Government agenda to get us all growing

[Di]

I'm beginning to suspect that there is a definate agenda to get everyone growing food, as the powers-that-be have just noticed the world is overpopulated and we need to be more self-sufficient as a nation.

Course just paying farmers more money for their hard work to get them to grow more would be too simple a solution. Instead there is a steady trickle of gardening shows with 'Grow your own food' as a running theme. Nothing wrong with that, except as discussed in other threads, the quality of the advice is a tad dubious.

Am I being paranoid...

[madasafish]

yes

[peter]

No.

[alan refail]

So what's new?

[Di]

Alan, what do you mean? I'm a good girl and takes my medication almost every day!

[peter]

So what's new?

Aah, Alan, that was a genuine response to a genuine need.

Now it is just posturing for political gain.

[alan refail]

Or maybe there's a real need now too!

[peter]

Or maybe there's a real need now too!

Was not belittling that Alan.

But all we need is to stop "set-aside" and stop politicians jumping on every bandwagon without thinking it through .
e.g. Biofuel, great idea on the surface, but what is net fuel gain after tractor and processing inputs? Also think it through, xx acres for yy gallons of fuel gives zz less bushels of grain for food.

[alan refail]

Ah yes. I can agree with you there Peter. Nobody ever thinks it through. I recall shouting at the TV when the US and UK invaded Iraq, "What the **** are you going to do when you've got rid of Saddam? Don't you remember Vietnam?

[KGAdmin]

Sadly, It'll be a cold day in hell (and too late for us all) before the government turns around and suggests:

"Maybe we should stop having 5 + kids each"

(Classic case in point in the news right now)

An interesting comment article in the Times suggested a tax on excess children.

And here is my idea on that:

1st one you get with child benefits

2nd one you get no benefits at all

3rd+ Population burden tax


KGAdmin

[Di]

I whole-heartedly agree that we need people to limit their family sizes now to a moderate degree, or be faced with the need for draconian Chinese style measures in a decade or two.

The problem is that the kids of irresponsible parents will be potentially raised in poverty - and can we, as a society, grit our teeth and watch that happen? I think it will take tax breaks for small families, education and yes perhaps some gradually introduced and staged reduction in benefits to change peoples attitudes.

It also seems a shame that adoption is made so damn hard. Couldn't those people who crave big families just look after the kids who are here and who need a home.

[Geoff]

Could start with dispelling the myth of the single parent family. It takes two and in the vast majority of cases both are alive when the child reaches 18. To move a little further to the right, how about if you can't name the father and prove ongoing support at 20 weeks (or whatever the abortion limit is) you can't keep it. You either lose it to abortion or sign it away for adoption. If you also close down all fertility treatment perhaps some progress could be made on both population and dependency culture.

[Di]

Problem with that is the balance of power would be in the hands of the father, and all blame/stigma back on the woman. Thinking particularly of a friend whose long term partner left her when she was pregnant with twins - and that was as a result of IVF, so not like it was a shock to the guy.

[Cider Boys]

Obviously people should trust their elected Government to plan our futures to maintain a safe and secure country for us all. Importantly since our Government insists that immigration into our country is a good thing for us all, then surely we should encourage a far larger amount of immigration. Naturally it makes good sense to keep increasing our population in order to prevent future problems that may present themselves.

Let us also not forget the benefits that having loads of children have for many of our population. It makes good sense since the more children that you have the more money you receive so this is a proven good easy way to get something for nothing. The only downside is that the rest of us must pay for it all, still this does not seem to concern our Government so why should it concern me?

Barney

[richard p]

you are assuming that the current lot are capable of planning, i thought they bumbled from bright idea to the next , to appear busy whilst they trousered as much as possible.