MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

moggylover

DaisyFlower wrote: »

There may be a few that will truly struggle for childcare, ie the child is disabled, but for the majority childcare is available. There are not many areas that dont have a nursery/childminder/after school club available.

I dont get why jobs have to fall within school hours, most people would love their ideal job and just a few hours a day. Luckily most are realistic and work outside 10-2 to feed their families rather than sit back and wait years for their ideal job at the expense of others.

I think some people actually need to look at the nursery/childminder/after school club provision a little more honestly. There is little "equity" of provision of that across the Country.

Certainly in my own area there is woefully little provision of any of those, and there are many on MSE who will and have confirmed the same. Of course, for those in the very spoiled SE of England (where I originally hail from) there is a plethora of not only child care, but work: however, for the majority moving there would be too expensive to make economic sense for them and if too large a migration were to occur it would only further put up housing costs and reduce wages there.

Indeed, the travel costs these days are becoming so extreme that I wonder how long it will be sustainable for many to even get to work, and how long it would take for people to actually say "no more" if going to work still left them hungry or without a home.

We certainly need to rethink a great deal of the "economy" so that it actually makes sense for human beings and not just for the great money machine.

moggylover

FBaby wrote: »

but this is no different to an employer than if they'd recruited someone who had health issues. Many employers ARE understanding as long as you show willingness to work hard. When my kids caught chickenpox, one after the other, I also had to take a lot of time of work. I took whatever work I could do from home, and the following weeks, I worked later hours as much as possible within childcare to make sure I finished what I couldn't do during the time off. I believe I went and work the following saturday. My boss appreciated that I was making all these efforts and took my job seriously and in return, he has always been very understanding of my position. Employers want people who work hard and show their commitment. Being a single parent has nothing to do with it. You could be single and have family to help, or you could be in a couple, but partner works away during the week and can't help and there is no one to help. An employer takes a chance that there will be issues with employing childbearing age mothers no matter what, thankfully, most still employ them.

You must be extemely fortunate regarding employers, but I think you are very, very mistaken if you think that that is the norm.

I have known several people to be sacked for health problems of their own, and because I have health problems and could not have been dishonest about them before getting my job because I would need some slight adjustments made in the workplace, it was like opening a fridge door at interviews.

Be realistic and truly honest: there are (conservatively estimated) over 5M people unemployed in the UK, some of them too badly disabled to be considered for any work, but then there are some not estimated into that figure because they are not on any benefits. There are 500,000 jobs currently available:( The numbers don't add up, and employers can be very, very choosy about who they take on and demand extreme flexibility in pretty much any area that doesn't have a great deal of work out there.

Even if we all moved to those areas where there IS work, it wouldn't go around unless we all got 4 hours a week each (probably less since they admit that most of the work available is part-time and flexible [which means casual on the ubiquitous zero hours + contract in the retail or hotel sector]) and the pressure on essential services in the SE would likely implode:)

3guesses

What a pointless interview. And what facile and vacuous answers given by the Minister. Why is public money being spent giving this waste of space a poncey title?

"The measures were something we supported. They are important because the biggest problem lone parents face is poverty..."

OH YEAH, SAYS WHO? I think you'll find the biggest problem is being forced back into pointless jobs and thus hugely compromising their role of bringing up their children.

"This is the natural progression as we feel very strongly the age of five is the most appropriate time. Some lone parents want to get back to work earlier than that anyway. Many parents go to work before their child is one."

Yeah, for some lone parents - only a small minority in all probability - it is no doubt highly suitable for them to go back to work while their child is still young. It is completely unsuitable for a large number - the vast majority, I should wager - but let's force them all back into pointless jobs anyway, regardless of the damage it will do to some of the most vulnerable families in the country.

"It has to be that work pays. It is better for the country and it is important people go out and do a job of work."

Yes, raising your children properly is so low down on the list of priorities and the country will do brilliantly despite an ever-growing cohort of delinquents.

"We know being a parent is a tough job and lone parenting is even tougher."

You don't have a clue. You KNOW absolutely nothing about what a lot of lone parents have to deal with. Your statement is nothing short of insulting.

"We have to make sure there is good balance between work and family life. If there isn't, it will be bad for the children."

But we'll still force lone parents back into pointless jobs, regardless...



If cutting public spending is that important to this Government, they should be starting with this idiot losing her job.

FBaby

What are 'pointless jobs'? I thought all had a point: to earn money to pay towards your living expenses.....

SingleSue

I would take a pointless job if only I could get childcare....although I may (fingers, toes and goodness knows what else crossed!) be sorting that very soon!

At least then I will be able to hold my head up high.

looby75

couldn't agree more FBaby and Sue. I've done various jobs from working in a florist (harder work than you would think but at least it smelt nice for the most part) to cleaning a pub. None of them were pointless, some were not nice (believe me scrubbing loos on a saturday and sunday morning is hell on earth _pale_) but they were all still jobs that paid and meant I was providing for my children.

I can't wait to be able to say that again no matter what the job is.

looby75

Name wrote: »

Maybe I'm too easily amused.

Name wrote: »

I can't wait to be able to say that again no matter what the job is.:j

Am I missing something????

Nickynoo1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst understanding the difficulties about childcare for a single parent, maybe several single parents could work together to arrange time off for the school holidays and look after each others' children? Three parents working together could plug the six-week summer holiday, couldn't they?

This is surely what couples do, so two or three single parents working together could do the same thing.

Of course there are still the problems of children with disabilities, but afaik these parents are not expected to look for work when the child is five.

Is this legal though??? Didn't a policewoman get into trouble because her and her friend were looking after each others children at certain times to enable them both to work, and beacuse it was too many hours she was told it had to stop because they were not ofsted registered. bonkers to me!!

Nickynoo1

ceridwen wrote: »

The reason many children didnt have adequate food etc prior to the Welfare State is because there wasnt effective contraception/legal abortion then (nothing to do with whether we have any sort of Welfare State or no). No-one now has a child they cant afford themselves - unless they have made a deliberate decision to do so. Prior to effective contraception/legal abortion people had no option as to whether to have children or no and many then DID have children they couldnt afford themselves (because for most of history to date children just "happened" regardless). WE have had control of our own destiny in that respect for about the last 40 years.

Presumably then, if you fell pregnant within said time frame because of failed contraception you would still get benefits?? or indeed in a couple both on benefits??

Nickynoo1

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.

Why not just scrap the benefits altogether and re-open the work houses!!!!!