MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

looby75

DX2 wrote: »

Then you would have father's for justice jumping off buildings because you took your ex husbands kids away from him.
What to do, to do!

well at that point I was in shock so didn't give a second thought to that....<bitter> strangely enough neither did he when he was bonking his 18 year old psycho tart.</bitter>

(sorry it's been a rough few weeks which I won't bore you all with now)

DX2

looby75 wrote: »

well at that point I was in shock so didn't give a second thought to that....<bitter> strangely enough neither did he when he was bonking his 18 year old psycho tart.</bitter>

(sorry it's been a rough few weeks which I won't bore you all with now)

It must be that time of the year had a few myself.

moggylover

FBaby wrote: »

Are you sure your view of nursery is not a been tinted?? My daughter was first looked after by her aunt who is wonderful person and looked after her well, but it wasn't working, she was a demanding baby and her aunt struggled to keep up with her. I had no choice but to look for a nursery place and that was the revelation. My daugther was so much happier, not because she wasn't well cared for before, but because she loved the buzz and excitment of nursery, loved being with others and loved being stimulated. She was only 12 months when she started and she loved it. My son went too and enjoyed his time. The nursery was a lovely place, much more like a big family. Until 18 months old, it was one nursery nurse for 3 babies, most being part time, so a lot of time, one for 2 babies or one for one baby only, not much different than for many babies being looked after by mummy. They kept their own routine, feeding and sleeping as they were used to, not having to adjust to nursery times.

My kids are now 8 and 11 and still go back to the nursery to say hello, and we have kept in touch with 3 staff members who still come over to see the kids.

As for time with mum and dad, it is a lot more about quality than quantity. Some working parents are too exhausted to be good parents after work, but many are so happy to see their children at the end of the day that they make feeding, bath, reading time a very special moment, rather than chores as some parents who had their child all day long sometimes consider them.

The point is NOT about how good the nursery is. The point is the one my mother made when I wanted children: "they are like dogs, not just for Christmas or playing with when you have time. They are not dolls, and they are inconvenient and exhausting and demanding and exasperating and (given sufficient effort and time) loving, exuberant, rewarding and the most satisfying experience you will ever have."

YOU want them, YOU have them, YOU spend the time raising them and teaching them the emotional, familiale and societal ties that they need to be well rounded people, and whilst you are doing this you will learn life skills that no job, career or course can ever teach you and that employers SHOULD be fighting to aquire.

Personally, I think people that only want them for when they have time from their busy, busy lives for them are the ones that should not have them. Really old fashioned of me, but a parent is most definitely NOT someone who spends a comfy hour or so playing mummies and daddies with their little doll and then lets someone else do most of the rest of the job, nor are they the people who keep their small children up far later than a young child should be so that they can "play" with them during the evening when the child should be sleeping and then dump their fretty and unhappy toddler on the childminder in the morning.

Having said that, I do agree that we need to help the minority of women/girls who actually do only have children for the benefits money they might get, or the Council house they want, to see that there are other options (although in fairness, for many of them they probably will not be easy to find) that will be much pleasanter for them in the long run and that the benefits route is not the one to take. IMO, that will only be done when we stop the education system from totally failing to catch the attention and enthusiasm of youngsters and provide enough variety of work (to say nothing of enough work in itself) that even those who really are never going to be any good at academics no matter how hard they try can find vocational opportunities and decently paid work that they enjoy.

You always catch more flies with sugar than you do with a big stick;)

moggylover

DX2 wrote: »

So you would have seperate budgets then?
Child related benefits help with things like gas, electric, food, clothes for the children. You can't seperate it no matter how hard you try.

And going by the total rip-off that contracting school meals out to profit focussed private enterprise became and the complete filth they were willing to feed to kids so that they could afford a nice shiny BMW, I would have to wonder just how much those private companies would manage to cream off from the system for themselves and how much more the system would start to cost once they got their fiddles and skims going well.

I am SO sick of hearing how private enterprise "does it cheaper" because usually they are only going to be able to do this by depressing wages further, cutting the quality of the product, or skimping! The profit for the guy running the business has to come from somewhere cos he ain't gonna do it for free:rotfl::rotfl:

moggylover

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And your last point is what puzzles me. You have good reason for not working but you're fighting for those who don't. It doesn't make sense.

Depending where you are standing, there is probably "pretty good reason" for a lot of those people.

Around here I know quite a few single parents and despite the concensus of feeling on these threads, the vast majority are there following divorce/separation/widowhood.

Even if you are a young girl who is going the single parenthood route by choice because you know of nothing better out there for you, I do not actually see this as her fault, or that of her parents but of a Society that allows our system to so badly fail not only at educating well according to the individuals abilities/talents, but at engaging our youth or providing the variety of jobs that would mean that there really was something for all abilities.

Instead, we have a comprehensive education system that is STILL heavily weighted in favour of the academic child in most cases, and where the non-academic child feels every bit as "scrap-heaped" if not more so as they claim children felt when "relegated" to the local Secondary Modern.

We have children taking degrees in "childcare", "media studies", etc, which were perfectly well taken care of by the vocational courses at the local college that many a company was willing to pay for in my day and employers that want the prospective employee to come fully trained as a slot in cog and preferably gift wrapped with a bow as well. Oh, and most of the time they want to pay them pretty badly (even with a degree) in relation to the actual cost of living in this Country today.

And that in a Country where the actual wealth has increased greatly in the last 15 years or so and where top salaries have moved so far ahead of the bottom wage that it is little wonder that many just give up and say "fooook 'em":(

Added to that, fiddling, skiving, ducking and diving, gambling............this is all acceptable at the top where they already have so much (and please don't give me that guff about them having worked hard for it because many of them have never done a days work in their lives let alone hard work) and yet when copied by the "lower orders" it is seen in an entirely different light.

The problem is not new. The blocks of flats opposite where I lived in Slough had plenty of unmarried mums when I was a young teenager in the early 70's and, and they were not working and claimed benefits then (although there are many on here that say they were not available) granted only at the basic unemployed level, but still benefits and thus the extra money nowadays hasn't actually created the problem, but it has relieved the poverty level for children such as my own when I was on benefits, or those of DX2 and SingleSue and allowed us to raise kids who are doing well in school, have prospects and aims for their future careers and will go on to pay back into the system when the time comes.

What ALL of these threads have in common is wanting to beat the innocent majority up for the failings of the guilty minority. The Gingerbread figures quoted earlier confirm that the majority of single parents are not the Daily Mail stereotype: we won't solve any of the problems if we pretend they are.

moggylover

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But the same point is often made when the child leaves home, particularly to go to university.

Can't possibly be true! That would mean........................a child of benefit scroungers going to Uni:eek::eek::eek::eek:

looby75

moggylover wrote: »

Can't possibly be true! That would mean........................a child of benefit scroungers going to Uni:eek::eek::eek::eek:

:T:rotfl:

didn't you know that going to uni is the easy option these days. Just like getting good GCSE results and good A-Level results, and getting a place on the course at the uni you want and like.....bloody hell our kids have it so easy these days don't they

SingleSue

Quite.....that would also explain why my eldest son is up until all hours studying hard to make sure he does get the grades at A level (and did the same for his GCSE's), so he can go to the uni of his choice.

Mind you, that same hard work changed him from a predicted F/G student (in GCSE) to one who got 9 A-C GCSE's including English and Maths.

Oh, they have it so easy.....

FBaby

moggylover wrote: »

The point is NOT about how good the nursery is. The point is the one my mother made when I wanted children: "they are like dogs, not just for Christmas or playing with when you have time. They are not dolls, and they are inconvenient and exhausting and demanding and exasperating and (given sufficient effort and time) loving, exuberant, rewarding and the most satisfying experience you will ever have."

YOU want them, YOU have them, YOU spend the time raising them and teaching them the emotional, familiale and societal ties that they need to be well rounded people, and whilst you are doing this you will learn life skills that no job, career or course can ever teach you and that employers SHOULD be fighting to aquire.

Personally, I think people that only want them for when they have time from their busy, busy lives for them are the ones that should not have them. Really old fashioned of me, but a parent is most definitely NOT someone who spends a comfy hour or so playing mummies and daddies with their little doll and then lets someone else do most of the rest of the job, nor are they the people who keep their small children up far later than a young child should be so that they can "play" with them during the evening when the child should be sleeping and then dump their fretty and unhappy toddler on the childminder in the morning.

Having said that, I do agree that we need to help the minority of women/girls who actually do only have children for the benefits money they might get, or the Council house they want, to see that there are other options (although in fairness, for many of them they probably will not be easy to find) that will be much pleasanter for them in the long run and that the benefits route is not the one to take. IMO, that will only be done when we stop the education system from totally failing to catch the attention and enthusiasm of youngsters and provide enough variety of work (to say nothing of enough work in itself) that even those who really are never going to be any good at academics no matter how hard they try can find vocational opportunities and decently paid work that they enjoy.

You always catch more flies with sugar than you do with a big stick;)

have you ever heard of quality over quantity? You are making asssumption that mothers who stay at home are better mothers because they have more time with their kids, but more time doesn't systematically mean better time. I have seen so many SAM overwhelmed with the feeling of having no time for themselves, all they do all day is shout and scream at their kids. The image of the goddess SAM, organised, spending all her time playing with her kids, baking lovely home made meals etc...is one that is just not the reality.
Being a good parent has nothing to do with staying at home or not, it's to do with devotion and commitment. I worked very hard, but my kids will always come first, always, an that includes making sure that I can support them financially. In the end, the only reason single parents are able to be SAH mums in only because the government is supporting them. Take away benefits and that would not be an option any longer. In the end, as a working mum, I can financially support my children AND be a good mum because I will make sure that I am (and my kids are a credit to that), whereas a SAH single mum will be able to be a great parent too, but will never be able to support her children financially on her own if she remains a SAH mum.

Indie_Kid

looby75 wrote: »

:T:rotfl:

didn't you know that going to uni is the easy option these days. Just like getting good GCSE results and good A-Level results, and getting a place on the course at the uni you want and like.....bloody hell our kids have it so easy these days don't they

Well, for some, it is an excuse to get drunk for the next 3 years and get paid for it!:p