To be really cross that David Cameron wants to limit useage of Sure Start Centre to families on low incomes.

[Housewife2010]

I have used them for the last 3 years & the majority of the mothers there are middle class. If they didn't go, the places I go to would be almost enmpty.
I use them a lot and my children have got a lot out of the classes/events there. We may not be poor, but our household income has dropped a lot since I gave up work to bring up our children. It is very helpful to be able to take them to some free classes and meet other local families.

I don't understand Lilly's point ? which ones are closing ? why are they closing ? due to lack of use ?
how many close in poor areas ?

BA when the centres are closed and the workers all unemployed I presume you will be then going to them and telling them that they ahve no right to a say as theya re no longer net contributors (as per threads yesterday)?

Completely agree riven.

I run an antenatal drop in for teenagers at my local centre. It enables me to ensure that appropriate care is given to these girls and makes my job easier in that i don't have to chase them up in accessing said care.

"I don't think the really neglected, deprived children who really need it will ever use it. "
clare1973. so if thtas true then whats the point of having them.

surestart sent me a book bag and 3 books, for ds2. lovely. but so unnecessaary. they really shouldn't be wasting money sending it to me, should they ?

Oblo, I understood claires post to mean the severly neglegted. The ones for whom a few massage or cookery classes wouldn't scratch the surface of their needs.

Oblomov - the book bag and books, isn't that bookstart? I thought that wasn't the same as surestart?

rivens case is prime example of what it should be used for. sn children, or mums thta need help, irrespective of income/class.
but cheap jollies for MC mummies its what it seems to be being used for.
which is all wrong. i don't pay my taxes(and we don't have ALOT) to fund MC mummies.

oh i'm sorry. maybe it is bookstart.
anyhow, is also wrong for them to send them out !! wasteful.

SanctiMoanyArse - cheap shot.

Closing the centres will allow new ones to pop up, paid for by the people that use them, instead of being paid for by the vast majority of people that don't (it's a simple principle).

The new ones that appear - privately run and better able to adapt to the needs of those that use them (without the dead hand of Govt targets, form-filling, etc etc) - will no doubt be keen to employ the services of those with any relevant experience...namely, your erstwhile unemployed SS staff.

I'm middle class and I have no doubt that without SS I would have got PND. I was horribly lonely and isolated after DS was born and going to the lovely baby club and meeting lots of people, including my new BF (who is WC, btw), was a lifesaver.

Just because you have money does not make the transition to parenthood necessarily any easier to bear.

I agree with means testing it.

Oblomov - I was just saying I don't think that the children who really need help, the ones with really neglectful parents will ever get help in this way. I am sure that other parents find them helpful though, but they tend to be the people who would do their best for their children anyway. I wasn't arguing a case for or against Sure Start centres, I was just stating my views on how I see things locally.

You know, it seems a bit odd to me

Ideology wise I get why tories wouldn wish to limit non enas tested benefits, of which access to SS centres is one

But when I have seen question amrks over heating subsidies for those who are well off or in Spain, or TV licences for the affluent, it confuses me.

Surely proper Tory oideology would be about keeping a safety net but building chances for the young?

Limit support for the elderly to those who need it but allow youngsters the bump ups that SS centres can give. Both for MC just in affordable options, and the WC* with the above plus the chances to mingle with those who aspire to more.

Isn't that just more- proactive and useful?

• am fully aware that when I am saying WC what I am really meaning is a narrow section of underemployed underclass in reality.

i dont mind if we were asked to pay but if they close them down or say we are not allowed to come i would be gutted
dh actually earns over 60k so i think classed as a high income but i consider myself in need of using the centres because of the fact he is always @ work and i have got 2 small kids who need to be out the house and kept active. tbh there is not alot available in terms of paying activities round here anyway, so we would not have much to do, whereas because the centres are there i go every day and do things, keeping ourselves busy and entertained. i go to the young mums things, the 2 yr old things, trips, courses etc - i find it so good especially our borough is probably the best one imo, but if they said we are not allowed would be extremely pd off, considering we do pay so much taxes anyway and really so what if we are not low income, does it mean i should be isolated in the house and not be able to easily get advice and use all the facilities?
but definitely i dont mind paying that wouldnt be a problem, very very wrong to close the door on us though.
and also i dont think anyone would hav a clue we have that kind of income i definitely do not intimidate anyone (would be really suprised if i did). also tbh i doubt i would fit in well with the paid activities with the rich and probably quite older mums, i feel i fit in better with the surestart and the stay and plays done on the estate near by, why should we have to be isolated by our earnings even though our age, background etc doesnt fit in with that. i thought kids are supposed to be mixing anyway not all the rich in one corner and poor in another

clare you are right in a way

But would do their best in no way equates to can afford access does it?

So really they are providing those who wish to do tehir best but are limited in opprotunity with that chance?

I live in a town with no surestart centre but fall under the heading of people who would like to but lack opportunity (as a carer). Living here is overall teh best I can do for them but if we were home the SS centre would be an extremely useful, and unusually accessible, service for us. Better than sitting alone all day because I cannot afford coffee shop chats anyway.

Riven - one of the significant objections to SS mentioned on here is that it is the sharp-elbowed middle classes that dominate at such centres.

Indeed, this problem was one of the reasons DC has given in his call for reform.

Most WC people don't use them.

Most people that do use them are middle class.

Lily expressed what I wanted to say.

Just to add that if SS is deemed to be for poor people only, then said people will be even less likely to attend because they will feel stigmatised and judged. As has been said, being 'poor' doesn't mean a person automatically needs additional support.

People who earn what is considered to be a decent income (not high, but not low either)get screwed over from all sides. They are taxed to subsidise people whose income is less (fair enough),but then expected to pay again for everything else that they use. No one has any sympathy because on the surface it appears that they can afford it. These same people are not eligable for social housing or any other kind of support and I think that when they've met their living costs they are often no better off in terms of disposable income than people right at the poorest end of the scale. Yet middle earners are helping to keep the country afloat.

I think I would like to be DCs definition of 'middle class', if that means I could have his income

What about those of us on variable incomes?

I'm self-employed, so some years (rarely!) I might be classed as getting towards middle income, most years have a low-ish income, and occasionally an income that is far less than people receiving benefits.

I don't know, and more importantly the government/inland revenue etc. don't know my income until I have handed in my tax return for the previous year.

So what would I have to do? I'd have no proof that currently I was on a low income, and it would be impossible to say 'I only earned £5,000 last year so I should have been eligible to use surestart services', because the year would have already passed and I'd have missed out.

I have been to our SureStart Centre today. We are in a very deprived area. I attend the BF support drop in and used to use the play sessions. I have done their inhouse BF peer support training and am now doing further training towards becoming a BF counsellor.

IMHO I both use the centre and give back. It would be near impossible to allow/refuse using the centre on income alone, as many other factors affect parenting skills, not just income.

My local centre offers lots of stuff open to all, plus additional courses/sessions that are by invitation only - so that parents who are most in need/at risk can access them. For example, I asked about the possibility of doing a parenting course but was turned down - basically because we seem to be doing ok. Which is a shame, because there are some bits I am really crap at! But I understand there are others who need it more.

I think some people are being misled into believing they are Middle Class and are being tricked out of entitlements because of this. An income of £21k is not a middle class wage, its a working class one. £21k is not a lot of money when you figure in taxes and other expenditure. People on that kind of wage should be allowed to attend things like SS.

Dave and the chums are doing a PR spin, first claiming that £21k is an MC wage then declaring himself MC. There's a huge disparity between £21k and a £30mil. If £21k is MC then about 80% of those working nationally and about 99% working in the South East are MC and that's not the case. A MC wage in the South East would be £35k+ if not more.

btw has anyone got a link for what he's said?