MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

Oldernotwiser

moggylover wrote: »

I do beg to differ. The pill was free at our local Family Planning Clinic from the late 60's on, and my mother was on it:) You could also get the coil, the cap and condoms free from them.

There was as little excuse for them being pregnant then as there is today I'm afraid but it still happened. Perhaps some of them would not have got a great deal of sex education (although I got mine in the last year of junior school and it did include contraception to some degree) but I don't think they could have claimed "ignorance of how it happened" past the first time.

We will have to disagree. I went on the pill in 1970, through the FPA and I certainly had to pay (totally free contraception for all didn't come in until 1975, I think). Services were still geared quite heavily to engaged women and that was certainly the story I felt I had to tell.

Nowadays, condoms are handed out to anyone who wants them at FE colleges, with no questions asked, including to under age students. There's just no comparison.

Oldernotwiser

moggylover wrote: »

I'm torn on this one merely because there are an element who have abused it. In France, they actively encourage being a SAHP by paying benefits to those men/women even within a relationship who choose to take a break from work to be a SAHP so that they can afford to do so, and I do believe that it should be something that society as a whole encourages and recognises the value of.

But we do that in the UK with CB and CTC.

I also don't think that France hands out the same benefits to young women who choose to have children unsupported, which is an important difference.

sunnyone

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

We will have to disagree. I went on the pill in 1970, through the FPA and I certainly had to pay (totally free contraception for all didn't come in until 1975, I think). Services were still geared quite heavily to engaged women and that was certainly the story I felt I had to tell.

Nowadays, condoms are handed out to anyone who wants them at FE colleges, with no questions asked, including to under age students. There's just no comparison.

You were a bairn in 1970 unless Im totally wrong about your posts history.

Indie_Kid

flight747 wrote: »

Got question to ask the MP here:

Lone parent (single mum or father with a child/childrens) under 5 are being force into work (instead had to claiming on JSA or ESA when IS had stopped on a lone parent ground) but what about those single person who live alone without any child still claiming on IS without any age restrict - why they aren't force into work then ? That's sound a loser for lone parent with a child/childrens but a winner for a single person without a child who live alone.

Doesn't make any sense at all MP's !

Your post makes no sense. The other groups of people on IS are on IS, because they don't have to sign on or be available for work.

Oldernotwiser

flight747 wrote: »

Got question to ask the MP here:

Lone parent (single mum or father with a child/childrens) under 5 are being force into work (instead had to claiming on JSA or ESA when IS had stopped on a lone parent ground) but what about those single person who live alone without any child still claiming on IS without any age restrict - why they aren't force into work then ? That's sound a loser for lone parent with a child/childrens but a winner for a single person without a child who live alone.

Doesn't make any sense at all MP's !

You seem to be misinformed.

Nobody with a child under 5 is being forced into work - those with children over 5 are being moved from IS to JSA.

No single person can claim IS unless they have a young child or a disability.

Oldernotwiser

sunnyone wrote: »

You were a bairn in 1970 unless Im totally wrong about your posts history.

Definitely wrong, I'm afraid - I did A levels in 1969!

SingleSue

sunnyone wrote: »

You were a bairn in 1970 unless Im totally wrong about your posts history.

I know I was....I was born in 1970!

Re the question of youngsters getting pregnant - in my 5th year at High School (1986), there were several of the girls pregnant. We knew how babies occured, we knew about contraception (we couldn't avoid it as it was in the days of Grange Hill and adverts about STD's in school) but we were young and learning about our bodies and had the old idea of 'never happening to me'.

Most though, chose to terminate the pregnancies. Two of those who continued with their pregnancies, went on to have several more....but they both worked throughout their pregnancies, have continued to work after their pregnancies and married the father of their children virtually straight away. Unfortunately, one is now a widow but the other partnership is still going strong.

triplet-mummy

i have been a non working single parent for a year now,i would love to go back to work but with 3yr old triplets my childcare bill per DAY would be almost £100 :O i know i would get alot of help with it but i just cant see how i would be better off working. i plan to be back to work this time next year when the kids start school we arent all spongers,some of us want to work and pay our way

FBaby

moggylover wrote: »

I'm not even slightly defensive about my role. I'm very confident of both my abilities in work and my abilities as a real, hands-on child rearer. Perhaps you did not mean to denigrate those of us that choose to rear our children ourselves in your last post, but the comments about SAHM's not being able to financially support their children certainly suggested that, and that you consider most of us would only do so because we weren't capable of well paid careers.

I made sure before having my children (by owning my home almost outright and having no debts, and everything in place) that I could afford them at the time that I had them without going to work. Had I not been able to do so I would not have had them. That meant that when the worst happened and my partner and I split I could manage very well on the benefits available to me (and that I had well earned the right to claim imo) to raise my children without them suffering in any way at all.

You did misinterpreted my comments. I think the choices you have made to delay having children until you were well educated and able to afford your with partner to SAH to bring up your children were very good ones. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. However, I believe that the moment you rely on another source to financially support your family, you lose that choice. It shouldn't be for the parent to decide whether they have a right to stay at home just because THEY believe it is better for their children. There is a difference between a choice that -might- be better for children (-might- because research is certainly not supporting one or the other) and be imposed something that will make children suffer. No, growing up with a single working mother does not in itself make the children suffer. My father was brought up by a working single mum and didn't suffer. I did too and again, didn't suffer. In my case, i would even say that it had benefited me, but of course, not having the experience the other side, it can only be a supposition.

I don't know how many single parents on benefits trully genuinely believe that bringing up their children on minimal financial support is better than if they went to work (as you seem to do) and how many are convincing themselves of it because they prefer this lifestyle, but I feel that relying on benefits to support your choice is just not equitable in light of all the working parents who don't have that choice.

FBaby

moggylover wrote: »

In France, they actively encourage being a SAHP by paying benefits to those men/women even within a relationship who choose to take a break from work to be a SAHP so that they can afford to do so, and I do believe that it should be something that society as a whole encourages and recognises the value of.

In France, you can only expect this after your second child, and only for a year I believe (might be two). Children start school at 2/3 year old and the proportion of working mums is MUCH higher than in the UK. They do not subsidise single mothers to stay at home. Also the proportion of teenage single mothers is much less in France than it is in the UK.

PS: I am originally from France....