To say that if I hear the Tory cliche "hard working families" once more

[DreamingofSummer]

I'll personally nail Osborne's scrotum to the floor

Women should be given more support to stay at home if they want to,

Erm... and maybe men should too?

What worries me is that presumably some focus groups somewhere told them that this was a meaningful and appealing phrase. I am doing some (adult) teaching at the moment and the level of unthinking ignorance about politics in my class is jaw dropping.

I was really genuinely shocked. Someone enlighten me - is politics still a compulsory subject in school (or citizenship or whatever they call it)? If so, how can adults really be SO ill-informed about their own country?

Over two thirds didn't actually know what an MP is, let alone what any of the parties stand for. I am beginning to think that for crap politicians to thrive, all that's needed is mass ignorance. I mean, WTF?!

But PeachyPlumFairy you are a family and you are hard working. I don't understand what you are saying.

Archbishop of York has more sense in his little finger than all the squirmy little polito's on QT last night.

Put several nails in for me, one for every time I here those well worn cliches that no one believes apart from the politicians.

15 minutes of fireworks on new years eve in London for a few hundred 'live spectators' a complete waste of taxpayers money IMO

I wish Thatcher was still alive so I could nail her labia to the floor.

The bitch.

I wish Margaret Thatcher was still alive and still Prime Minister.

YANBU, it makes me want to dance on my flat-screen telly and claim JSA while shouting 'yippee!"

Cos that's what non-harworking families do, innit?

Hard working families........

The broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden.........

We're all in this together.............

Because it's the right thing to do........

Quite tired of it all now really. Thank god 2015's only next year!

"Women should be given more support to stay at home if they want to,

Erm... and maybe men should too?"

Neither should. If you choose to not work then you need to ensure your household can fund that choice. Tax payers should pay for services like schools, hospitals, hospices etc not for those that dont want to work.

Benefits are being cracked down on as too many have children believing its their right and dont even consider working to support them. How anyone can have children and then rely on other tax payers to feed them rather than work to meet their every need is beyond me. Different if the child has medical needs that mean no childcare is suitable as that should be covered by the welfare state. Outcomes for children bought up on benefits are bleaker than those not, why would any parent actively make that choice?

Its little wonder they praise working families as without tax payers we would have nothing. Theres also the added benefit that their children are likely to go on to pay tax themselves having grown up with a work ethic.

The government should further expand childcare so everyone can work as it makes more sense to fund the childcare but have people working.

I think thats how it will be once this generation are parents as think how its changed in 20 years so many in childcare whilst their parents work now so in 20 years I think it will further expand.

Hmmmm well in that case tax payers shouldn't be expected to help with childcare. You know somebody will have to care for your child so plan,save and have the family you can afford in that case.

Sahp work hard too and support hard working partners too.

One size doesn't fit all.Families,children and jobs differ.

Do we have to turn this into a sahp v wp debate?

X marks the spot folks.Following on from Lurkers thread re voting if we want to get rid of this patronising bullshit spouted from a group of rich boys we all need to remember to vote.

sqoosh

Gerald Howarth.

I bizarrely found myself at his house, enjoying a BBq for the Queens Golden Jubilee. Very surreal- he had on a Union Jack waistcoat and became all animated when 'Land of Hope and Glory' came on.

I don't agree that mothers, or fathers, should be given more help to stay at home, and I can't understand the reasoning behind that argument at all.

Why should we pay for mothers to stay at home? Children of SAHMs do not have better outcomes than children who have been in childcare, so there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to society from it.

If there's no benefit to society, why should society pay for it?

People need to stop harping back to the days when a postman's wage could support a wife and three children along with paying off a mortgage. Times have changed and it's a huge luxury to be able to not work.

I'm not saying that SAHPs cant contribute to society, they can and quite often do through PTA and community voluntary work. But then so do working parents, and across the two voluntary jobs I have, the vast majority of volunteers work full time.

Having a SAHP has no advantage to anyone except the individual family themselves, so they should be the only ones expected to pay for it.

It's not just that it's a cliche, but a divisive one.

hardworkingfamilies=proper people

In another age they'd have added white and christian onto that.

And yes Labour are also a bunch of putrid... (did they change the law about defamation yet?)

YABU - it is a labour cliche.

Retro, taxpayers contributing towards childcare does benefit society though.

As has been pointed out, society does need people in its lower paid jobs, so supporting those workers through childcare not only increases a family's economic activity, but it also provides those children with early years education. The parents involved have the opportunity to increase their earning potential through those few years at work, meaning that by the time they no longer need childcare, they have a job and experience and references that they wouldn't have if they are re entering the workplace at the bottom of the pile after years of being out of it.

Whether we provide tax credits for SAHMs or we provide childcare, the state is paying either way. So we may as well provide the help that has most benefit to society instead of help that provides a luxury to an individual.

Ha, ha. A postman's wage never supported wife, children and a mortgage as a rule. My father was a postman and my mum a FT sahp but only for about 5 yrs. the fact that they did own have a house and mortgage set them massively apart from the rest of my father's colleagues and they considered him 'posh' and there were no ordinary postmen who had their own houses. The few that did were higher levels. The house was originally bought on the back of my mother's life savings from her single, working days and they moved out of London. They would never have had a house and mortgage based on what my father earnt.

Never heard that myth before though. What a load of nonsense.

When I return to work which like most sahp I will(the assumption that sahp spend a life not working is quite frankly insulting) I won't be paying any tax as I shall be working part time to suit my family and children.My working will cost the state in childcare.Many working parents cost the state more than they contribute.

Being a sahp contributes to society big time and I will continue to contribute when I return to work.

This thread isn't really the place for this debate which has been fine to death a thousand times.

Same old trite shite, happymummy

Despite the stories of people fleecing the state the latest estimates suggest that just over £1bn, or just under 1% of the budget, was lost through fraud in 2011-12. That compares to (almost certainly conservative) estimates of £32bn lost in unpaid tax in the same year.

Retro those workers contribute a lot though as they do important jobs that society needs doing

I think that those who are arguing that that SAHP contribute nothing to society are falling for the hard working family cliche actually. Not everything has to be measured in how much hard cash it generates.

Consider if every SAHP got a job and claimed childcare costs to do it - many of them paying very little or no tax at all - do you think help with child care would still be sustainable? Of course not. There is a place for every type of set-up and if we all went back to work when our children were babies it would be incredibly expensive for the country.

The government should further expand childcare so everyone can work as it makes more sense to fund the childcare but have people working.

I think thats how it will be once this generation are parents as think how its changed in 20 years so many in childcare whilst their parents work now so in 20 years I think it will further expand.

I have no idea how my phone posted that last old message!

Only if they are paying sufficient tax but if they are all doing low paid work it is costing the country. It is all very well saying that it will improve career prospects but a lot of low paid workers don't have careers and never will have.

Its better for them to work from 16-70+ for the economy though. Once out of the workplace its much harder to get a job as we are now seeing with the benefit cuts the mums who are trying to return once children are school age cant find jobs but mums that always work are finding it easy to gey different jobs or as much work as they want.