Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Why doesn’t the 2 child limit apply to civil servant benefits?!

78 replies

Shepherdswarning · 12/11/2025 10:47

I’ve just realised that education allowances, inc incredibly expensive boarding and ‘continuity of education’ allowances are available to an unlimited number of offspring, if you are a diplomat (or similar).

How is this even remotely reasonable, when benefits are limited to 2 children for the rest of the population??

The costs of employing a person w family in these jobs is already vastly greater than employing a single person (more travel, bigger house) - why on earth should they also get hugely subsidised private boarding school education for 3 or 4 or 5 children???

This feels so much like one rule for us and another for them…

OP posts:

ScaryM0nster · 14/11/2025 18:21

Shepherdswarning · 13/11/2025 22:57

Well, it’s interesting to hear these views, and I really am amazed that so many think it’s ok.

My views are absolutely shaped by people I know choosing this career path in order to get a type of education they could never otherwise pay for, for their kids. And marvelling about how unbelievably valuable a perk it is (‘there’s no way I could ever get a job that would pay me enough to allow us to educate our kids this way’).

And remember, I’m not arguing the toss for 2 kids. It’s for more than 2.

Nobody seems to have grasped my point about mat pay etc - if it isn’t good enough for civil servants etc, why the hell is it ok for ANYONE?

Reward packages vary between employers.

Some offer strong wider benefits (pension, mat leave, flexible working, annual leave), others offer stronger cash benefits (higher salary, commission, bonuses etc), others offer the bare legal minimum, others hugely incentivise performance ( performance related pay increases, bonuses / commission being multiple times the base salary).

Different approaches for different labour markets and recruitment and retention tactics.

Civil service roles in the majority are steady service delivery, average performance type roles. There are also an awful lot of them as a percentage of total jobs in the country. The treasury needs as much certainty as possible in the wage bill. For that, you want non cash benefits, and a package that attracts the steady average staff. So below average salary, above average annual leave, pension and mat pay, no material bonuses.

Whereas high flying law firms may offer stat mat pay, but massive bonuses.

Yamamm · 14/11/2025 18:37

There was a story today about one 17 yr old child whose parents couldn’t control him being put in residential care at £17k a week. Apparently it’s routinely £10k a week for the worst behaved children with the most problems.
I don’t begrudge spending far less on the children of hard working diplomats. Private schools have many children of low income families whose parents can’t afford to pay but have persuaded the authorities it’s the only way to meet their child’s needs.

PetuniaP · 14/11/2025 19:37

Shepherdswarning · 14/11/2025 15:33

you all know different diplomats to me, is all I can say…

Pp who says ‘the benefits are all that made the job worthwhile’ - aaaargh!! Exactly this!! And why on earth is it fair that one person doing the job just gets their salary and entirely reasonable cost of living benefits, while another, doing EXACTLY THE SAME JOB costs their employer many times as much?? Each child at boarding school, plus travel, costs the taxpayer the same amount as the working parent’s entire salary? So when you have two equally hard working employees one cost their employer x, and one with a large family could easily cost 5x.

so yes - I would absolutely rather people were paid a salary commensurate w what they are doing, and not given these infantilising and totally unfair benefits. My single childless friend has done precisely as useful a job for FCDO, for decades, as her colleagues w kids.

She should have had kids then if she wanted to take advantage of the benefits associated with having them.

At the risk of repetition, if the diplomats with children weren't offered benefits they would leave. And as most people have children, it would massively narrow the talent pool. Do you think that would be a good thing for the civil service or a bad thing?

Here is an alternative option for you. All diplomats get paid enough to ensure they can pay for private education for all their children without limit, whether they have them or not. Do you think that will be a) cheaper or b) more expensive than just paying the fees for those who have children?

Flip

1 2 3 4