The worst excuses for fecklessness...

...from The Guardian. Where else?

"Let's create a welfare state, so that people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own, will have a safety net to fall back on"

Two-child benefit limit pushes families further into poverty – study 
The government’s two-child limit on benefits is having a devastating impact on family life as it pushes millions of children deeper into poverty, according to the first detailed study of the benefit cut

The welfare state may have been a fine idea one day, maybe it still is a fine idea in principle, but the system we have today has lost it's way and is no longer fit for purpose. If articles like this one can be written and read with straight faces, it's time to scrap the welfare state as we know it and redesign a system from the ground up, that only helps those who genuinely need it and have genuinely found themselves in that situation through no fault of their own
And the term 'no fault of their own' would not include children who did not choose to be born, it would exclude parent(s) who bred more children than they could afford

Nearly all families affected by the limit reported cutting back on essentials such as food, medication, heating and clothing as a result of the policy, which makes them miss out on at least £53 a week in benefits support.

'Heating and eating'. The tired old mantra accompanying any Guardian article about benefits. We're talking a c£53 reduction in the total benefit amount these people will be receiving, which will already be quite high as it's covering their first two children
Any normal person would ask why the parent(s) chose to have a third child when they could not afford the two they already had, without claiming handouts. And let's be clear, we're not talking about happily married couples who had three children while in good jobs and then lost their employment because of Brexit. We're talking about career claimants

Many parents reported stress and strained family relationships, as well as shame and guilt at being unable to provide for their children.

I don't think that term means what you think it means. Being able to provide for your children means going out to work and earning the money you need. Getting more benefits from the taxpayers is certainly not you providing for your children. It's the rest of us providing for them because you are too lazy and feckless

Several women said they had considered terminations because of fears over the impact on family finances.

Terminations, really? I wonder how many women considered not opening their legs in the first place? If only there was some kind of pill that women could take to prevent them getting pregnant

Interviews with women experiencing domestic abuse suggested that the two-child limit was regarded as a financial barrier for women and children trying to escape an abusive relationship and created “stark choices between poverty and safety”.

This is clutching at some of the worst straws. There is so much help out there for women with abusive partners. There is agency piled on top of agency who will bend over backwards to assist any woman who reaches out. The trouble with abusive relationships these days is that there is too much help. Women can cry abuse and call the police for an immediate response and intervention and still never choose to leave their partner or home
Having that third child you couldn't afford has no bearing at all on your ability to abandon a wife beater

The government has championed the policy, which will cut the benefits bill by £1bn a year by 2021, as an incentive for people on benefits to work.
However, official figures show most families affected are already in work, while the study found those affected felt strongly that the two-child limit unfairly punished hard-working low income families at a time – the birth of a child – when they most needed support.

There is so much wrong here, it's difficult to know where to start
We are giving benefits to people who are already working. These people are in entry level jobs. Jobs of this kind are supposed to be done by young people starting on the career ladder or one person in a relationship with another in a much better job
Entry level, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be done by people taking on mortgages or raising families
Topping up the minimum wage with money taken from higher earning taxpayers removes the incentive for people in entry level positions to better themselves and work their way up the career ladder. It becomes easier for them to stagnate in their current position and try to live the life they want, without putting in the effort
People on minimum wage jobs should really not be having any children, let alone three or more. There really is no excuse for topping up wages with welfare

One mother told researchers: “The safety net doesn’t exist any more for my family … You feel really distressed that you have turned to the welfare state and that there is nothing available for you and now I must turn to charity. What am I paying taxes for?”

Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Having three children you can't afford and then going cap in hand to the state is not the definition of a safety net. Unless you were in well paid work when you chose to have your kids, you're grossly mis-using that term
And if you're in a minimum wage job (or no job at all) and you're claiming benefits, you don't pay taxes, you're a net drain, so don't ask what you're paying taxes for, because that's my line

Alison Garnham, the chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, which published the report along with the Church of England, called for the two-child limit to be abolished

'The Child Poverty Action Group'. A charity set up to tackle a problem that does not not exist, so has to invent one. Prepare for bollocks. Here it is:

“We wouldn’t turn away a sick child from our hospitals or stop them going to school and yet the two-child limit denies families the support they need from our social security system when they experience tough times, trapping kids in poverty,” she said.

What on Earth has hospitals and school got to do with it? Taxpayers pay for a universal health care and education system (whose faults are a story for another day). Taxpayers do not pay for a universal 'pay for everyone to have as many kids as they want' system
Health care and education are quite important. Breeding idiot spawn you can't afford to pay for is actually at the bottom of most taxpayers list of priorities

The limit will push an additional 300,000 children into poverty by 2024, while 1 million children already below the breadline will be pushed into deeper hardship, the report says. To date an estimated 160,000 families and 600,000 children have been affected, and this could rise to 1.8 million young people over the next five years.

Erm, I don't think that word... I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no poverty in England and to say there is, just dilutes the meaning of the word
These charities without a cause, calculate poverty as household income more than 60% below median average household income. By this definition, every house could see an income increase of £1000 per day and the poverty figures would not change. It's actually very dishonest of these campaigners

Ministers have defended the policy on the basis that it forces parents to take responsibility for their choices and teaches them that “children cost money”.

Indeed. And it's good to actually hear that being said

However, the study says the policy has been barely publicised by government, and only half those affected were aware of it before they became pregnant.

Do your own research? No. Just don't be so feckless. These people obviously expected their benefits to increase when they had a third child, so it stands to reason that the taxpayer was already paying for their first two. If you can't afford to pay for your own children, stop having them
Also, the research said this policy would push 300k children into poverty. Coupled with the above statement, that means at least 150,000 children were born to parents already on benefits, since the policy came in. Those figures sound made up, but if true, we have too many people reliant on welfare

“The overriding picture emerging from both the survey and interview findings is that families affected by the two-child limit are facing severe and ongoing financial difficulty, which cannot be overcome through careful budgeting or just ‘tightening their belts’, but instead leads to real deprivation,” the report says.

You will never sell me the idea that financial difficulties cannot be overcome by various ways and means. If people having a third child are being driven into 'real deprivation' by not getting an additional taxpayer subsidy, then I can only conclude that this is down to years of bad choices and financial mismanagement, along with an over riding view that society is responsible for peoples financial well being, rather than the people themselves
If a family of five or more (assuming a father is present) are thrown into this kind financial trouble because of a loss of fifty odd quid per week, they have made a serious and concerted effort to get themselves into that position, over a great deal of time. Nobody else can possibly be blamed for this other than themselves

The policy disproportionately affects the most deprived areas. In two parliamentary constituencies – Bradford West and Birmingham Hodge Hill – more than 50% of children could potentially be affected, while in a further 37 constituencies the proportion is more than a third.

That's a high percentage. A cynical man might wonder why people in those areas have so many children they are ill equipped to afford. A careful man would not publicly speculate

A government spokesperson said: “This policy helps to ensure fairness by asking parents receiving benefits to face the same financial choices as those in work.

I do hope they don't back down on this

No, that's not what I hope. I hope we get more of the same, a lot faster. It's time to insist people take responsibility for their own failures. The taxpayer has had enough