1/4 of mothers are single parents after being enticed by benefits 'lifestyle choice'

Kohoutek

carolt wrote: »

I don't really agree it's down to socialist dogma or Harriet Harman; I think it's more to do with base political reasons - bribing potential voters.

Thats even worse!

I single out Harman because I know how politically correct she is about 'families'.

"Families come in all shapes and sizes. We don’t favour one way of family life over another....

"We don’t dictate one family model as the right sort of family..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6753895/Harriet-Harman-not-Governments-role-to-support-marriage.html

carolt

sjaypink wrote: »

So basically then, there is no stats in the article relating to the quotes:

'Researchers called for more efforts to encourage young men to take jobs so that more young mothers will choose living with a reliable breadwinner over a life on benefits.'

One in four mothers is now a single parent, having made a 'lifestyle choice' to rely on benefits

hmmm, this is why (some) people detest the DM :cool:

...not saying there aren't issues, there blatantly are, i just hate the DMs journalistic style!

I'd rather debate the facts that are there, than the DM - which has some good dirt on your favourite celebs, and I find mself strangely drawn to it as a result.

The statistic that drew me was the statistically enormous rise in single mothers who have never been in a relationship - from 15% to 57%.

Massive. I agree, the assumption that's it's down to benefits is just that. But the reality is that without the benefits (a) they probably couldn't afford to keep doing it and (b) the rest of us would be a lot richer as a result.

Graham_Devon

Appauling write up, even at daily mail standards.

However, I have to say, I think the sentiment is there. Only the other day on the radio they were talking about single mothers, in response to the political stuff that happened (Tuesday I think).

The man came on, saying his daughter is a great single mother, that everyones out to get them, they are targetted etc etc.

He then let out the only reason she is a single mother is that she wanted to move out when she was 16, so had a baby, and at 17, had a home.

Nicky Campbell picked him up on it, and that was that really.

I do admire single mothers myself, one of the hardest jobs in the world. But that doesn;t mean to say the sentiment in this report is not happening. It most definately is.

vivatifosi

Andy_L wrote: »

Now that means that every single single (iyswim) mother chose to be so because of benefits. Thus there must be no, eg, widows with kids in the country.

Does the DM actually bother with sub-editors anymore?

I've mentioned Flat Earth News by Nick Davies before and its worth another mention for it has a whole chapter on how the Daily Mail produces news. It doesn't just talk about the Mail mind you, it also singles out the Sunday Times and Observer for flak.

The long and the short of what Flat Earth News says about the Mail is that it is very good at selecting stories that reflect its readerships, that may then be manipulated to reflect their readership's point of view more accurately than any other paper. IIRC the Mail, according to Davies, is at the receiving end of more complaints to the Press Complaints Commission than any other paper (the book was published before it received thousands more regarding Stephen Gateley).

In terms of this report its a bit of a nuisance as you can't source verbatim the British Social Attitudes Report from the author's website without buying it (which I'm not willing to do), so I'm with Andy L in having difficulty in making the leap.

sjaypink

carolt wrote: »

I'd rather debate the facts that are there, than the DM - which has some good dirt on your favourite celebs, and I find mself strangely drawn to it as a result.

The statistic that drew me was the statistically enormous rise in single mothers who have never been in a relationship - from 15% to 57%.

Massive. I agree, the assumption that's it's down to benefits is just that. But the reality is that without the benefits (a) they probably couldn't afford to keep doing it and (b) the rest of us would be a lot richer as a result.

I think its one of those dangerous studies though carol which asks those surveyed whether 'they consider themselves' to have ever been in a committed r'ship. We don't know what guidance was given to answer this question (eg, have you ever held a joint bank account, took out a joint mortgage), and how that compares to the background of the alledgedly same questions put to alledgedly similar individuals back in the 80s.

There was an equally shocking stat a few years ago regards number of 16 year olds questioned on whether they had been sexually abused. The guidance notes for the survey listed 'innapproriate sexual behaviour' as, to pick one, bottom pinching by school peers.... OK, thats innappropriate, but even more innappropriate in my view to be used as stats to back up reports of child sex abuse

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

I don't really agree it's down to socialist dogma or Harriet Harman; I think it's more to do with base political reasons - bribing potential voters.

What potential voters Carol? It is an oft quoted and much researched fact that those least likely to vote are those in deprived areas and without jobs:D Since the majority of the young single mothers so detested on these forums are going to fit that description I cannot see how anyone could be considering them "potential voters":D

moggylover

sjaypink wrote: »

I think its one of those dangerous studies though carol which asks those surveyed whether 'they consider themselves' to have ever been in a committed r'ship. We don't know what guidance was given to answer this question (eg, have you ever held a joint bank account, took out a joint mortgage), and how that compares to the background of the alledgedly same questions put to alledgedly similar individuals back in the 80s.

There was an equally shocking stat a few years ago regards number of 16 year olds questioned on whether they had been sexually abused. The guidance notes for the survey listed 'innapproriate sexual behaviour' as, to pick one, bottom pinching by school peers.... OK, thats innappropriate, but even more innappropriate in my view to be used as stats to back up reports of child sex abuse

EXCELLENT post sjay! I think (as someone who collates and reports on statistics as part of their day to day living) I would want a flaming good look at the questionaire before I would believe the "findings" in this report! I would also want to know which post-code areas they used for their information;)

I have certainly worked on a report recently that give a VERY different picture to that (but does appear to suggest figures of around 25% for single parenthood) and that was done in quite diverse areas so "possibly" (and I say that because I think only a complete census give a complete picture) gives a better picture.

For instance, if you went and interviewed 100 people on a sink estate and 25 in suburbia the results would be slewed;)

carolt

moggylover wrote: »

What potential voters Carol? It is an oft quoted and much researched fact that those least likely to vote are those in deprived areas and without jobs:D Since the majority of the young single mothers so detested on these forums are going to fit that description I cannot see how anyone could be considering them "potential voters":D

Darn - I did know that, but hoped no-one else would spot it.

sjaypink

:jHi moggy

moggylover wrote: »

EXCELLENT post sjay!

Errr, thanks. Y'know, as the boards resident chav I fort it was my duty to back up m' fellow ditched b!tches

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

ditched b!tches

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: