Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

if you voted for the Tories, you should feel personally responsible when you see homeless people on the streets ...

999 replies

aufaniae · 10/10/2012 13:39

...once their policies start to bite.

They want to removing housing benefit for under 25s, many of whom have children. Just one of their policies which will drive people into homelessness.

I thought this was meant to be a civilised country. If the safety net is removed, many people including children will fall through it, some of them ending up on the streets.

How can anyone support that?

OP posts:
OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 11/10/2012 20:05

Similar to me Fairy, had ds1 at 21, and have since built a career to provide for us. No degree yet though! Smile it's very small minded when people think that this just isn't a possibility for them and base so much of their argument on 'but dp lost his job!

If dp lost lost a job that could pay for a SAHM and four children, then he's probably not one of the ones that would struggle to get another job for years.

pumpkinsweetie · 11/10/2012 20:08

Fwiw i live no where near a university and i would have had no family help when i had dd1 as all my family work-thats right work

minouminou · 11/10/2012 20:08

To be fair - I think Pumpkin's DP has lost his job very recently, so they may both be in a bit of a tailspin over it.
Obviously it's one they'll have to pull out of v quickly, and let's hope they do.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 11/10/2012 20:08

What a ridiculous post Pumpkin. Fairy's family earns more than plenty of families that have more children than they do, and pays a hell of a lot more tax.

londonone · 11/10/2012 20:09

I think you got your posters confused aufanie

Original poster
aufaniae · 11/10/2012 20:09

Fairyjen, do you not have the imagination to see that even you might have fallen on hard times when you had your child at 20. Should there have been no safety net at all for you and your child?

OP posts:
OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 11/10/2012 20:10

Safety net does not mean choice.

Can't you see the difference?

Original poster
aufaniae · 11/10/2012 20:11

I have no idea what you mean by that no, outraged.

OP posts:
londonone · 11/10/2012 20:12

Pumpkin - I think the key bit of your post is "when I had DD". You were 19 and had no qualifications, you were in no position to be a parent.

Viviennemary · 11/10/2012 20:13

To be fair Pumpkin did not know her husband would lose his job when she had four children. She didn't have four children whilst he was out of work. I think there should be a safety net for people who fall on hard times. But I don't agree with more money for more children. That is the risk people have to take if they have a big family. The same as if you take on a huge mortgage and then fall on hard times. You won't be able to pay your mortgage. I am a cautious person though. DH even more so!

pumpkinsweetie · 11/10/2012 20:13

But of course WORKING for anything less than 20k means absolutely nothing to you posh toffs and maybe all people on less than that should not have a familyShock.
Funny that because i bet most of you saying i shouldn't have had any dc wouldn't have been born yourself on that belief

minouminou · 11/10/2012 20:16

But it seems that taking the risk of a big mortgage is more enterprising and admirable.

pumpkinsweetie · 11/10/2012 20:16

But you don't actually need qualifictions to secure a job and earn money.
My dh gained nvq1, 2 and 3 whilst at work!

When i left school i had to go straight out to work as my mother couldn't afford to keep me. I couldn't and she couldn't afford to send me to university, and fwiw i also didn't want to get into debt either!

londonone · 11/10/2012 20:18

No but pumpkin couldn't support the children when her DP WAS working ergo she has never been able to afford them. It is not a case that she is only now claiming benefits, I am guessing she has been for the last ten years.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 11/10/2012 20:20

Sorry, I'll explain.

You are asking Fairy if she would have wanted the state to provide a safety net for her and her child if she fell on hard times after she had a child at 20.

I can't answer that for her, so ill answer it for myself, as I also just said I had my first at 21. My answer is that yes, I would have wanted a safety net. But the difference is that I would have used it as a safety net, and would have been out job hunting and taking extreme care with my contraception. When someone is using the benefit system as a safety net, that's what they do. When they use the benefit system as a choice, they don't take extreme care with their contraception, and they don't look for another job because they know that as long as they have a child under the age of five, the state will pay for them to have a comfortable enough life. That isn't a choice I would ever make, so all I need from my state is a safety net rather than a way of life. That is basically the reason why I feel that some benefits can reasonably be cut.

minouminou · 11/10/2012 20:21

Fairy and outraged - just out of interest - you both had children young and went on to forge careers for yourselves.

What support - emotional, financial and practical did you get during those years and from whom?

londonone · 11/10/2012 20:21

No the risk of a mortgage is on the individual not the state, that's the difference and IMO HB should never pay mortgages. You can't pay your mortgage, you lose your house, that is the other side on home ownership, or it should be.

Fairyjen · 11/10/2012 20:21

I would not be in that position firstly. My job is always in demand end of story and I have family that could helP support me and dc. Also dp and I are rock solid.

So no. I would not claim.

pumpkin undoubtly your dp has done all he can but you seem to have done naff all!

minouminou · 11/10/2012 20:23

but if you lose your home, the state may well end up bailing you out

minouminou · 11/10/2012 20:24

By bailing you out I mean having to house you and however many children you have.

pumpkinsweetie · 11/10/2012 20:25

So what should i do london give them up for adoption, maybe to a posh couple with buckets of money?Hmm
Well of course the posh can do a better job at parenting than me with all there degrees and money.
But remember not all people with money are good parents, that being said not all working class are good parents-thats the thing i love my children and look after them very well in a loving supportive home.

I'm quite happy in the knowledge me & dh are bringing up our beautifull family, and if we need a few benefits then so be it-they are there for people like us after all.

When my dc get older, i will be back to college and then university but the difference is i would have done all my parenting younger, my qualifications later.
Does it really matter what way round i do it, eventually i will be earning a high wage and paying back into society later on in life.

londonone · 11/10/2012 20:25

Temporarily though which I see as a key difference.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 11/10/2012 20:26

The state may well end up bailing you out minou, and that's fine as long as you are working, which is something most people find very hard to to by the time they have got to three children.

pumpkinsweetie · 11/10/2012 20:27

Yes naff all, fairy-well it's time to pick on sahm is it..............knew it wouldn't take longAngry

Fairyjen · 11/10/2012 20:28

How can I not afford them pumpkin on 32k or indeed 52k if you class my dp is the math too hard for you?