"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another - and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not? Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

In rl I know both...sahms who are in benefits and sahms who aren't.
I think those sahms who rely in benefits to enable them to stay at home with their kids are in for a shock :(
This givt will force them back into a low paid, menial job and take them away from their children.
Because "We're all in it together"
Right?

Bonsoir, I believe that childcare in Sweden is of a much higher standard than her, and it is all free. I'm afraid high standard = very expensive to each family doesn't really wash.

It helps, I suppose, that Sweden dealt with their bankers rather differently than we have, so their economy is a bit healthier.

I thought they had very high taxes in Sweden?

If strivers v skivers is designed to stop women being SAHMs, aren't the conservatives going to alienate a large number of their core supporters? It's not very DM is it?

(Or is it only ok to be a sahm if you are the kind that has an au pair?)

badvoc, can you explain what you meant by

"I think those sahms who rely in benefits to enable them to stay at home with their kids are in for a shock"

please

Jux - I don't understand your point. Swedish childcare is highly subsidised. I am not sure that British parents would find it to their taste anyway.

Most women get a huge amount of satisfaction from their work. They are not being idiots to work, coerced by Government forces. They are playing a full part in life and the world and want to work and like men want a balanced life of work and a family rather than being put into the sexist position of having to choose one or the other.

No one has said looking after three under 5s alone for 12 hours whilst doing the house cleaning which is what ilfe is like for many women who give up and have very little money is not hard work. They are clearly not skiving. If their husbands or civil partners etc are paying for them or they live on savings laid down over 20 years of work or inheritance then it is not the state's business how they or their partners spend their time.

The issue is that the middle earners in the UK are a bit fed up of working very hard to subsidise those who don't work very hard or don't work at all and the state has very little money either. Hence changes are being brought in to try to deal with the problem.

Work brings huge joy for many women and men, even if it is just working in a bar. Most adults want both adult and child company and most want to earn their keep. It's just a basic part of human nature. Very few are particularly happy living off male earnings or state benefits even if a disproportionate number may be on this thread.

xenia, I just dont agree with you. Most people I know go to work to earn money, not because it gives them much satisfaction. I'd guess most workers are like this. A lucky few love their jobs, but I'd say they are in the minority in this country.

I do feel you believe the myths the government are trying to feed us about the squeezed middle. They aren't the only ones who work hard or contribute to pay taxes. Low income families are just the same.

and before anyone starts with the "oh but low income families get loads of benefits we don't get", we are a low income family that gets £30 a week tax credits and pays all our bills/council tax (£155 a month)/mortgage etc etc

Xenia how would you define the squeezed middle?

Indeed - people work to earn money and it is important that the primary purpose of working should be earning to support oneself and one's family, rather than personal satisfaction/moral obligation to society/liberation (if you get those things too, all well and good, but that's not the point).

I think that that amount of brainwashing going on is appalling.

@jux it depends on how you define 'higher standard'. The reason a lot of the rest of europe has cheaper childcare that the state is willing to subsidise is that the child to carer ratio is much migh higher. I think it is about 10 children per carer in France for example.

And I think the problem in the UK is that families expect a higher standard of care than we can afford.

@ssd I always assumed low income familes were the squeezed middle. Any family on an income between £20-30K would be the squeezed middle I imagine.

I think many in the UK have a huge sense of welfare entitlement and its an issue because the exchequer simply cant afford it anymore.

I dont think its a particularly great standard of living on benefits but the number of people who will do this rather than work is incredible and the squeezed middle simply cant take it anymore.

In a recent thread a poster, who had several children with very challenging health issues, was pushing her husband to give up work to be a carer for their children. She wasnt considering the long term implications and seemed to think that the state would always assist her in rearing her family. That to me is a dangerous position.

Bonsoir thats nonsense about people not working for personal satisfaction.
Yes the primary reason for working is the salary but this is not the only reason many work.
Some work whilst not needing to financially but they feel that they need work in their lives for stimulation, satisfaction etc.

Because this govt will force them into low paid menial jobs by taking away their benefits ssd.
It will force them into putting their dc into sub standard childcare.
It's just wrong.

@bonsoir plenty of people do work for personal satisfaction

I have always worked for money, not personal satisfaction or growth.
And I think the vast majority of people are the same.

People don't need or deserve "protecting" from low paid, low status work, Badvoc, by giving them welfare payments. We cannot afford that sort of luxury.

ESP part time workers, the majority of whom are women...

I don't agree with forcing people to put their dc into poor childcare to earn minimum wage.
What about the kids?
What about the next generation?

Badvoc People have always had to do menial jobs when they are not qualified for other better paid and less menial jobs.

Motherhood is not a career choice and women should not think that by having children the state will subsidise them. Pre school, I believe that there should be some kind of benefit but after that it needs to be re-thought.

Sure if they have a partner who can support them, then staying home is an option but if you dont then you have to work and yes probably have childcare that is not absolutely ideal.

My mother worked in a department store on a low wage for 30 years rather than rely on the state when my father left. No doubt its tough on everyone but isnt it our duty to support our families

@badvoc who said anything about 'poor childcare'? Standards are pretty high in this country (which is why it is so expensive).

There are definitely issues surrounding the type of support that society provides to families of young children.

Bonsoir What type of support do you think they should be getting?

I dont agree Ethelb.
I know of some awful nurseries locally to me and I live in a small village.
Full of 16 year olds who will not be there for more than 12 months and who are doing childcare because they didn't get the grades for anything else.
No thanks.
We are better than the US in that regard, where only 9% of childcare is classed as good.