How do we know the extra welfare payments for multiple children will be spent on the children .

[hattie43]

A genuine question really . I don’t begrudge the children and I’ll save my irk for the parents but how do we know the extra money will be used to support the children in the right way giving them a better start and turning them into these honerable citizens. It worries me that the kids with feckless parents are going to be given much more money but the parents spend it on themselves not the kids . Just because these parents have more money doesn’t mean they’ll use it responsibly or change the attitudes they may pass down .

My children’s school used to be very strict on inform - they insisted children had to wear the jumpers and polo shirts with the school logo on, from a supplier.

We live in a deprived area of the West Midlands. They were constantly pushing parents who just could not
afford it and it was so unfair.

I could afford it - but I just refused to buy it after the first time. The supplier used Tesco school jumpers and polo shirts - the labels were still in them, but would then charge £18 for one jumper because it had the school logo embroidered on to it.

Why would anyone pay £18 for that when you could buy the same jumpers from Tesco, without the logo, for £7 for two? I’m also going to buy a pack of white polo shirts for a fiver from Asda, I’m not going to buy one for £9.

So many parents just refused that they quietly dropped it. You never see anyone with school logo jumpers.

But they have always done free bagels and toast in the playground each morning for children and thier families as they know families struggle. It didn’t make sense.

The same could be said of any benefits really. My work involves dealing with people with alcohol dependency and they are often receiving significant amounts of PIP benefits which are to help with the extra costs of their disability but is clearly being spent on alcohol. I guess it all goes into the same pot I suppose alcohol is an additional cost of their addiction. The benefits are literally enabling them to drink themselves to death rather than being used for rehab or therapy. I honestly think in some cases vouchers would be better.

Yes it is clear from your vitriol that you're a net taker.

What vitriol?

DH and I are net contributors so my comment is based on being it that position - I don’t like ‘net taker’ - it’s net recipient

Ultimately I’m happy to contribute to a fair system - what I don’t like is the waste and unnecessary expenditure. Be that because it’s costing me more in tax or it’s not actually helping those who really need it

ploughing more money in isn't going to help the nhs - it needs to modernise. And poverty is needs more than just money throwing at it

There's an aspect of social conditioning for women in lower class groups where additional or depleted income won't change their lifestyle. Many of these women had a child when they were teenagers. They meet a new man in their early 20 s and the rubbish man absconds again. But I think it's unfair to say that these women are not working. They are working taking care of their children every day. They are probably exhausted as is, and are in the socioeconomic position where if they did work they would only be £300 per month better off.

I think it is 57% of families affected by the two child cap has an adult in work in some capacity. In a lot of cases it seems to be part time, because of where the work requirements are set, for either a single or a couple. A couple’s work requirements are the equivalent to part time hours between them. Hence the 16 hours equivalent seen a lot. 43% of families that will benefit from the increase are not in work at all.

But is it fair that a lot of parents go out to work and are also exhausted, for an extra £300 a month. And with the tax thresholds being frozen, they are facing paying more tax each year to support this

I really think in these instances a lot of claimants who don't work are single mothers and it is just all round harder for them they get burnt out and depressed

I’m not sure I agree. I think the low work threshold expectations and higher amounts of benefits, incentivises either staying at home or working minimal hours.
The people linked in the article up thread are working part time hours between them and being topped up to £52k equivalent for example.

That is part of it, people grow up in similar environments where it's normal to claim benefits long term. I don't know the solution but it's definitely not turning our backs to hungry children. Wider access to education and skills courses for adults could be a good thing

You don't. The same can also be said about child benefit.

The majority of parents do put their children first so I do think it goes without saying that in most cases, it will be spent on the children.

There will always be exceptions of course but I don't think the majority should be judged based on that.

Imagine the money allowed the family a week camping

Or better food choices

Or mum could join a gym and get fitter so she could be strong enough to go back to work part-time.

You can choose where the money goes or monitor people how they spend it. That's so deeply patronizing it makes me feel sick

I was a single mum on benefits a long time ago, with one child then

Labour government

They helped me survive
I got a council that was warm and safe
I got food stamps for milk
I got income support and housing benefit
I used my money carefully budgeting and I cooked from scratch and mostly veggie except my daughter got meat for health sometimes
And I had enough, though it was tight, to get driving lessons
When she was one I wanted to work being able to drive gave be options
Benefits from job centre subsidy got me a cheap but smart job interview outfit
They gave me job interview practice

Within five years I was off benefits as my job replaced them when it became full time

I still got my child benefit and still needed it to go in groceries money..

I never felt shamed or low

The rhetoric and shaming for the last 15 + years is grotesque.

The programme like benefit street wanted to shock and had an agenda.

I was a single mum because my boyfriend was abusive totally abandoned me and his child

Obviously I meant you Cannot choose where the money goes

@XmasdemonI think you and I are in agreement. I think the money should have been spent, but targeted and in the community for children, rather than just given to parents. In what is, let’s face it, and incentive.

I volunteered for years for a charity to help child poverty, and became so disillusioned through that. I don’t know if I was just unlucky, but I seemed to be paired up with families where the (often multiple) children were in my opinion neglected, but the parents were not going without. And these weren’t addict families. They were lower income inner city London, and not at the threshold for social services, but recognised as chaotic environments for children. Actual provision of cooked meals, clubs for the children before and after school and in the holidays, help with reading and writing etc would have been more valuable in improving their lives. Perhaps also parenting support, shoes and clothes banks in the schools, and beds and bedding etc. All of this takes time and money however

I definitely think the extent to which the system does/doesn’t incentivise work is important - I don’t know enough about the exact ins and outs to say where improvements could be made, but to a certain extent people are going to make rational decisions within the system that exists - if it makes financial sense to work part time, why would you not?

Not that many people are not expected to work at all, most are expected to be working or looking for work.

In that situation though, you can lay on all the free breakfast clubs, extra support etc you like but how do you get those parents (the ones hovering around the edges of neglect) to engage with it?

There are parents who would bite your hand off for it, but they’re probably the ones who are already going without to make sure their kids are well fed and have a winter coat.

Across the income spectrum you have parents who will sacrifice everything for their kids, and parents who neglect them, and most who muddle through somewhere in between. Of course you’ll get more chaotic/neglectful families on lower incomes because the skillset needed to hold down an ok paid job overlaps with other life skills like decent parenting.

@blastfurnaceI’m not sure either, that’s why it’s a harder provision rather than just chucking money at the parents to tick a child poverty box.

Some sort of breakfast, even something portable in the playground and not at a club, like a slice of toast or bagel. Some sort of evening sandwich for those that enrol even, so you can make sure they’re being fed. Instead of money, maybe have shoes and coats available at school once a term for eligible children to pick from if they need.

But anyway, we know that the two child cap was only actually lifted to appease the backbenchers and get agreement to a (any!) budget. So it was an internal party bribe, and not actually something well thought through and planned. And I think other governments will reverse it. If you see the IFS trajectory, they’re envisaging much larger numbers being eligible each year, so the cost will increase and increase

It hasnt even worked. They have smelt blood and are now trying to get them over workers rights bill because of a negotiated amendment that had to be agrred in order to get the bill through. Bribes clearly arent working and they are desperate to get rid of Starmer and Reeves and trojan horse a Hard Left leader in. They will carry on until the next election unless they accidentally collapse the government and we end up with a Reform government.

An extra £300 a month would make a big difference to their quality of life. And who knows, they might learn some skills, develop a CV and get a better paying job. That’s how these things work.

They would become better role models for their children who would learn that if you can you need to go out and work. They might also enjoy getting out and mixing with other working adults.

A lot of us are raising families while working for not much more than we would get on benefits - especially when you take into account the free boilers, discounted utilities, free gym memberships and discounted entrance to events those on benefits receive. We do it because it is the right thing to do.

Quite how we have morphed into a society in which someone who is able to work can just decide to stay at home and leech off the working population is extraordinary.

That what my children’s school do.

There are two members of staff in the playground each morning with an insulated trolley of toast and bagels. Much easier than having a breakfast club/indoor setting. It also means that parents and siblings are welcome to eat something too.

Anyone with intolerances/celiac they are able to pop into the office and they are catered for if they wish.

@Judeyoubigtwatdo you know who pays for that? Something like that I think is a great initiative, because it doesn’t require parental input like getting to school early, but it does get all children fed

I agree and I disagree. It isn't a good life for anyone to live, and they need support and help into a better way of life. I disagree that the community can make a real difference to children, certainly not to the extent where they are having necessary shoes replacing for example or having their nutritional needs met. Poor nutrition in childhood can set someone up for a lifetime in pain, and shouldn't be a thing in a first- world country.

It’s a charity scheme called “Magic Breakfast.”

And yes, it’s great, gates open at 8:30 and they are out there until the gates close.

All years have fruit and carrots available to them at break time (nursery and reception they are available for the children all day), and KS1 have cartons of milk available too.

The school is in quite a deprived area, so it’s great.