Joseph Harker: Too Dim For Birth Control, Just Bright Enough For ‘The Guardian’…

He’s wibbling on about large families:

What is the correct number of children each of us should have? It’s a question to which we urgently need an answer – made all the more necessary by the latest reported figures, which show that Britain now has more families with four or more children than at any time since the 1970s. According to the European statistics agency, Eurostat, there’s a growing trend for large families – even though the average family size is getting smaller.

Should this be celebrated, or condemned? We need some guidance, surely. If not, how are today’s young people of childbearing age ever going to work out what to do?

Yes, these days, we’ve bred a generation unable to decide anything crucial for themselves until they’ve checked out guidance on it, eh, Jonathan?

The idea that they could make that decision themselves, taking into account current financial situation and likely future prospects, must fill one with utter trepidation…

Politically, though, it seems that larger families in particular are in the firing line. All the parties, but the Tories most enthusiastically, have pledged to clamp down on these feckless parents, and these political messages are fed by the scare stories in the press of “benefit scroungers” having endless babies and living luxury lifestyles – paid for by hardworking taxpayers.

True, true. And not before time. What’s your point?

Of course, there is a group of large families whom the media love, whose size is a sign of their drive and ambition. They are the super-rich.“City superwoman” Helena Morrissey is one: she has nine children, earns squillions by day, yet gets home by 6pm every night to do the ironing. Nicola Horlick is another: she raised six children while working in the City. There you are, women, you CAN have it all. Stop your moaning about equal-rights this, maternity that, childcare the other. If you can’t fly as high as they do, there must be something wrong with you! (Of course, the army of nannies, cleaners, cooks, gardeners, etc, who support them is not reported quite so often, but there you go.)

So, these families are a net gain, rather than a net loss, to the taxpayer? Maybe that’s why we are happy to have them breed as much as they wish.

But what’s your angle, Jonathan?

I have a larger than average family (due mainly to a series of accidents – they never taught me sex education at school) .

I…

I just…

*speechless*

10 comments for “Joseph Harker: Too Dim For Birth Control, Just Bright Enough For ‘The Guardian’…

  1. john in cheshire
    August 24, 2015 at 11:28 am

    If there is a problem; and I happen to think there is; it’s the muslims having large families and outbreeding the indigenous peoples. But I suppose one is not supposed to hold such beliefs and if what’s happening in Quebec is anything to go by, it will soon be illegal to even think about voicing disquiet about anything muslims say or do.

  2. David
    August 24, 2015 at 11:44 am

    “I have a larger than average family (due mainly to a series of accidents – they never taught me sex education at school) .”
    After the first one couldn’t he have done some research or asked his GP on how to stop more from coming?
    How is it possible that someone who can write cannot read?

  3. Johnnydub
    August 24, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Way to go Joseph – tell your kids that they weren’t planned and were simply an imposition.

    What a moron.

  4. Greg Tingey
    August 24, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    John in Cheshire
    You seem to have forgotten the Roman Catholics (again)

    As usual, the answer to this is EDUCATION.
    Properly educate women & give them control of their own bodies & you get fewer children – irrespective of what the religious leaders say, but assuming said religious bastards are not in control of the laws governing access to birth control.
    P.S. If they are religious leaders, they’re bastards – irrespective of religion ( With one possible exception, the current Dalai Lama )

    • August 25, 2015 at 5:44 pm

      Tingled with Bigotted bollox.

      • Greg Tingey
        August 27, 2015 at 8:56 am

        Oh, really?
        I note you don’t actually have a REPLY.

        HINT: Your nom-de-plume of a lunatic character from Wagner’s “Parsifal” is a bit of a give-away

  5. Stonyground
    August 25, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    “So, these families are a net gain, rather than a net loss, to the taxpayer? Maybe that’s why we are happy to have them breed as much as they wish.”

    I think that you will find that in lefty world those who have well paid jobs have them at the expense of poor people so that having a well paid job is much worse than living at the expense of taxpayers.

    • Greg Tingey
      August 29, 2015 at 11:45 pm

      Can I apply for “Cat benefit” Please?
      I’ve got this UNSPEAKABLY CUTE Birman Tom kitten to maintain?

  6. Errol
    August 25, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    The solution is very simple: scrap child benefit. Don’t reduce it, don’t drop it to a limit, just scrap it.

    There is no ‘cat benefit’. No ‘Fliping heck, why did you get a Newfoundaland!” allowance. There should be no child benefit. Then once we have stopped supporting wasters and encouraging the useless to breed, we can start to look at getting rid of housing benefit for those who are capable of working – the sort of chain smoking, drinking, tattooed waster.

  7. August 27, 2015 at 6:12 am

    Let me see – Section 32, paragraph 18, subsection XII, notes to potential commenters on blogs: thou shalt not unless thy politics is accompanied by 734 stroke 9BA. Oh dear.

Comments are closed.