Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

sjaypink

blue_monkey wrote: »

Just been sitting in the bath thinking of this thread.

If a couple have children there is a chance that one parent will be at home with the children and the other be the breadwinner. If there is a tax break for couples that are married then it might mean that one parent can stay at home with the children and they can be bought up in the family. In a single parent family this cannot happen and mum will have to go back to work so the kids will inevitably be looked after by someone else.

At the moment this government more or less encourages being a single parent. I could kick my husband out tomorrow and be a whole load better off on benefits, I could invite him to 'stay' a few nights a week and we will have his wage and I'll have a load of benefits, countil tax and housing benefits and free school meals for the kids to top it up with.

Also, this govenment gives you childcare vouchers (up to £300??) so you can go back to work, never see your kids and they can be looked after by someone else. And then when the kids go off the rails they'll send you to parenting classes for free to find out why.

No wonder there is a waiting list for nurseries and childminders.

Our headteacher told us that by the end of this year is is going to be compulsary for all schools to be open for all children to be able to stay at school from 7.30am to 6pm - be it in the form of breakfast and after school clubs.

I really do have no idea why people have children but then go back to work after 6 months and see them for an hour each side of the day or sometimes not at all? Is it any wonder we have a generation of children who feel unloved so who are going out looking for 'love' elsewhere. I used to work with a woman who had 3 children, had a baby and 4 days after the birth asked if she could come back to work as she was 'ready'....

I don't know, it really bothers me that people have kids and then send them off to childminders after a few months and it does not feel that it is what a 'family' is all about. Is this where it is going wrong?

Very interesting post and I'm still not sure where I stand on this one...

I went back to work after 5 weeks with the last one Not FT though...

But it is so hard for women nowadays ..... (sorry to moan guys )

I mean are we supposed to be financially independant? Hippy Earth mother? Sexy ambitious wife? Organised SAHM, hosting coffee mornings & baking brownies?

WhiteThierry

treliac wrote: »

Marriage, as a legal commitment, doesn't solve every problem

no, it just means that when things do go wrong and you break up, you're screwed!

treliac

WhiteThierry wrote: »

no, it just means that when things do go wrong and you break up, you're screwed!

You sound quite bitter. With the right support, people have the capacity for more than you give them credit. At the moment, it's mainly the children that 'are screwed.'

WhiteThierry

treliac wrote: »

You sound quite bitter. With the right support, people have the capacity for more than you give them credit. At the moment, it's mainly the children that 'are screwed.'

its just as a serviceman you're twice as likely to be divorced as a "civilian", hence ive seen so many friends get divorced and screwed over in court, causing animosity between the parents and thus making it even harder for the kids. I remember my parents having a protracted divorce and it was the worst 2 years of my life as a 7 year olds, after that, once it was over me and my sister were looked after my my mother and she did a great job. If they'd not got married then they'd have been able to split up amicably and it would have been a hell of a lot easier for me and my sister.

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is it also so wrong that women should want to have the rewards of a satisfying career?

With respect, Hamish, you don't have or want children and don't have the instincts that are experienced by those of us who do and whose first instinct is to be a parent.

I have balanced a career and bringing up children, because I had to, to keep us afloat as a family, not because I wanted to - once I became a mum. Fortunately, I didn't have to work full time and was fairly lucky in being able to make it work without, I hope, my children suffering too much.

I was the one who suffered when they were young, because I desperately wanted to be a full-time mum to them and I hated having to leave them.

I believe it's a sad fact of life that we cannot have it all, we have to prioritise and make choices and, if we have a family, we have to try and work out what is best for everyone. It would be nice to have 'it all' but it can't be done.

AnxiousMum

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Genuine question.

If I were to take more than one wife, for example as a practising Mormon, would I be eligible for an ISA?

Before you refer to something like that in a religion - maybe you should research your facts a little better. Mormons can only have one wife - the ONLY time where it was okay for them to have more than one was when the law of the land in the United States allowed it. And the law didn't apply to just mormons.....it just happened to be in a state where the majority were Mormons.

sjaypink

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Before you refer to something like that in a religion - maybe you should research your facts a little better. Mormons can only have one wife - the ONLY time where it was okay for them to have more than one was when the law of the land in the United States allowed it. And the law didn't apply to just mormons.....it just happened to be in a state where the majority were Mormons.

Who then presumably made the law? ;)

treliac

WhiteThierry wrote: »

its just as a serviceman you're twice as likely to be divorced as a "civilian", hence ive seen so many friends get divorced and screwed over in court, causing animosity between the parents and thus making it even harder for the kids. I remember my parents having a protracted divorce and it was the worst 2 years of my life as a 7 year olds, after that, once it was over me and my sister were looked after my my mother and she did a great job. If they'd not got married then they'd have been able to split up amicably and it would have been a hell of a lot easier for me and my sister.

I'm sorry to hear that WT and I see where you're coming from. Even if you take out the court aspect, though, you still get all the anguish and emotional turmoil that children experience. I'd like to think that, with the conciliation services available, more care is paid to the needs of children today.

Thrugelmir

sjaypink wrote: »

saying a Conservative government would send out a signal that "if you take responsibility you will be rewarded, if you don't you won't".

^ Agree with this idea behind it, but certainly not the policy itself.... in fact, I think its utter !!!!!!, and has really put me off the tories (again) :rolleyes:

Then you should remember this from 2007....... Shows what a complete and utter mess the labour party is in.

Why are we asking this now?

John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, signalled yesterday that he is preparing new proposals to persuade more lone parents to seek work. He said he wanted to "go further in challenging existing assumptions about who - and at what point - someone should be in work". Britain, he said, currently "asks very little of lone parents in benefit", and pointed to figures showing that the UK has one of the lowest employment rates among lone parents in Europe. He said it "just isn't good enough" that lone parents received so little support move on to unemployment benefits, which require them to seek work when their children reach 16.
How many single parents are there, and how many are on benefits?
Of the 7.3 million families with parents of working age in Britain, 1.9 million are lone parents, in other words, nearly a quarter. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that nearly half of all lone parents are out of work. Only 56.5 per cent of lone parents are in work. Of the £92.8bn spent on benefits last year, some £3.9bn went on income support for lone parents. Income support is the benefit the overwhelming majority of single parents claim.
Ministers point to strong links between unemployment among lone parents and child poverty. Children of lone parents who are out of work are five times more likely to be in poverty than children of lone parents in work. Overall, 48 per cent of children in lone-parent families are below the poverty line, compared with 20 per cent of children in two-parent families. But campaigners insist that 66 per cent of lone parents with children of secondary school age are in work.
Is it the same story elsewhere in Europe?
No. The UK has far more single-parent families than any other EU nation. And of the major European nations, only the Netherlands has a lower employment rate for single parents, while the average across a selection of 14 EU states is about 65 per cent. In Luxembourg, about 95 per cent of lone parents are in work, while in Finland and Denmark the figure is about 80 per cent.
How do benefits work for lone parents?
Single parents have no obligation to seek work until their youngest child reaches 16. Jobless single parents can claim income support. They have to attend one "work-focused" interview with employment advisors a year and could lose benefits if they fail to turn up, but do not have to look for a job. From April, single parents will have to attend at least two interviews a year, rising to four when their youngest child reaches 14. When a single parent's youngest child hits 16, they are moved on to Job Seeker's Allowance, and have to look for a job, but many have been out of the job market so long that up to one third move straight on to incapacity benefit, a figure that has shocked ministers.
Why are so many likely to be on benefits?
Ministers believe many parents have simply not had the help they need to get off benefits and into a job. And campaigners in turn accuse ministers of doing too little to help parents with the huge cost of child care. They say child care is a major factor, with British parents paying about 70 per cent of the full cost of child care compared with parents in Europe, who pay as little as about 30 per cent of the full cost. They also argue that Scandinavian countries, where lone-parent employment rates are higher, help keep single parents in the labour market through far more generous parental leave arrangements than offered in Britain.
The pressure group One Parent Families argues that more than one quarter of lone parents are caring for a disabled child or trying to cope after a break-up. The group argues that lone parents in Britain tend to start off at a disadvantage in the jobs market, with lower levels of education and training than other groups.
Why is reform so controversial?
Ministers have treated the issue of single parents and benefits with extreme caution, being careful to open a debate before policy proposals are due. They remember the fury among Labour MPs when 47 rebelled and 20 abstained in protest at plans to reform benefits for single parents just months after Labour came to power. It is one of the reasons why Mr Hutton insisted yesterday there was "no case' for cutting lone parents' benefits. Today, with a much reduced majority, a similar rebellion would easily be enough to produce a defeat for the Government.
What can the Government do to wean lone parents off benefits?
A full-scale review of the Government's welfare-to-work policies is expected to report in March. The review is likely to look at requiring parents to seek work when their children reach secondary school age. Other possibilities include improving training and help to seek work and increased access to child care.
Campaigners welcome support to help lone parents get a job, but warn against a "stick" approach to force them to do so. They say parents should be free to choose how long they stay at home looking after their children. Commentators such as the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research say increasing conditions attached to benefits would harm children unless flexible and affordable child care is available.
Should they be made to look for a job?
Ministers reject the argument that lone parents should simply be left alone to get on with bringing up their children, regardless of financial circumstances. They say long periods on benefits compel people to live on low incomes and damage their long-term prospects. One senior government source said: "We need to explode the myth that people should just be left alone. The more you engage with people, the more you see the huge difference it can make for them to get a job and increase their income and the atmosphere at home."
Chris Pond, of One Parent Families, said: "Those with children in this age group who are not working often have good reasons for being at home full time, with one quarter caring for a disabled child and many others simply trying to provide stability in the aftermath of a family break-up.
"Lone parents want help in getting over the hurdles they face when they are ready to work, not further impoverishment when they are needed at home."
Additional research by Anne Giacomantonio
Should lone parents face more pressure to find employment?
Yes...
* It would boost the prosperity of those on long-term benefits and cut the nation's social security bill.
* It would cut child poverty for a group where children are five times as likely to be poor as those with a parent in work
* Campaigners say nine out of 10 lone parents want to work
No...
* Lone parents should be free to choose how much of their time to devote to their children without having to leave them to work
* Childcare support is inadequate at present to make returning to work a practical option for many lone parents
* Targeting people with secondary school age children might affect dropout rates

Families are important for the fabric of society.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-how-many-single-parents-are-there-and-should-they-be-forced-to-work-434358.html

sjaypink

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you should remember this from 2007....... Shows what a complete and utter mess the labour party is in.



Families are important for the fabric of society.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-how-many-single-parents-are-there-and-should-they-be-forced-to-work-434358.html

Again, we seem to be confusing 'happy, stable families' with 'marriage'