Create a social benefit loan system

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Why is this idea important?

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Restrict family size unless parents can provide

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

Why is this idea important?

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

Apply the precautionary principle to leave to remove cases

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Why is this idea important?

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.