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 .

But i do think there are a lot of single mothers out there struggling with their mental health

You really want someone in government to be paid to analyse my food shop?
I went to Sainsbury's yesterday.
The chicken will be eaten by my daughter but not me because I don't eat chicken.
The bread will be eaten by all 3 of us (me, husband, daughter).
We bought some frozen cheesy bite things - daughter chose them for her to have but didn't like them so gave them to me to eat.
The milk.... again used by all 3 of us.
And so on.....
How would it be decided what was being spent "on my daughter"?
Should I be doing two separate food shops so I can prove it?
She doesn't actually drink much milk so "her" bottle would probably go off before it's finished.
🙄
(hypothetical as I don't get UC - just Child Benefit)

That you can claim it for more than two children.

It's not an either/or is it? And ignores the fact that a majority of people impacted by the 2 child limit are in work.

People also only ever seem to think about this in a very black and white way - people are "on benefits" and they need to "get a job" which will fix the problem and "get them off benefits".

The reality is people move in and out of work (low paid and low skill jobs can be particularly insecure). Health conditions strike, and people recover. Families break down and new families form. For most families it's dynamic and complicated - the people who are entrenched, long term out of work aren't the majority. You need a system that provides an adequate safety net for everyone.

If someone loses their job unexpectedly, are they going to be more or less likely to find a new one if they're losing sleep over being able to put food on the table and keep the roof over their head?

It's so easy to cook when you're living in temporary accommodation with no access to a proper kitchen. Being able to buy some bananas and apples which don't require cooking does make a difference, if otherwise you're limited to what you can cook with a kettle, toaster and maybe a microwave if you're lucky.

And while people are going on about those who have more children than they can afford, what about those who could easily afford their children when they had them? I know one family of four with two working parents, who lost their jobs at the same time as the company they worked for folded. ( And by the way, they only had four as their third child turned out to be twins!).

What about those living as a single parent after leaving due to domestic abuse? They should have known how things would turn out?

It will go in the family pot, help children and parents in many cases - a high number of parents do without themselves to give to their children.

That's excellent news. I am happy for those struggling families this will affect

There was a post on here years ago that really stuck with me.

The poster said that if you claim benefits and you have any left over at the end of the month, you are morally obliged to “send it back” or at the very least, donate it to charity.

The frightening thing was, people agreed with her.

(As far as I can remember it was a single parent with a small baby asking the best way to save the £20 a month she managed to save from her benefits, there was outrage that she had any left and loads of the obligatory “we earn £100k between us and can’t save £20 a month!” bullshit.)

We don't.

I get that Labour want to support children, but they are beyond naive.

My f had 6 kids for just this reason. He wore hand made suits and ate 40% of every meal, while we lived in jumble sale stuff, and split the remaining food between 6 dcs and my dm. What money was left went to the bookie. My dm refused to have baby no. 7 when f thought he'd be able to give up work altogether.

It will all start up again. And, for the children, it is no fun being a revenue stream.

Well, that’s even worse then. So only people on benefits are incentivised to have more children?

And I’m not judging, I’ve claimed UC for a short period as a young student parent. But we shouldn’t be encouraging people to have more kids if they can’t support themselves, their fault or not…?

The kids already exist, though

From my experience most poorer families are hard working people who work all the hours god sends for a minimum pittance and get a UC top up to be able to survive often working in unpleasant conditions such as factories who expect them to work like machines.
I know this because I did temping in a factory when I was at uni during the holidays and it was soul destroying but the people were relentlessy hard working and committed and put their all into their work.

It’s not all about scrounging and sitting on their bum all day but not everyone is equal in intellect so can’t all get the education for high paying careers.

While I accept having children you can’t afford is irresponsible, it’s the children that suffer as a result of poverty.
I do however think 2 children is enough if you don’t have a well paid job but I don’t think children who didn’t ask to be born should start life hungry and cold.
I also don’t think hard working people who are doing their best should be excluded from raising a family and having the basics in life that perhaps people more fortunate take for granted.
I don’t mind helping others have a more comfortable life when they work as hard as I do but are just not compensated as much because the lucky dip of genes they got meant they are less intelligent so life is tougher.

How do I think what works? Milk tokens/healthy start vouchers were for specific things yes.

But I'm talking about replacing cash benefits with vouchers which is what some people seem to want.

Then I think we have a confusion. You said that vouchers don’t work because they might only be valid in certain shops ie Clark’s v Tesco.
I replied that is not how government benefit vouchers have worked historically so no reason to think that would be an issue.
You replied to say no that is how it works (Tesco v Clarks) and I replied saying as someone who has taken thousands of mils tokens, it is.

so something got lost somewhere

lucky dip of genes they got meant they are less intelligent so life is tougher

Seriously ?

When I got a crisis grant at one point not relatively long ago I could find no shops that did paypoint that accepted the code sent to my phone. I ended up finding one shop I had to travel too. But it was humiliating.

OP, Life must be very hard with your mindset. I don't envy you.

Sorry the whole thing was a hypothetically question. What if we were given vouchers type thing. Also serves me right for MN instead of working

Edited to add that i definitely did not say "that is how it works (tesco v clarkes)

That’s is humiliating, and exhausting when you’re already exhausted, and is exactly why we need to give people on benefits the freedom to do what they want with the money they’re entitled to.

But this is the whole argument.
The government (I forget which one) bought in the cap. The families that often have lots of children didn't stop having lots of children so those children just ended up in poverty.
Now the current government is just changing it back to how it was before.
Children were still being born when the cap existed.
It didn't change anything.

Yes I am aware of that. But they are welcome to come to the shop and cook along with other parents. I'm sure they could stay and eat if they didn't have plates / cutlery etc.

The shop does act as a food bank via social services. It is run by the community which I think makes a difference.

@Bambamhoohoo However I would challenge why poor people can’t eat unhealthily if they chose? Who are we to control their choices? People who aren’t poor aren’t controlled.

They are not controlled in what they buy, just in the cooking sessions. You could argue that is control I suppose but then it is also about feeding a family one day a week.

There are other shops near by so it isn't the only option.

When I finally got the code cashed though, the till person I think could see the stress I was feeling as the queue behind me added up and the original till guy wasn't doing it right etc, he had such empathy and kindness in his eyes, and it made me feel so much better I think the world needs more of this

People really are forgetting that the MAJORITY of UC recipients are IN WORK.

@Ahfiddlesticks , sounds like there were some teething issues which need addressing. It IS a very good idea.

I think this is exactly it. If people haven’t come from this background or worked in/adjacent to it, they don’t realise. I’m in a middle class bubble now and people who have always lived in that can’t comprehend.

What you say about lifted out of poverty ‘on paper’ is exactly it. It won’t help the children at all. Targeted support going directly to children would have been miles better. This is a waste of money and, even worse, this money could have actually done good things for children had it been spent in the right way. But putting it into free wraparound childcare, breakfast clubs, food for children etc would have taken a lot of time and effort. They’ve gone for a bribe in effect, and it won’t change outcomes for children

Not teething issues - the scheme ran for years and years and the issues were the same throughout.

You cannot compel private companies to take vouchers.