Lone parents to be made to search for work as soon as youngest child is ONE
 

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_...conditionality

Just reading through this and I find it quite harsh to be honest.

While I disagreed with the 7 year old limit (as kids are in school before then so a part time job is very manageable if you can find one) one is very very young to be considering dumping the child with a childminder or something. I feel we should be encouraging parents to bring up their own children, especially at a time when there is really not enough jobs to go around JSA claimants to begin with. I honestly don't see what this will achieve at all..besides making the amount of people applying for each job even larger and making it harder for people who can (reasonably) work to find work. And possibly making the benefit bill even HIGHER when the state is made to fork out for childminder fees..

Mind saying that, its probably not about getting people back to work or anything anyway, much more likely to be about being able to sanction more people /sceptic


In other news, jobseekers made to sign on everyday...what a waste of resources. Or do voluntary work (for tescos and such no doubt, not proper voluntary work which many have been forced to leave to do workfare). Or sign to the work program which doesnt help one bit, infact reserach shows it hinders jobsearching...but they can claim thousands if you find yourself a job while on their program. Its all getting even more ****ed up.

How dare you edit they post as I'm reading it.
I have to start from tr beginning again now :fist:

Sorry :laugh:

I find it disturbing that a parent should have to leave a child at the age of one, even more so, a single parent. It makes me laugh how they are expected to find work when there are so many millions signing on as it is.

And who are going to be looking after these babies?... urgh, it's just getting a bit bizarre isn't it?

Why of course, the government will pay most of the childcare costs as part of tax credits. ... ... more than they would have been paying the mother in Income Support. So the benefits bill rises and the kids are raised by strangers. Win-win, it seems.

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. I don't think it's right to expect the tax payer to raise your kids for you.

Trouble is
to many got into the 13 years of New Labour
that changed them for the worse

Overly simplistic; for one, this has not described the situation at any point throughout history... We're in a situation now where normal families can't self-sustain without tax credits. Tax credits were created for a reason; to keep wages (especially minimum) artificially low. In other words, they are a standard part of "normal" wages.

Secondly... If what you are suggesting came to pass and only those who "can afford it" have kids (realistically, an income of £26k after tax for one parent, or that combined with two but only if free childcare such as a grandparent is available, which is a big if) then within a couple of decades we would be in the midst of a massive birth rate / population drop, and the economy would crumble. Add another 30 years and we have an aged population that would make the current pension woes seem laughable, and the entire system would implode.

Your other option for stable population is mass immigration. But under your suggestion, we don't want unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves and their families. Which means only allowing well off / professional migrations. ... ... And why on earth would anyone in that category want to come to Britain?

Who exactly do you suggest would be filling working class positions in 50 years time if we effectively sterilise the working class? Face it; a consumer economy needs it's drones, and top-up benefits are how those drones are paid for. It's OK if a single mum doesn't work, so long as her offspring are moulded into effective workers. Her job is to be a "breeder" and her benefits are her pay. A problem only arises if she doesn't raise her children to be effective.

Of course I'm not suggesting that any of this is a good thing. The system is ****. But your solution is also ****.

It's got nothing to do with new labour, Arista you mentalist. All that happened during NL, was the emergence of reality tv and fly-on-the-wall programming about how people live, which shone a light on a problem that has always, and will always exist.

The country is ******ed. The trains are f**cked, the roads are one big pothole, and nothing works. You can't force people into work when there is nowhere to go. Rebuild the country - take on the debt, and invest in the country that will reap rewards in the long term through tax revenues, and increase the minimum wage as anyone working full time shouldn't have to live in poverty, and have to be supplemented by the government to exist.

I am all for choice.
However, you have to be able to afford that choice.
Many women with partners have to work and leave their babies, so from that viewpoint I don't really see what the difference is if you are single.

Pretty much this.

I really dont see the need at all or increasing the already ridiculously large pool of people competing for a small pool of vacancies, especially when these people landing a job against the odds would increase the benefit bill anyway, and would result in more kids being raised by strangers.

ew

more boob vending machines for my leisure centre

and no one can afford to have brats

noone told me that ipads, £600 mobile phones and ps4s would be the only fecking thing they want for birthdays and xmas

I was banking on Bukaroo, Crossfire and Sindy

Overly complicated.

My parents would have loved a big family, but they couldn't afford one. Consequently, it's just me and my brother. My mother always worked and so did my father. Maybe we should go back to that kind of family planning. We've had free contraception since the sixties, there's no excuse really.

By Not to be rude about your age, Livia, but I feel that it's important to point out that the country has changed rather a lot since your parents were doing their family planning. Our entire economic structure has shifted to being consumer based, for a start.

The major difference is that people on a full time working class income used to be able to own a home, pay their bills, and keep food on the table for a family, and usually run a car. Luxuries may have been few but sustaining a family was possible. These days, you're VERY lucky if low wage full time work covers rent, council tax and utility bills without being topped up with tax credits.

So, you're not simply suggesting that only those "with jobs" have children, you're suggesting that only those who are skilled / lower middle class or above reproduce at all. So when the current generation of menial / unskilled workers die off, who takes their place?

It's not overly complicated. Unless you're expecting one of the following scenarios:

1) a sudden and practically impossible economic turnaround heralding an era of living wages, lower cost of living, and a stock of affordable housing. (ideal situation - not feasible, not happening)

2) a massive jump in technology allowing us to create a robot workforce to fill all of the menial roles (we're getting there to be fair...)

IF neither of the above then we need a replenishing stock of unskilled labour to fill menial roles. Not to mention that an economy based on consumerism needs... Well... Consumers... To function. The rank and file (and their children) are consumers. Vital consumers.

Without these things, the entire consumer economy falls flat on its arse and most of us die. It couldn't really be much more simple. I mean, it's already stumbling... But your suggestion would be giving it a shove. No... In fact... it would be putting a double barrelled shotgun to the back of its head, pulling the trigger and watching it pop like a ripe watermelon.

Now this might sound like I'm IN FAVOUR of the system as it stands. I'm not, it's a ****ing shambles, it's a disgrace that working people can't afford a family. I'm on board with what you're saying about multiple children, but they can't afford ONE without wage top ups. It's a fundamentally broken system. But for now, we're lumbered with it, and if it is ever going to be fixed, it's with a more subtle tactic than shouting "sterilise the proletariat!!"

Just out of interest...how old do you think Livia is?

Minefield best avoided? Ha...

If she's over 25 what I said applies.

..that isn't true either though, 'back in the day' weren't halcyon days..it may have been so for some people but not everyone, you just can't generalise that...

Not all single parents plan to be so. :suspect:

Not to mention, with the state of the world, only the upper classes would be reproducing at this rate.

Hey if livia can generalise about lone parents and taxpayers 'raising' kids we can all have a go...
There is the issue raised by TS that the childcare facilities or registered childminders will be requiring payment, so that will be paid as will tax credits and housing benefit, so for a part time parent on minimum wage how cost effective is this going to be?....

I said they used to "be able to", as in, it was possible, even if only for some.

A single full-time earner on todays full time (40 hour, which is ambitious) minimum wage of (£6.31 x 40 x 52 weeks / 12 months = ) £1.093.75 before tax and National Insirance, it is impossible to run a family home. Impossible, full stop. The income divide is widening and traditionally better paid menial roles are quickly approaching, or already at, minimum wage. My point still stands. The concept of "only those who can afford it without top-ups" having children is economically not viable. The system would not work. it would simply collapse.

The government (by which I mean, all governments - "politics" in general) knows this - that's why Tax Credits (and council housing / housing benefits) exist in the first place... to prop up an economy that depends upon a large stock of low income, economically stagnant "worker bees".