the effects of inflation

lemonjelly

All a parent wants is to be a good provider for their children.

Yet it apears that the inflation in food prices is having a massive effect on families:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820

It seems there is an explosion in the demands being placed on foodbanks and the like.

It is really worrying when parents aren't sending kids to school as there is nothing to put in their lunchbox (not sure that this is appropriate or a solution, but there you go).

ILW

If you cannot afford to support children, you should not have them.

wotsthat

lemonjelly wrote: »

All a parent wants is to be a good provider for their children.

Yet it apears that the inflation in food prices is having a massive effect on families:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820

It seems there is an explosion in the demands being placed on foodbanks and the like.

It is really worrying when parents aren't sending kids to school as there is nothing to put in their lunchbox (not sure that this is appropriate or a solution, but there you go).

I saw the article earlier it's thought provoking.

However, and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves, a better real life example could have been found to demonstrate the point

Jenni has a lot of mouths to feed - seven children, five of them below the age of 12. But she and her husband have always worked and managed to get by. They clean offices by night, and Jenni is a school dinner lady by day.

The inflation question immediately disappears and is replaced with "why the bloody hell have two office cleaners got seven kids".

Wookster

ILW wrote: »

If you cannot afford to support children, you should not have them.

I read that article and it is sad, but for gods sake's, 7 kids?

That is the problem of Labour's legacy - no one ever needs to take responsibility for their choices. Just leave the tap running and the Government will step in and feed your kids and give you a house.

What's more is the resistance to change at all levels of society is quite remarkably strong.

Kennyboy66

Wookster wrote: »

I read that article and it is sad, but for gods sake's, 7 kids?

That is the problem of Labour's legacy - no one ever needs to take responsibility for their choices. Just leave the tap running and the Government will step in and feed your kids and give you a house.

What's more is the resistance to change at all levels of society is quite remarkably strong.

How come family sizes were larger for most of the 20th Century than they were post 1997 ?

Is this Labours fault as well ?

Orpheo

Wookster wrote: »

I read that article and it is sad, but for gods sake's, 7 kids?

That is the problem of Labour's legacy - no one ever needs to take responsibility for their choices. Just leave the tap running and the Government will step in and feed your kids and give you a house.

What's more is the resistance to change at all levels of society is quite remarkably strong.

Poor families have always had lots of children. What are you blaming labour for? You should decide your position, whether or not the government should intervene with the need to reproduce. Shut off the tap, fine, do you really think it will stop them having children? Or do you think that there will be more children suffering as result? Children don't ask to be born. Don't get me wrong, when a person has children they should work to support them, but neither you nor I can strip away their imperative to have children without committing atrocities.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

Poor families have always had lots of children. What are you blaming labour for?

TBF that is a legacy from child mortality in the past. You would hope they would have learn't now things had changed and all the children are likely to survive.

So unfortunately if the poor are still having large broods there must be some other benefit, otherwise if it was based on any other reason you would think the richer would have more as they could afford it.

I would say larger broods would not be so common if benefits were limited to say 2 children.

Poor compared to the past is just not the same.

Kohoutek

Orpheo wrote: »

Poor families have always had lots of children.

I think you're conflating "poor" and "poor and irresponsible", at least if you exclude the period before cheap and effective contraception was readily available.

Orpheo

Kohoutek wrote: »

I think you're conflating "poor" and "poor and irresponsible", at least if you exclude the period before cheap and effective contraception was readily available.

I think you are conflating poor and irresponsible, not I. Education is the primary factor in lowering birth rates. Contraception is a tool, albeit a handy one.

Kohoutek

Orpheo wrote: »

I think you are conflating poor and irresponsible, not I. Education is the primary factor in lowering birth rates. Contraception is a tool, albeit a handy one.

I can think of working class members of my extended family that didn't have any education beyond 16, yet they didn't have more children than they could support, because they had common sense and responsibility.

You're the one being patronising if you really think that having seven children on a low income is about lack of education, not lack of responsibility.

lazer

The family referred to do not claim benefits that is the issue.

If they did, even with their 7 kids they would probably be better off! However I do wonder if they are getting everything they are entitled too, if they are working on alow income they maybe should be receiveding working tax credit and also child benefit. hey should not be letting pride (by not claiming benefits) get in the way of providing for their children.

If they are both working, they should be getting their wages plus £100.70 in child benefit so therfore should not be in such dire straights! What they need is some money management.

Also - before we judge the number of children, the youngest 3 children could be triplets or contraception (other than natural) could be against their religion, they could be allergic to the active ingreientd in the pill etc. Why are we so quick to judge?