together with more effective education of children and young people about the responsibilities of parenting…

    If frogblog readers have missed that discussion at g.blog, it is here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. toad

    Which really explains why there is not much point. If the Greens were polling at around 30%, there may be a point, because they could call many of the shots and implement most of their policies.

    So what are the Greens doing to get to 30%.

    Have banged on about changing from activist to strategist to get there but I dont see the will power in the Greens to do that and get to 30%. Many Greens are much more comfortable to being activist rather then rational strategic thinkers and planners.

    So while Sue comes up with a very good policy I can agree with (the child benefit) it is utterly useless as you dont have the votes. You dont have or will get more votes until unfriendly policies (ETS comes to mind where the voters are facing a 20% increase in electricity charges).

    Did Russel not say we were going to have a carbon neutral policy from the Greens?

    Where is it? What are the details?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. Author: greenfly
    Comment:
    samiam – we were all immigrants at some time or other. Aren’t you glad your forebears passed the ‘benefit to NZ’ test back then (did they buy real estate?) It’s not a matter of ‘fewer people = more resources’. It’s how people use and manage the resources that is as important. We can accomodate many more in New Zealand, providing we do it well.
    ………………
    So the Green Party’s ( since you are part of the dominant Left wing faction) position is that New Zealander’s can’t complain about immigration because their forebears were immigrants? Despite the fact that our forebears rode horses and the population was tiny. Your not especially green you red people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. jh – enough of the ‘so…’ extrapolations! You’re always so wide of the mark when you fly your ‘therefore’ kites that you create completely new problems, hitherto undreamed of! Funny though, and entertaining :-) It might come as a surprise to you to hear that opinions expressed here by commenters such as myself are, shock, horror, personal opinions! To lable them ‘Green Party positions’ the moment they hit the page is a bit reactionary don’t you think? Nevertheless, yes, ‘we’ don’t complain about immigrants. Incidentally, my forebears came from a population that wasn’t tiny. I’m sure we can pack many more people onto our lovely islands if only we were to adopt sustainable practices that enhance our natural capital, rather than diminish it, as is the situation now. Lets start with organic food production and permaculture design for our cities.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. With global warning and peak oil looming large in the near future children born this millennium are not going to have as good a life as we had. So i think people should be made aware of this so they can plan accordingly.
    There has been a lot of talk about how bad the future will be with global warming but very little as been said about our children having to live it.
    I think to survive the future there should be limits on numbers of children.
    China managed to reduce child poverty with their one child policy so if we want to reduce child poverty why dont we follow a method that has already been tried and has shown to be effective.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Paranoid peter, just move to China if you think it is so wonderful. Next you’ll be saying “why don’t we try communism, it is a method that has already been tried and has shown to be effective”.

    A one child policy, on top of being one of the most terrible destructions of human rights imaginable, with the government dictating even how many children you can have, is a terrible idea:
    - You end up with an aging population, with not enough young people to support the old.
    - You can end up with one man being expected to provide for not only his wife and child (unless she works of course), but also his parents and her parents (no other siblings to help) and his four grandparents and her four grandparents – in the worst case there can be 15 people reliant on the income from one, whether this comes from tax paid by him or directly from him supporting them. This is ridiculous. The massive stress this places on children being expected to achieve well at university and support their families results in depression and high suicide rates, resulting in even less children to support the aging population.
    - As men generally earn more than women (lets not get into the issue of whether that is just or not, it is a fact of life at present), sons are more desirable. This can result in female children being either aborted or killed after birth. Not only is this a terrible injustice, it also results in too many men and not enough women to go around.

    If you want to have only one child, go for it. Or have no children. Don’t force everyone else to follow your thinking though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Mr Dennis – “Don’t force everyone else to follow your thinking though”
    He didn’t, he was just expressing his opinion. You have a ‘thing’ about others ‘forcing’ their views on you.
    btw – with your liberal views on numbers of children per family, how did you feel about Tariana Turia’s call to young Maori women (young!) to keep having children at pace, to raise the percentage of Maori in our society? I’d like to hear your view.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. Expressing that view isn’t forcing anyone. But actually putting that into law would be.

    Young Maori women can have as many children as they want – so long as they realise they and the father have to pay for and care for them. If the government is paying them to have more kids (such as if they get more benefits if they have more kids) and the father doesn’t have to take responsibility for his offspring, then that needs to be changed. So long as they are providing for their children themselves rather than the rest of us paying for them through our tax, they can have as many as they like.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Mr Dennis is coming out as the voice of reason, and libertarian at that. The Family Party might accually have some legitimacy as a party past the word of the new testament; now that is scary!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. Mr Dennis – “Maori women can have as many children as they want …SO LONG AS !! You put a proviso on their free choice??? Is that reasoned, liberal thought? Very generous of you to give them freedom to do as they chose (so long as they comply with your yiew of the world) :-)
    Sapient ??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. Greenfly,
    I think what Dennis means it that one is free to do what they want with their life so long as those actions dont violate the rights of others as agreed apon through the social contract and so long as they take responsibility for the repercusions of their actions.
    Or atleast thats how I interpret it.
    The question is, is it ethicly justifyable to allow a child to suffer for the actions and choices of the parent? If not, then how does one ensure that the child is given a equal shot at life without babysitting the parent? What is the child raising equivlent of baptism? lol.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. Sapient – I think you interpret Mr Dennis’ comment too generously.
    Where you ask,
    “is it ethicly justifyable to allow a child to suffer for the actions and choices of the parent”
    I have to ask, who does the ‘allowing’? I’m guessing it’s not the parent.
    Mr Dennis – is there nothing you would ‘put into law’ thereby forcing your views on others? If you don’t seek to change any laws, why are you standing?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. Nothing wrong with saying they can have however many children they like so long as I don’t have to pay for it.

    We certainly want to change laws. Everyone wants to change something, otherwise they wouldn’t be standing. But in general we want to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their own actions. If someone doesn’t want to take responsibility for their own actions, but we force them to, then so be it. Taking responsibility for your own actions is something that in general both libertarians and conservatives agree on – only socialists disagree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. Greenfly,
    Well he is standing for a party steeped in christian values, which lets face it, have not always been the most libertarian; so I may be being alittle generous.
    By allowing I am refering to the state, through not interveining to support the child or put the child into a more suitable environment, essentially condoning any suffering incured by the child due to the actions of the parent.
    “We are all guilty for all that which we fail to do”, eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. Sapient – no, we certainly aren’t libertarian on some issues. But in practice there is a lot of common ground between classical liberalism and conservatism, those issues the two would disagree on are probably more the exception than the rule. There is a large gulf between conservatism and liberal socialism however, so we would tend to disagree with the Greens, although our common concern for humanity and the environment does mean we end up agreeing on some points.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. Mr Dennis – you magnanimously grant Maori the right to have as many children as they like, so long as we (the tax payer) don’t have to pay for them. You’d scrap the Domestic Purposes Benefit then, should your party seize the reins of power?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. Then this’
    “Young Maori women can have as many children as they want – so long as they realise they and the father have to pay for and care for them. If the government is paying them to have more kids (such as if they get more benefits if they have more kids) and the father doesn’t have to take responsibility for his offspring, then that needs to be changed” – Mr Dennis
    doesn’t mean what is seems to mean?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. So what ways, other than the DPB and other child allowences, can the government ensure that all children have equality of opportunity and ensure that the child is not emotionaly stunted while at the same time not incentivising child bearing and ensururing people take responsibility for their actions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Greenfly

    “You’d scrap the Domestic Purposes Benefit then, should your party seize the reins of power?”

    If they did they would easily pass the 5% threshold, hell, I would hold my nose and vote for them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. BB – why the nose holding? A party that ditched the DPB would surely have a cluster of other cut-throat policies that you would support.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. greenfly

    I just cannot be doing with god botherers, although unlike the Greens I do not believe in persecuting religious groups who have the temerity to publish a factual document highlighting the worst excess of the watermelon faction of the same Green party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. The Jews were persecuted. Methinks you need a different word to persecute to describe the terrible deeds done unto thee bretheren BB.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. The Jews were industrious and successful through their own effort despite all the tides being against them; They had it coming.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. Greenfly, you really are trying to twist my words! Oh well, here goes:

    Everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. Everyone should provide for their own children – fathers especially, mothers need time off work when children are young and the father must be providing. If the father won’t stick around, he must pay child support. Everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. What “has to change” is primarily that fathers must be expected to have greater responsibility.

    However, in some circumstances, this will fall through. The father may be completely uncontactable, dead, unknown, in prison… In this case the children should not have to be hard done by, and the State may provide a safety net, such as the DPB, out of compassion. This safety net is very important for some children. But such state support must be the exception rather than the rule.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. not twist, Mr Dennis, test. I’ve quoted your words back to you and asked for clarification.
    Here are some more of your words I question the depth of,
    “Taking responsibility for your own actions is something that in general both libertarians and conservatives agree on – only socialists disagree.”
    By ‘socialists’, you are refering to..? If it is the Greens (you are commenting on a Green site after all) do you stand by your comment, implying that ‘Greens don’t agree that people should, “take responsibility for their actions”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. Mr Dennis
    I think the one child policy has only been in effect for somewhere between 25 and 39 years so the jury is still out on how it will affect this generation as they get older. It might be as you say.
    There are advantages to the one child policy that are starting to show up now. Less crime and very few drug problems, teenage pregencies out of marriage just don’t happen. There are less problems in school, very little vandalism and at present no teenage drunk driving. If you have only one child then you are going to look after him or her and try to see that they get ahead in life.
    Also i think one of the reasons China took off economically is because the parents have more money to spend on other things with only one child.
    You are right about male babies, a lot of girl babies are discarded but i don’t think it is as bad as before. It is worse in India and they don’t have a one child policy.
    Another thing who determins the “most terrible destructions of human rights” Is it a human right to overpopulate the planet and drive other species to extinction. Until we cause the extinction of a key species that could ultimately cause a sudden reduction in the numbers of people on the planet. It could be something like the honey bee, if the bee goes under we follow very soon.
    I saw a beautiful Tshirt today I would have brought if I wasn’t on the bus
    “Make Love Not Babies”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. In our globalised world anyone who finds themselves living in a lovely spot enjoying fishing, walking, cheap property and the birds and the bees will find that to protect their environment they will have to become NIMBY’s.
    The US provides a good case study where NIMBY’s are wanting a wall built to keep all the poor Mexicans out. This demonstrates the difficulties of population policy and making immigration control popular with political parties. Migrants (Mexicans) are people just like us and so it is hard to justify ring fencing our lovely area. The villain , however is overpopulation. Political parties have a different perspective as a growing number of migrants means more members (= more power). Businessmen also have a different perspective as they are relatively mobile and will benefit directly from migrants. They will also remain at the top of the heap whether that heap is degraded or not (and as we know people would rather earn less as long as it is more than their peers etc).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Greenfly, I wouldn’t say that every socialist would disagree with that, but I have yet to find a libertarian or conservative that would. The vast majority of people that would disagree with that statement in my experience would also be socialist.

    Paranoid Peter, the slogan “Make Love Not Babies” completely ignores what “Making Love” is for – it makes babies. The only way you can “Make Love” (assuming you are taking that phrase to mean sex as it does these days, earlier last century it just meant kissing) without making babies is with
    - artificial contraceptive substances (pills etc) which a hard-line greenie who didn’t like artificial drugs would be dead against, as not only can they have unnatural effects on the woman’s body, when they go to sea through the sewage system they seem to cause feminisation of fish and other environmental problems.
    - artificial physical contraceptive devices (condoms etc), which cause litter.
    - timing based contraception, which works well but is only practical in a long-term relationship and takes a lot of discipline to stick with.

    Which is why until the advent of modern technology, and still through most of the world that can’t access this, those societies that the “getting back to nature” crowd seem to want to emulate, families were large. How do you propose Making Love Not Babies in an eco-friendly way? The natural thing is for making love to produce babies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. jh – The growth model will be the downfall of our civilization.
    At present there is no incentive for population control, so we carry on with business as usual until something breaks.
    Even here the politicians need more people just to keep the country afloat.
    Anyway we also have a problem with NIMBY when it comes to windfarms and powerstations.
    Mr Dennis – There is very little that is natural about global warming, they say it is caused by manmade activities therfore we’re responsible for it so we might have to use unnatural way to combat it. Like introducing controls on population.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>