MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

moggylover

kate2954 wrote: »

Im not convinced that the best place for young children is to be away from their parents( single or in a couple) full time anyway, As a teacher of young children , I have seen the effects of the "creche culture" first hand with children starting lessons at 9 o clock , unable to concentrate as they have been in an over subscribed breakfast club since 7am or crying 3 year olds at 3:30 on a Friday desperate to go home but forced to go to another chaotic childcare provide , being picked up a their bedtime. Surely we should be supporting soceity to ecourage parents to bring up their own children i.e feed them, dress them,clean their teeth, a least part of the time .

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

Excellent post!

moggylover

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Presumably most people on benefits would think twice about having more children if they knew that they wouldn't receive any more money if they did?

I very much doubt it! Wherever you look in the World, or in history, there has been little correlation between income and the production of children and I really don't think there would be much change at all: other than we would plunge more children into poverty and waste their talents and yet another generation would be scrapped before they even start.

moggylover

DX2 wrote: »

Yes children will be placed in care have you any idea as to how much this costs weekly. A lot more than what a single parent gets in benefits at the moment. But hey that's forward thinking for you.

What's more, the care system in the UK is not exactly known for treating children well, or bringing them up to be any better prepared for the big wide World than f e c k less parents would so would only pass the problem on to the next generation:(

moggylover

Sixer wrote: »

This is probably going too far OT!

I think the only realistic way forward is to make work properly pay, not force children onto less than the breadline. The current administration are creating a great deal of hot air on this one, but I personally have grave reservations about the likely success of some/many of their policies. We shall see what happens.

Work can only properly pay with a number of conditions simultaneously attached, and one - only one amongst many, but still a vital one - is the availability of good childcare.

If all these conditions are met, including the provision of affordable, good quality childcare, then all taxpayers will benefit eventually. Even the childless ones.

Exactly! :T:T:T

DX2

and I can't help myself sometimes, I get up there on my high horse and woosh she's off on one again.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The trouble is, now we no longer have "unmarried mothers" and everybody's lumped under the heading of "lone parents", women like you and DX2 end up fighting the corner of others who are in the situation of having children unsupported and irresponsibly.

There's something to be said for questioning whether some people are more deserving of benefits than others.

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The "child related benefits" you talk of, should not be given as cash to the parents, if they don't work at least a 35 hour week if they are single and 70 hours a week jointly for two parents.

For the children whose parent/s don't work or only work part time so they can claim extra benefits like working tax credits: instead of giving the parent benefits like child tax credits, the school kitchens can be opened to feed their children three meals a day, 7 days a week. This will also ensure the children are given a healthy diet. While their children/babies are eating, the parent/s can earn their childrens' food by doing jobs around the school, such as gardening or cleaning. Their child benefit money should not be given to these parents either, but used by the school to make sure this is spent of the children for their clothes and clubs.

See to me this sounds completely like segregation, and moving more and more into a nanny state.

Don't give them money to feed the kids, open the school kitchens feed them their three meals a day 7 days a week. Because of course school meals are healthy :rotfl:You missed the Jamie Oliver experiment then.

Don't give them money to clothe their children the schools can do that.

So who at the school is going to be given this task?

DX2

sh1305 wrote: »

Do single fathers not exist?

:rotfl:Behave yourself SH single fathers get hero status! They ain't scum like single mothers.

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

When someone moves to a new area, how many years should a parent wait before they let their child go to their new friend's house to play or their friend comes to their house?

I would have to make sure they were CRB checked I dunno honestly as we don't do play dates :think:

Oldernotwiser

OK, now we've established that all lone parents are the salt of the earth, have all been deserted by f eckless fathers and should be allowed to continue receiving benefits unquestioningly until their youngest is 25, can we please come back down to earth and rejoin reality?

DX2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

OK, now we've established that all lone parents are the salt of the earth, have all been deserted by f eckless fathers and should be allowed to continue receiving benefits unquestioningly until their youngest is 25, can we please come back down to earth and rejoin reality?

I must have missed that.