stopping health in start and sure start maternint grants

Deepmistrust

bestpud wrote: »

It is quite acceptable to buy second hand nappies - there is threads and forums dedicated to doing just that!

Real nappies differ and it is hard to predict what will suit your baby so people who buy expensive nappy systems often end up selling them on.

The best/cheapest way is to buy a few different types second hand and see what works!

It's not yukky as they can be washed at very high temps and liners catch the worst anyway!

I certainly bought and sold real nappies when my youngest was a baby and they were always well looked after and clean!

I think you are allowing your personal prejudices to cloud your judgement on this thread - not everyone has these hang ups and you'd be surprised how many well dressed people buy mainly second hand items - they are often the wealthy ones in fact!!!

I couldn't care whether she chooses second hand nappies or not. The point is that the government do not price the grant according to her figures, which include amongst other things a rag for a sling, second hand nappies and a £4.50 cot.

If she wants to use those things, and if she is lucky to find a £4.50 cot in working order, fine. But her hilarious argument is that she will claim the £500, spend the bare minimum (like I described), then delight that other parents will in future be denied the grant, and all the time failing to see that not everyone can source, or even wants to source the kind of bric-a-brac and jumble that she has.

I suspect third world countries get better cast offs that she settles for, nonetheless that is her choice, and CHOICE it is.


And I've already addressed your strawman argument about buying second hand - for the hard of reading I'll do it again.

There are lots of quality second hand pieces of equipment out of there, much of it still comes at a price, in fact in some cases not much cheaper than new. So let's (a) still not pretend that all families can source all their new babies needs for under a £100 this way, (b) pretend the government will ever base the grant on the basis of the price of assorted bric-a-brac she prefers. (c) accept that new or second hand, lot of people can spot a false economy of buying proper tat or crap a mile off.

And yeah, I see how the logic of buying several types of real nappies systems second hand to "test" them (jesus they are nappies, not cars) will save money. I also doubt most parents obsess over nappies in this way either. Most make a choice and usually stick with it.

bestpud

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I couldn't care whether she chooses second hand nappies or not. The point is that the government do not price the grant according to her figures, which include amongst other things a rag for a sling, second hand nappies and a £4.50 cot.

If she wants to use those things, and if she is lucky to find a £4.50 cot in working order, fine. But her hilarious argument is that she will claim the £500, spend the bare minimum (like I described), then delight that other parents will in future be denied the grant, and all the time failing to see that not everyone can source, or even wants to source the kind of bric-a-brac and jumble that she has.

I suspect third world countries get better cast offs that she settles for, nonetheless that is her choice, and CHOICE it is.

And I've already addressed your strawman argument about buying second hand - for the hard of reading I'll do it again.

There are lots of quality second hand pieces of equipment out of there, much of it still comes at a price, in fact in some cases not much cheaper than new. So let's (a) still not pretend that all families can source all their new babies needs for under a £100 this way, (b) pretend the government will ever base the grant on the basis of the price of assorted bric-a-brac she prefers. (c) accept that new or second hand, lot of people can spot a false economy of buying proper tat or crap a mile off.

And yeah, I see how the logic of buying several types of real nappies systems second hand to "test" them (jesus they are nappies, not cars)
will save money. I also doubt most parents obsess over nappies in this way either. Most make a choice and usually stick with it.

It seems your beef is more a personal one against another poster than an argument for or against the maternity grant...?

But anyway, for me the relevent point is these items can be bought cheaply if need be and therefore, if people choose to have a child they should either think ahead and get what they want, or live within their means and source second hand/cheaper alternatives.

It is not the governments responsibility to fund personal choice!

xmaslolly76

Why is buying material and making a sling classed as carrying your tot around in a rag? I am going to be buying a length of jersey cotton to create a sling Total cost £20 for the material plus an hrs work to hem it the equivalent almost identical item manufactured and sold in baby shops with a label £60-£80. It doesnt take a genius to work out which is more MSE.

lauren_1

deepmistrust appears not to understand that many of companies that make these slings, nappies, wipes etc etc started out as WAHM's (that means work at home mums) or in other words, women who make tat for babies.

Most are almost always handmade, if i didnt tell no one would know i have been sewing for 23 years ( my mum taught me hand sew at 4, to knit at 6 and machine sew at 8) got a A* in textiles and went on to do a nursing diploma, but here i am nearly 30, unemployed, pregnant and quite honestly, clearly below your standards.

I dont care,at least i can hold my head high and know im not judgemental and have to resort to personal remarks just to get my point across.

the_cat

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I couldn't care whether she chooses second hand nappies or not. The point is that the government do not price the grant according to her figures, which include amongst other things a rag for a sling, second hand nappies and a £4.50 cot.

No, the point is that the government should not be funding anybody's decision to have a child. The parents should factor in these costs and fund it themselves. This is just as relevant if she buys her cot for 50p or £1000

daska

the_cat wrote: »

No, the point is that the government should not be funding anybody's decision to have a child. The parents should factor in these costs and fund it themselves. This is just as relevant if she buys her cot for 50p or £1000

But we also have the Human Rights Act: "Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right."

The benefits aren't supposed to be for the benefit of the parent, they're supposed to be for the benefit of the child. (Though we all know that not all parents observe this principle.)

DaisyFlower

daska wrote: »

But we also have the Human Rights Act: "Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right."

The benefits aren't supposed to be for the benefit of the parent, they're supposed to be for the benefit of the child. (Though we all know that not all parents observe this principle.)

Most married couples probably dont qualify for the grant anyway as one, if not both, are usually working so that logic is flawed. I'm sure the stats would show that most people who claim are not married.

I disagree with the grant, people should be financially prepared to support any children they choose to have and not expect taxpayers to buy the cot and pram etc. If they cant afford the basics they should not be having children.

Deepmistrust

bestpud wrote: »

It seems your beef is more a personal one against another poster than an argument for or against the maternity grant...?

But anyway, for me the relevent point is these items can be bought cheaply if need be and therefore, if people choose to have a child they should either think ahead and get what they want, or live within their means and source second hand/cheaper alternatives.

It is not the governments responsibility to fund personal choice!

You're quite right in the sense that I am not particular for, or against the grant.

Objective reading will discover that I have pointed out from the beginning the obvious irony of her delighting in the grant being slashed for others after her, whilst she openly admits she will claim the grant, whilst barely spending anything on the baby, instead prefering to spend it on: A holiday to Benidorm, a "decent food shop" and a splash out on her other kids.

Now she is clearly entitled to the grant, and if she chooses to use it for other things, when other people choose to spend it on it's intended purpose i.e. newborn baby stuff, that is entirely up to her. In fact she is perfectly entitled to spend it all on fags and booze if she wants. However, for her to delight in the fact that others who DO need it, won't be able to get it in future, smacks of hypocrisy.

If she is so bothered about saving the government money, well she wouldn't claim it would she. There is no law forcing her to. However, the government has deemed her eligible, they cannot possible be expected to police the spending of it, however in appropriate certain people (like her) want to spend it.

the_cat

daska wrote: »

But we also have the Human Rights Act: "Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right."

The benefits aren't supposed to be for the benefit of the parent, they're supposed to be for the benefit of the child. (Though we all know that not all parents observe this principle.)

We had the right to have children before this grant. We will still have the right to have them after. If anyone is seriously unable to have a child without the help of a £500 grant, then they should wait until they can. If they never get to the point where they can have enough behind them to buy the basics, then they can't have wanted children that badly! It does not take vast sacrifice to save an amount like that

This thread has proved that it can be done on much less than £500!

bestpud

Deepmistrust wrote: »

You're quite right in the sense that I am not particular for, or against the grant.

Objective reading will discover that I have pointed out from the beginning the obvious irony of her delighting in the grant being slashed for others after her, whilst she openly admits she will claim the grant, whilst barely spending anything on the baby, instead prefering to spend it on: A holiday to Benidorm, a "decent food shop" and a splash out on her other kids.

Now she is clearly entitled to the grant, and if she chooses to use it for other things, when other people choose to spend it on it's intended purpose i.e. newborn baby stuff, that is entirely up to her. In fact she is perfectly entitled to spend it all on fags and booze if she wants. However, for her to delight in the fact that others who DO need it, won't be able to get it in future, smacks of hypocrisy.

If she is so bothered about saving the government money, well she wouldn't claim it would she. There is no law forcing her to. However, the government has deemed her eligible, they cannot possible be expected to police the spending of it, however in appropriate certain people (like her) want to spend it.

I agree the OP is being a little hypocritical in saying she will take it even though she disagrees with it and doesn't need it either, but is glad others will not have the chance.

I don't agree that some people need it as such. Many will use it well but that is probably because they know it is available to them and so 'rely' on it. When it's not there, people will manage without as they did before it was introduced.

I know I found it helpful when I had my youngest - was £250 rather than £500 but it was enough to kit her out. I'd have managed to get stuff for her without it though, naturally - it just made things much easier.