A Working class Mumsnet proposed!

Okay, I've been here a year and a half and I keep seeing references to these "moldies" - can I be initiated? What was all that about?

I'm very about the Frank Field report - IMO he's a clapped-out authoritarian and I have no idea why the government is listening to him. I really dislike his parenting classes idea - there's a big danger they would become dominated by one approach, as discipline in schools has become dominated by punishment-reward schemes.

Still, it's worth seeing what he actually wrote about Mumsnet: "I would particularly like to see this 'Nudge group" report on how Mumsnet, an extraordinary but largely middle-class initiative, can be spread to all parents." He doesn't mention the words "working-class" - that's just the Guardian.

I don't agree that Mumsnet is "largely middle-class" (and don't get me started about the "Nudge group" - blergh) but it's clear he's not talking about a "working-class Mumsnet."

As I said, I don't agree with it, but look at the actual report.

oops that was meant to be 'feel free' - don't go chopping down any trees on my account

Some random, off tangent thoughts that have come into my head:

Can someone give me a really good definition of 'working class'? My own feeling is that the term is outdated. When I hear 'working class' I think of people like my grandparents, dad a cole miner, mum looking after six kids, living in a three bedroomed terraced house with lots of community spirit and the neighbours dropping in all the time . I suppose I think of 'working class' as referring to blue collar workers, which puts all people who work in retail as middle class??? Isn't the whole 'class' thing just irrelevant these days? There are too many different ways of life to even begin to fit into categories...

I'd put mumsnetters as a group rather than a class...

Random comments over. Fell free to continue

A few of the Moldies were working class, actually.

dreamlady - I agree with you about being cycnical. I think that, when it comes to implementing this report, the government will look for every opportunity to minimise the amount of money they need to spend. They will tweak the definitions to include the fewest possible children, yet still claim to be implementing the recommendations. With the overall effect that FF's ambitions are not realised and children who are currently receiving support fall through the new gaps.

But it will sound good.

I doubt any moldie was Working class

LFR are you related to LFN you seem to have the same DNA

They're gonna call it MoldiesMarkII.

Life for Rent - are you for real?? I kept looking for some clever kind of witty analogy in your post but then had to come to the conclusion that you were serious. We are not born with equality of opportunity no matter how much the Tories want us to believe that. It's rubbish.

Have you ever read "Born to Fail" a sociology book (can't recall the author) but you will find all the evidence in there that we are certainly NOT born with equal opportunities. The odds are stacked against some children from the moment of birth, and will last to a greater or lesser extent through their lifespan.

I think FF is talking nonsense about "working class mumsnet" and demonstrates that he has absolutely no understanding of how some mothers (usually young and immature, with no family support and financial difficulties, often suffering domestic violence (though this cuts across all classes) manage to live a life without hope.

I hate the way some MNs are using the word cunt on this thread - I have no objection to swearing but I hate this word, as it is using a woman's body part as a swear word and I find that offensive.

However I do take issue with many onthis thread who think that 80% of a child's brain is formed by 3 years is rubbish. I don't know the exact percentage, but there is a wealth of evidence and research to prove that the first 3 years of a child's life are the most important in laying down the foundation stones for later life. There is a very good book called "Why Love Matters" by Sue Gerhardt that explains this much better than I can.

Anyway must go, just off to watch Jeremy Kyle!

oh and SOME services yes will be targeted - eg free nursery provision for disadvantaged 2 yr olds - because there's no solid evidence that it's of significant benefit to children with a 'good enough' home environment to be in nursery.
NB 1 - I'm not saying it's negative for most 2 yolds from a functional family environment to be in nursery (unless the quality of care is not good), just that there is no measurable benefit.

NB 2- how 'disadvantage' is measured is another thorny point - I haven't read this bit yet but think that's one thing the review was meant to deal with - that income alone is not an indicator of whether a child is disadvantaged and we need other 'life chances'indicators. I agree, although the cynic in me says it will just give the tories an excuse to take more money from families... poverty is often i think a symptom, not a cause, but it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to keep their children warm and fed.

piprabbit, I completely agree children's centres and most of their services should be accessible to all, so kids and parents mix.
The proposals say, and i agree from my experience, that the most struggling parents need to be more proactively told about and encouraged to use the services, because their kids will benefit from them the most, and because they are less likely to find them or be confident enough to access them, without help or encouragement.

TCNY, Claig Hmm you may be right but I dont get the undercurrent of spite in his posts

"tingletangle Fri 03-Dec-10 01:18:23
God it would be so dull. I relish watching you lot get worked up over the wrong colour casserole dish."

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on here!

dreamlady depends how poorer is defined. If services providers are only being rewarded for improving the life chances of children defined as poorer, then presumably there is no financial incentives for them to provide services that enhance the life chances of any other children.
Logically, access to services such as Children's Centres, pre-schools and other foundation services would be means-tested in some way (no point offering a service to children who won't be attracting funding). This will create more divides (along the lines of the proposed working class MN) between children of different 'classes'.

newwave not sure what that last post all about but the one before made sense - i always feel as though, if I'm in the middle of everyone on MN, i'm probably about in my rightful place.

I was thinking of Claig ;)

TCNY

I am sure i mentioned LFN :)

Newwave - Don't forget the batshit crazy ones as well.

Dont agree with a seperate "working class" forum, I like the variety on here from far right LFN to a voice of reason (me) :o

What a crock of shite

Can the chavs read then?

err piprabbit how is not being poorer 'unfortunate'?
If you are not disadvantaged you don't need the help as much..

LifeForRent - you seem to have missed the point, rather. The government is embarking on a massive programme of library closures. Except that they are doing it at one remove, so they can claim they aren't - it's all down to those pesky councils and nothing to do with central government at all, honest guv.

As for misfortune, you need to look up the definition of the word. The clue is in the 'fortune' part. Anyone can suffer from bad luck. Whether that bad luck is ill health, being born into poverty, being born in Middlesborough not Belgravia, disability, being born with talents that society has bizzarely deemed are only worth minimum wage (being a great carer, for example).

Most people who aren't investment bankers would probably judge caring as far more socially useful and important than fiddling about with stupid financial products that even the bankers don't understand. Yet the bankers earn ££££ while the carers earn pennies. Probably something to do with the fact that caring is traditionally women's work and banking man's.

The more I hear about Mr Field and his report, the more I think it is all one giant, unimplementable gimmick.

One massive missed opportunity.

'Life Chance Indicators' - we cant even agree about the value of measuring a child's weight and height - let alone trying to measure their cognitive, emotional and physical development.

'The single objective of the new Foundation Years services is to improve the life chances of poorer children.' - so if you are unfortunate enough to not be 'poorer' (not even sure what that means), your child's development has no relevance to service providers? Perhaps we should take steps to actively reduce the life chances of non-poorer children, that would level things up a bit.