"Couples with children are more important" - Radio 5 this morning

[DrSethHazlittMD]

There was an interview on the breakfast show this morning catching up with some mums who they apparently followed through pregnancy a couple of years ago. They were discussing assorted topics concerning the election and assorted pledged from the parties about improving things for working families and the one mum was very much in agreement that more needed doing for families.

The presenter posed the idea that the parties always promise things to "hard working families" and that single people (11 million) and those without children might feel a bit hard done by. Presenter asked the mum if she could relate to that?

Mum said she didn't agree that couples without children were hard done by (she avoided anything about single people altogether), that even more needed to be done for families, that the recent cuts had hit families most of all and that, in her opinion, couples with children are more important than those without.

AIBU to think that she's wrong in that:
a) the cuts have probably hit the disabled/permanently ill far most of all
b) couples with children are no more important than other couples, nor single people?

The woman was asked if she could relate as a mum - not if there were groups hit harder. She was invited to comment on what the interviewer said based on HER situation. So not sure why you want to slag her off online.

If it's a game of top trumps, I have 2 children, both with disabilities. Do I win?

Any attempt to assert that any one group of people is more important than any other is foolish and divisive - it's what certain newspapers constantly do when they try to demonise and other people, whether it is disabled people, poor people, single parents, large families, fat people....

Nope! NO-ONE is more important than someone else. Most people have at least one other person that would be upset if they were no longer around.
All this dominant narrative of kids being the most important in society (as a FACT rather than an opinion) ... Is usually from parents.

We do have an almost fetishisation of kids, that we should all treat ALL kids as being inherently more valuable than ALL adults.

I didn't hear the debate... It does sound clumsily worded... on both side...

One way of looking at it is that there is quite a lot of evidence that the first few years of a child's life are extremely important in shaping their future in terms of personality, relationships, education and therefore work etc. If a Government was taking a long view (unlikely I know) it makes sense they might concentrate more resources in supporting families to be the best parents they can be. Indeed a few years ago there were plans for Government funded antenatal and parenting courses to be rolled out concentrating on the first 1000 days.....but then it all got scrapped due to costs.

It takes a wider and longer term view than the political system in the country seems to allow.

*Nope! NO-ONE is more important than someone else. Most people have at least one other person that would be upset if they were no longer around.
*

My DH would have been sad if I died before we had kids but now we have 3 year old twins I think the stress of coping alone would probably kill him. I guess the kids would miss me more than, say, I at 33 missed my dad when he died.

^Very true toomuch. When a parent of young children dies, it is not only unbearably traumatic but also a major logistical strain.

When I was researching this issue it showed that disabled people were by far the hardest hit - facing up to six different benefits/services cuts per person.

The worst thing is the government refused to do a cumulative impact assessment, so we don't truly know how bad things are because the government won't look into it for selfish reasons.

The other problem is so many benefits are linked together. If you're reassessed from DLA to PIP and you lose it, benefits such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax, Tax Credits, Severe Disability Premium, etc would all stop.

Now other benefits are similar, but your needs as a disabled person don't vanish. The person I pay to care for me out of my DLA will stop. The person who cleans for me would stop. The ability to pay for extra heating, washing and electricity - all higher than the average persons use for medical reasons. For the medications and treatments not covered by the NHS would vanish. My Mobility car would be taken away - the only car that has a strong enough hoist for my wheelchair, leaving me housebound. Now I can't travel to my GP, or hospital. (And I could go on, and on...). It's also such a careful balance to maintain the dignity and functioning I can. Take the financial support away, and the pack of cards falls.

I entirely agree that the disabled are the hardest hit - what makes it worse is that the UK's disability benefits are so low compared to other countries anyway that the smallest cuts really hurt.

Children aren't any more important than anyone else, on principle. Even if their welfare when small was suddenly more of a priority (which I do sort of agree with), only the years 0-5 are vital for successful development. But crucially, children are the responsibility of the parents, not just the taxpayer. And children are, very largely, the choice their parents made.

Disabled people didn't choose to be ill and can't expect their families to look after them or finance them 24/7. There lies the nub of what the welfare state is expected to do - look after the vulnerable, not hurl cash at capable adults bringing up children they've chosen to have.

How to phrase it into one sentance that cuts across all sections of society: Children are the most important group in society and require extra funding, attention and care because when I am old, frail and disabled I would like the person caring for me to be well raised and educated, and i would like to think they can carry on improving our society, hopefully as we have all been doing throughout our lives..

It doesn't matter how well raised and educated that carer is if the means of providing that care isn't considered important enough to be made available or adequate, though.

.....teach them well and let them lead the waaaaayyyyy......

Seriously, some children are more vulnerable and need protection, but generally no, families with children are not more important.

i do not agree that children are more important that others.
the hardest hit has been the disabled and sick.
but no one gives shit about them as they either can't vote or will die

That woman's opinion is incredibly selfish. Children are not more important than adults and families with children are not more important than single people without children.

Children have adult parents to take responsibility for them, disabled adults often have no one.

I spent most of my adult life so far as part of a child free couple. (Married young. Waited a long time to have the kids.) I'm pretty confident that healthy couples are the least vulnerable members of society. Life as a DINKY is pretty fab really. (Which is why we did it for so long!)

Singles are more vulnerable. (No one to particularly take care of you.)

Couples with kids are more vulnerable still. (Swimmers and lifeguards.)

Single parents with kids more vulnerable still. (Swimmers and only one lifeguard to keep the show on the road.)

The sick, the disabled and the elderly & frail are the most vulnerable. (no lifeguards at all.)

I didn't hear the debate so can't really comment on this but the concentration on 'hard working families' gives me the absolute rage. There are families who aren't hardworking, there are child free and single people who are.

I think this is all too vague, we need to know more specifically what are the criteria for a person to be considered important.

For example does it just mean those who need help, or those who are important for the well being of society as a whole?
As the workers and potential innovators of the future surely children are the most important, if we turn out a generation of people who just cant step up to the plate then humanity is sunk, from that point of view parents have a massively responsibility and need as much help and support as can be mustered?

She may have been thinking mainly about comparing families to pensioners I guess. Pensioners are the group who've been most protected from all the welfare cuts. Low income families who depend on benefits, tax credits, housing benefit or services such as children's centres have been quite hard hit. And it's possible to be a couple with children and disabled of course....

I didn't hear it, but, she's a member of the public being questioned on live radio, not a politician, not a writer, not a social scientist, not acting in any professional capacity at all, so I think it's a bit off starting a thread to criticise one unrehearsed comment which may not have really been representative of her views. I went on Nicky Campbell's phone in a few months ago in a personal not professional capacity, it was nerve-wracking, I didn't feel I totally got my point across and I would have been devastated if someone had started a thread like this about me.

This woman sounds like an absolute tool.

what 'cuts' was she referring to?

@LynxGiftsetAndSocks

what 'cuts' was she referring to?

Dunno. But as the thread is from 2015 I can't imagine it matters too much.

Just like to point out a lot of disabled people are parents or children

ZOMBIE

🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Oh well.

As it is at the moment, raising children is a massive transfer of wealth from parents (and more so from mums) to the rest of society. Single people spend more on themselves and don't produce the next generation of workers who will support people in old age.

But when those families fail, the cost is huge - if children grow up to be criminals or unable to work, for instance - that's both a lot of public money needed to manage the fall out and a big opportunity cost because they won't be working. And we know that families are more likely to fail if they don't get support or if they live in poverty.

So in terms of public policy, families are particularly important because if we fuck children up at 10 the country will have another 60 - 70 years of paying for that mistake. If we invest in them then their productivity will end up supporting living standards for people approx 30 years older than them on down.

So I do think families (couples or singles) with children are more important.