To think David Cameron has a nerve setting standards for good parenting?

[echt]

You couldn't make it up, though to be fair he thinks everyone is bit shit and needs Tory guidance, not just the feckless proles, for once.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/david-cameron-parents-children-lessons#comments

Knobbly beat me to it, too....

"In the end, getting parenting and the early years right isn’t just about the hardest-to-reach families; it’s about everyone,” Cameron is expected to say on Monday. “We all have to work at it. And if you don’t have a strong support network – if you don’t know other mums or dads – having your first child can be enormously isolating."

So why the FUCK are they shutting children's centres, ending secure council tenancies, doing nothing about the housing crisis beyond capping benefits (the cap is due to drop too) all of which makes people more isolated as families are forced to away from their support networks?

I haven't managed to get beyond the first couple of paragraphs tbh, I'm.thqt angry.

Is he woefully out of touch, or so cynical he doesn't care what he does or says as long as it sounds good?

I read this.
From a man raised by nannies and boarding schools.

The good parents will attend but the parents who really need parenting classes, I specifically mean parents who abuse and neglect their children, will be too difficult and costly to reach so they will fall through the gaps.

Taking families out of poverty increases their life chances across the board but that's more expensive than this bullshit rhetoric.

And yes, it's more 'woman blaming', it's abhorrent.

I agree that the HMRC must chase absent parents for support, in conjunction with many other measures.

Would it be a conspiracy theory too far to suspect they are doing it on purpose to make leaving a relationship, however awful, darned near impossible for most women with children?

He just completely ignored all of what David Willetts covered in his Parliamentary Address.

The main point being that Two-Thirds of all children living in poverty in the UK, live in two parent working households and that's pre tax credit cuts, the same applies to those needing HB. I'm sure quite a few people split up during the enforced moves that the Bedroom Tax caused.

Willetts warned that 'Families, Children and Young People' are paying the price of punishing policy decisions.

By ignoring the findings of prominent party intellectuals, shows that there's an agenda, which DC won't be swayed from.

""Would it be a conspiracy theory too far to suspect they are doing it on purpose to make leaving a relationship, however awful, darned near impossible for most women with children?""

They believe in Marriage and that Parents (particularly women), should do their best (and put up with a lot of shit) to stay married.

He'd never do right as far as the clearly mostly non con voters on MN are concerned from the looks of things.

was going to say as well, a man who left a child in a pub isn't really in a position to preach about 'parenting classes'

However- I take umbridge with the snidey comments about the fact the Camerons use childcare - they are a 2 full time working parent family with more than 1 DC, a nanny is the practical and cheapest solution. Even though I'm a SAHM, I really hate the idea that if you both work full time and use childcare you somehow aren't "raising your children" yourself and aren't a "real parent".

Cameron's parents could have benefited from parenting classes and then their son may not have been an obnoxious twat when he was a young man. He hasn't improved much either.

He has no idea what poverty is and how it really effects people. Does he ever think that maybe just maybe the cuts and caps imposed on those most in need have contributed to an epidemic of hopelessness.

And I might advise him of the consequences of making leaving a marriage almost impossible unless you are wealthy enough to do so. Study after study through the years has shown children of parents who are not happy in a marriage and who stay together suffer enormously. But its OK because they are poor families and poor children who don't really matter.

"Two-Thirds of all children living in poverty in the UK, live in two parent working households"

"Willetts warned that 'Families, Children and Young People' are paying the price of punishing policy decisions"

Ah OK it's starting to make more sense now. It's about being seen to be doing something and shifting the blame for the rise in poverty from government policy (where it rightly belongs) and engaging in some good old fashioned victim blaming instead.

It's an uncomfortable fact for a country with such high divorce rates, but nonetheless outcomes for children in two parent families are better than those in one.

That's not the same as saying that every one parent family is worse than a two parent one, but I do feel addressing the elephant in the room has to be done at some point.

No doubt something that mothers will be required to take time off work for and lose out in their careers while the men get to use it as an excuse to leave work early and dump on junior staff.

The man is an arse. So according to him i should have stayed in my extremely emotionally, and sometimes physically, abusive marriage? That would have done wonders for my children I'm sure. Five years after divorce I'm only just accessing counselling despite having been overlooked for the freedom programme many times and still chasing over £3000 of debt through the CSA which when last in court the judge refused to look at as 'it didn't matter'. Lots of things need money pushing into them and I'm damned sure that parenting classes aren't it. Marriage is not the be all and end all of a good family foundation. Only if it is a positive marriage can it help and you can't change an abusive partner no matter how much you try and teach them to be a parent.

Actually, I think they've got this right.

I'm in favour of more support for parents.

And ask like the idea of making it just one of the things that people do.

I don't see why the parenting of or by the person who makes the announcement is relevant. In fact, I think it's important that it's not. Otherwise it smacks of 'you much all be like me'

Rather than, 'how can we make things better for parents'

Also, doubling funding of family counselling services is a good thing in my book.

(I realise that is usually compulsory to bash the government and have nice, hostile thread titles. So fully expect to be the only one on this thread who welcomes more resources into family services.)

Whether classes are a good or workable idea or not, the truth is that parenting has the biggest influence on how a child turns out. Every teenager I have ever taught who has had behaviour issues- outside of SEN- there are parenting issues. Every child I have ever taught who has attendance issues- there have been parenting issues Many children with mental health ussues - there are parenting issues. Young offenders - all the ones I have been involved in (and I really mean all) - have grown up in houses where there are parenting issues.

"The announcement was welcomed by Relate, whose chief executive, Chris Sherwood, said: “Relationship support can help to reduce family breakdown, which is a key driver of poverty and can result in poor outcomes for children.”

As a beneficiary, I suppose he would welcome this.

But Relate is a respectable organisation, and I think that he is talking here at a population level, and the difference it can make to many who are not in dangerous/abusive situation but cannot afford private counselling.

I don't mean minor run if the mill behaviour issues by the way, I mean lng term, very challenging behaviour issues.