MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

FBaby

lukieboy96 wrote: »

Not many childminders want children only in the mornings and afternoons.

But a number do. If there is a need for it, then surely there is an opportunity for employment?

Not all schools do the breakfast club or after school clubs.

But many do, and if the school doesn't (as my son's school), then there are local associations that do and drop and pick up children from school.

If the government wants people to work more hours then they need to make more facilities available. They are shutting Sure Start nurseries.

There are many childcare facilities available, but maybe not at everyone door steps. If this is the only issue preventing a single mum working for many years, then surely it is not unreasonable to expect a mum of young children to plan a move where childcare is more widely available if it means she can then work to support her family.

lukieboy96

I don't agree. When i needed childcare for my son there was only one place which did after school care. Childminders were virtually zero! i have worked in childcare myself and i know for a fact there are not places.

Childminders want children who will be there during the day. Due to the number of children they can have they don't want the older children.

Why should the person have to move if no childcare. Unbelieveable what people think. I think the government should stop closing facilities. I am so glad i do not childcare anymore. I was a single parent who worked.

Everyone is so keen to have a go at people.

A child needs a stable environment, not to move all the time!

I think that the government should do an audit to see how many schools do breakfast clubs and after school care, i think they would be shocked at the numbers that do not!!

FBaby

lukieboy96 wrote: »

Why should the person have to move if no childcare. Unbelieveable what people think.

Why should tax payer, many of who have young children themselves, have to support single mums just because there is no childcare available (or so they claim in some cases) when they live?

I think the government should stop closing facilities. I am so glad i do not childcare anymore. I was a single parent who worked.

Because they were more single mums working before? The only reason why there is such a large number of mums relying on benefits in this country is because they can enjoy a pleasurable lifestyle without having to work, not because they absolutely cannot find any childcare at all.

A child needs a stable environment, not to move all the time!

Where does the 'all the time' comes from? They might need to move once, and if it means growing up in a household not relying on benefits in the long run, then surely that was a move worth making. Children at a young age are not that bothered about moving, as a matter of fact, it can be a fun adventure for many.

I think that the government should do an audit to see how many schools do breakfast clubs and after school care, i think they would be shocked at the numbers that do not!!

and I think they will find that where parents do want to work, childcare is available, either by schools, childminders or private/independent sector. After all , as stated before, there is much money to be made there, so why wouldn't any one open a childcare facility where there is much demand. Why are there no more single mum training as childminder if there is such lack of provision where they are....

Of course arranging childcare does demand planning. I booked a place for my son when I was 6 months pregnant with him because of the high demand. It was the only provider at the time open from 8 to 6 and working 1 hour away, this was the only one available. When I picked schools, I didn't put their names on the list of our local ones, but one that did offer childcare. It was touch and go whether my DD would get a place but she did, so son was able to go to 3 years later. When we moved, we didn't get a place in our new local school (which offered wrap-up care) but to a school on remedial measures at the time without childcare facilities.... In the end, I asked around and found a provider that would take him and back school. Again, no places at the time, so I travelled for 3 hours every day back to his old school until space became available and he could transfer to the new school (which thankfully by then was doing well and turned out to be a great school). My son started coming home from school on the bus when he was 9. That again took time and practice before it was ok for him to do.

Nothing is easy and why should it be? The only single parents I trully sympathise with are those with severely disabled children for whom childcare is trully not available anywhere.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

The anecdote wasn't that single parents claim benefits, the anecdote was:



The facts prove that if the above stereotype exists, it is a very small minority, which is not really conducive with the phrase 'too many'.

Surely even one person making choice of living on benefits is "too many" - the phrase doesn't indicate a majority.

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

So your idea is to increase the amount of money given in benefits, because that is what your idea would do.

It is cheaper for the state for single parents to work part time and restrict the amount of childcare, rather than have them work full time and for tax credits to pay 70/80/90% of childcare costs.

That little fact however doesn't fit in with your benefit bashing. It's far easier to call single parents lazy scroungers.

Working part time for years and relying on tax credits is only a very small step better than living totally on benefits. After living like this for 20 years, people's chances of being independent and playing any meaningful role in the workplace will be greatly reduced.

The more lone parents can be encouraged to provide for themselves and their children, the better. (Just like everybody else.)

bloomingflower

ILW wrote: »

Or to look at things from a different angle.
If the benefits for single mothers were a lot less (basic survival only), would we find a lot less women becoming single mothers over a period of time?

Hello ILW,its me again :)

I really don't think that by reducing benefits will stop women from conceiving and becoming single mothers!. That won't act as a deterrent! We have contraception for that! But that's not quite 100%..

And despite having at least 15 (yes 15!) contraception methods available to women, there will always be women having children until the end of time!

Incidentally,what or who makes a woman a single mother? For example a 'single mum' had a boyfriend or husband once who did a runner due to breakdown in their relationship etc.

They are not single mums because they want to rake in benefits!. Some single mums are the product of a broken marriage,being a young widow etc..

The above are a couple reasons. There could be many other reasons why they are single?. I have many friends who are single mums.

Do you think women choose to be single mums? I don't think so!

princessdon

bloomingflower wrote: »

Hello ILW,its me again :)

I really don't think that by reducing benefits will stop women from conceiving and becoming single mothers!. It won't act as a deterrent! We have contraception for that! But that's not quite 100%..

And despite having at least 15 (yes 15!) contraception methods available to women, there will always be women having children until the end of time!

Incidentally,what or who makes a woman a single mother? For example a 'single mum' had a boyfriend or husband once who did a runner due to breakdown in relationships etc. They are not all single mums because they want to rake in benefits!. Some single mums are the product of a broken marriage etc..

The above is just one reason. There could be many other reasons why they are single?. I have many friends who are single mums.

Do you think women choose to be single mums? I don't think so!

whether you want to accept this or not the current benefits system makes some. They won't live with a working partner (yet they spend the mythical magical 3 nights a week). many get into debt and "separate" for benefits etc.

Whilst the govt pays heavy susbisidies for Lone Parents the minority who know how to work the system will use this.

It's not even LP. Look on the Debt Free board.

Many are thousands in debt, yet their SOA show "swimming lessons, School Lunches, £200 a month for hair cuts".

There are many Lone Parents or Dual Income who think the state owe them and should support them and or absolve them of bad habbits.

If the Govt made it financially more beneficial I have confidence that "some" would remain as a family unit. not all, some have valid reasons for separation, but equally not all do.

Every Joint to single claim should fully be investigated as I don't beleive they are all genuine at all.

ILW

bloomingflower wrote: »

Hello ILW,its me again :)

I really don't think that by reducing benefits will stop women from conceiving and becoming single mothers!. That won't act as a deterrent! We have contraception for that! But that's not quite 100%..

And despite having at least 15 (yes 15!) contraception methods available to women, there will always be women having children until the end of time!

Incidentally,what or who makes a woman a single mother? For example a 'single mum' had a boyfriend or husband once who did a runner due to breakdown in their relationship etc.

They are not single mums because they want to rake in benefits!. Some single mums are the product of a broken marriage,being a young widow etc..

The above are a couple reasons. There could be many other reasons why they are single?. I have many friends who are single mums.

Do you think women choose to be single mums? I don't think so!

I believe there are around 15 times as many single mums now as there were in the 70s, many of whom rely on benefits. Benefits for single mothers are much more generous than they were in the 70s and earlier. What would you suggest has changed to make that much of a difference?

As I have said before, I would like to see a differentation betwen "single mum" and divorcee, widow or abandoned wife.

I truly believe it would improve society over the medium term.

clemmatis

ILW wrote: »

I believe there are around 15 times as many single mums now as there were in the 70s,

Official figures suggest otherwise. The % of single parent families has risen from 8% in 1971, through 24% in 1998, to 26% in 2011.

dori2o

I never realised that only women become single parents.