Talk

Advanced search

Low income families- both parents could be forced to work to meet Labour's targets

(52 Posts)
atlantis Sat 12-Sep-09 19:42:28

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8250258.stm

What have Labour got against children having a parent at home instead of being latch key kids.?

alwayslookingforanswers Sat 12-Sep-09 19:46:54

ok well first they have to sort out flexible and affordable childcare, and then the have to create jobs.

So when they've sorted that out then I'll get up in arms about the proposals - because all the proposals they want aren't going to make the those things magically appear - and therefore their proposals aren't going to work/happen.

atlantis Sat 12-Sep-09 19:50:31

Well firstly there's wrap around care in schools that they could 'force' you to use.

Then there's the network of sure start centres and other ventures they have been setting up.

Never underestimate Labour.

alwayslookingforanswers Sat 12-Sep-09 19:53:20

wrap around care is supposed to be from 8-6pm - many schools simply can't currently afford to run after school care.

That doesn't cover shift work/evenings/night/twilight jobs. And it doesn't cover pre-schoolers either.

Besides -if the jobs aren't there the jobs aren't there.

All hot air if you ask me - by the time the job market has picked enough for all of those that have lost jobs in the last 12 months to find work, never mind those that were unemployed but (genuinely) seeking working before that Labour will be long gone,

2shoes Sat 12-Sep-09 21:19:31

sounds great, wonder who will pay for dd's very expensive one to one care.....

junglist1 Sat 12-Sep-09 21:21:31

Oh you'll have to pay for that, and end up a fiver better off in work! Great idea

2shoes Sat 12-Sep-09 21:29:19

well that is ok then as there is no child care out there for dd

Quattrocento Sat 12-Sep-09 21:32:01

I'm not very keen on your thread title. Bit emotive and not accurate in terms of the actual report.

People blardy well should be "forced" to work. Unfortunately of course the reality of the article is that people aren't going to be forced to work at all ...

alwayslookingforanswers Sat 12-Sep-09 21:33:25

"But he did not rule out "other levers", including the possibility of compelling both parents to look for work. "

dilemma456 Sat 12-Sep-09 21:36:48

Message withdrawn

expatinscotland Sat 12-Sep-09 21:40:34

blah blah blah.

i don't listen to any of these government people anymore.

i'll see them in hell. we can talk there. we'll have plenty of time for it.

i mean, let's face it, record unemployment. recession.

unless they magic up a bunch of job-creating industry it's all a bunch of schlock.

LauraIngallsWilder Sat 12-Sep-09 21:41:53

This is crazy. They have set targets, big deal - this is a really bizarre why of meeting their targets

Also madness to assume money = happiness

How can they 'force' both parents to work

utterly crazy behaviour

alwayslookingforanswers Sat 12-Sep-09 21:46:07

well said expat.

When they have enough jobs for just one parent to go out to work - then I'll at least a quarter listen to them.

Reallytired Sat 12-Sep-09 21:47:22

Lots of families have two parents working. Why is it such a bad thing? Shock! Horror! Older children are mostly at school and less dependent on parents. Anyway povety wrecks family life.

However wrap around care just does not exist in many schools. This needs to be addressed first and then I am sure that many people from poor families would choose to work without being bullied.

Wonderstuff Sat 12-Sep-09 21:49:45

Article sounded quite reasonable to me.

The focus would on encouraging parents of older children to find work, Mr Timms said, by providing financial incentives and ensuring childcare was available.

Not exactly sending people down the mines are they? Nowhere did they say they would 'force' people to work.

expatinscotland Sat 12-Sep-09 21:52:18

Yeah, 'targets' when everyone knows their government will be out next year.

Like I said blah blah blah.

They're headed for the big 3m on JSA - that doesn't even include all the other people made unemployed who won't or can't claim JSA or who come off contribution-based and don't quality for income-based so they're technically off the books - and they're still spinning yarns about getting more people into work.

Talk to the hand.

jellybeans Sun 13-Sep-09 11:07:42

Well I will be SAH until I feel no longer needed!! This is partly why I hate this government, they are truly nuts.

MaggieVirgoOn Sun 13-Sep-09 11:12:02

\Ok, will they FORCE a childminder to come and look after my children for buttons??

BonsoirAnna Sun 13-Sep-09 11:15:07

I don't think a government can "force" both parents to work, but it is relatively easy for a government to design a benefits policy and a childcare policy that make it economically advantageous for both parents to work.

RealityIsNOTDetoxing Sun 13-Sep-09 11:18:54

Message withdrawn

cory Sun 13-Sep-09 11:20:04

Quattro, the article is not about people being forced to work rather than subsisting on benefits. It's about families where one parent is already working, and they think the second parent should also be made to work.

I don't think both parents working is a bad thing- if there is access to good quality childcare. But if childcare is non-existent/substandard, then I'm not so sure. Nor if the family is going to be left financially worse off.

As for the mentality that makes politicians think if only they set a target something will happen- well, it's like the old communist 5 year plans. Or that bit in the Mikado: "if the Mikado says something is to be done, it is as good as done; so why not say it is done?"

Wonderstuff Sun 13-Sep-09 12:50:30

But cory that is exactly what they are saying, provide childcare and make it economically advantagous for both parents to work when their children are older in an effort to reduce child poverty. What on earth is wrong with that???

LaurieFairyCake Sun 13-Sep-09 12:53:37

Wrap around childcare not available as far as I can see - I had to call dd's secondary school to check the library was open after school as I wouldn't be back til 4. The receptionist said dd had to make her way sharpish after class so the library would stay open as the librarian went home if no one was there.

And the opening hours are til 5 even if children were there.

MadameCastafiore Sun 13-Sep-09 13:00:27

Sorry in my parents and grandparents day the government didn't throw money at you, you survived on what you earnt or you got a second job or god forbid you didn't have another child till you could actually afford to bring it up yourself - now everyone expects the government to give them a top up - WTF is it all about?

A little poverty and tightening our belts would be a good thing - would stop people getting into such debt and matbe change this 'I want it now' culture.

WFTC costs shit loads to administrate and really doesn't help the people who it was meant for - the very poor and socially deprived.

expatinscotland Sun 13-Sep-09 13:04:27

Yes, let's go back to the glory days of semi-starvation and many homes without an indoor toilet!

That'll fix 'em.

Poverty's a great thing! It's character building.

Everyone who's in debt is in debt because of buying gadgets and taking foreign holidays.

Jesus wept.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now