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

Would Jeremy Corbyn be a better example of good parenting? Genuine question.

Whether or not they are either of them models of good parenting is completely irrelevant.

And we can have absolutely no idea what sort of a parent either of them is anyway.

The point is whether or not there is an issue with parenting in this country. And if there is, what should be done about it. Personally, think addressing poverty and deprivation is the way forward, and every single thing the Tories do is contributing to alienating and disadvantage no further already disadvantaged sectors of the community. Going on about the party leaders individual parenting skills is just diflecting from the real issue.

Parenting is hard to get right and you only know if you got it right when they have grown up.

I am totally with math on page one. I get what is being said but honestly, we need to look at why we have so many single parents in the first place. If there was some proper support for all families in the form of childcare support to enable working it would sure help many more families than some parenting class that the majority of parents don't have time to attend.

FWIW the zerotothree.org site was shared by my paediatrican here in the US. I have found it to be an excellent resource and use it all the time. It is run by American neuroscientists so there is proper science and research behind it and not some quack, although someone here on MN will prove me wrong!

However, if we don't focus on making sure families are properly supported financially all these other programs are a waste of time. I find it extremely sad that childcare costs are not fully deductible, or are at least taken into account when determining the amount of benefits a family qualifies for. No parent should be penalized for working more hours to put food on the table and a roof over their DC's heads.

'They don't need welfare, or jobs that pay and that work with school schedules, they need men.' Not men like my ex. If I'd stayed with him they'd have been put in care and the nature of the care system and their special needs the twins would have ended up unable to work, messing up school big time, and having seriously challenging behaviour and my oldest would have so little self-confidence he'd fail big time time too only he's fail quietly & if he was sanctioned he'd starve to death from not knowing what to do about it- he couldn't ask for help. He probably has an Autistic Spectrum Disorder but like many girls its not so noticeable so he wouldn't be currently due to be tested. It only came out because his self-confidence improved & he was able to take a good look at himself & both look up stuff online and ask me stuff (I have Aspergers).

'if we don't focus on making sure families are properly supported financially all these other programs are a waste of time'. Very true. Especially if you take Cameron's ideology of poverty is not due to lack of money but is your own fault to its logical conclusion because if its your fault it could be seen that if you are in poverty you are neglecting your child by not gettting out of poverty. When you then fail to get out of poverty after your child gets put on the At Risk Register for neglect because of it your child gets taken into care & the family is broken up. That doesn't mean the child will get a new family either as only healthy babies/toddlers are highly likely to be adopted- disabled & older children tend to get stuck in care. With the care system as overloaded as it would be most won't even get foster families. Its pretty stretched as it is.

Of course one of the causes of family break ups is parents' relationship being torn apart by the stresses caused by financial difficulties. Also if you are hungry a lot you'll be narky and get irritated easily & unable to think well enough to figure out ways to manage with too little because you're not eating properly because you can't afford to eat because of poverty. That isn't going to help you to be a good parent and it will but your marriage, etc under stress to a degree in many cases it can cause a break up.

I apologise for not RTFT.

In essence, money into family services is a good thing, I also think parenting classes (and being a man who attended one I learned some things) are a good idea theoretically. However back in the real world, for every single mum, every single dad, every family who willingly attends there will so so many that don't- these are the parents who most need help, who are emotionally (and physically) abusing their children, are deep in the mire due to all the fucking cuts (and thanks Mr. Cameron for the bill being discussed to FUCK disabled people more...) in welfare.

Releasing more money to the most vulnerable would enable family units of whatever makeup to put proper meals on the table, to appropriately clothe their children and bloody hell encourage a social life for both children and parents by enabling them to get out more.

But no, the Tories have gutted Sure Start, our local centre was much loved before it closed down, and continue to cripple the poverty ridden people who need proper financial help and solely think a two-parent family and parenting classes will resolve these important issues...

Cuckoo land.

All this talk of 'tiger moms' is a bit odd in the context of the speech. Amy Chua's book is a good read, but it's basically the story of two Yale professors who have two daughters who go to Harvard.

Both children spend alot of their childhood practising music. One daughter is very biddable. The other daughter is understandably put off by her mother's obsessive pushing and, according to the book atleast, they have a very difficult relationship.

There is a lot of discussion of different parenting styles, but both daughters are clearly intelligent children living in privileged circumstances following their parent's footsteps.

It's not a story of anybody overcoming adversity and clearly many of the anecdotes have been heavily edited to make the book more interesting/controversial. Well done to Amy Chua for selling books and providing newspapers with a subject to fill a few inches of space, but it really isn't a book that you can use for parenting advice.

I agree Merrymouse- it was one of the most ridiculous parts of the speech, Amy Chua took obsessive parenting to a new level, a level quite a few professionals involved with children, thought wasn't emotionally healthy for children-and yet that is the model Cameron thinks we should be chasing in the name of family.
Amy Chua having done all she could as a controlling mother had nothing left to do in her "spare" time but write a book which was as successful as her children, and has spawned many debates signings and interviews to fill her time.

I suggest flash mobbing the patronising arses with parenting questions on a daily basis. "Mr Cameron Sir tips hat and bows why can't my son get up in time for school? He plays on the computer until midnight and he has Mars bars for dinner every night. I just don't get it? Is it because he goes to a state school?"

Is this the woman who told her daughter to take her drawing away and do a better one?
Doing a great job creating well rounded happy children. [hmmm]

So, 'the family is a bulwark against poverty'. Well, I have just had to resign from a well paid, full time job to care for my 16 year old son and support his 14 year old brother. My son has chronic mental health issues and due directly to the £50 million cuts to CAMHS provision, we have had no outreach from our mental health service. This outreach has had to be provided for by family members e.g. me. My other son is on the edge of care and refusing school but, again due to frequent and repetitive cuts to children and young people's services, particularly in our region, he has been allowed to slip through the net and is looked after by his father. His father has mental health difficulties and cannot really look after my son, but due to cuts to the adult mental health services in our area and frequent 'restructuring' of services, my husband is supported by me and his 83 year old mother.

In short, the absence or inadequacy of services for our children and for adults with additional needs has forced our family to pool resources and try to support each other. However, we do not have the skills, contacts or means to provide our family members with the quality or quantity of support that they need and the cost, in human terms, is incalculable.

The government can't have it both ways: to want both parents to work FT and for the state not to pick up the slack in provision of high quality childcare and education.

Want2be childcare isn't included as income when working out benefits eg housing benefit and tax credits.

As an aside, I took parenting classes. Had to pay for the course. It was very interesting and I really tried to take heed of what I had learned in the classes for a while afterwards, anyway . It was quite insightful on things like modelling behaviour and how a lot of communication is not simply verbal.

Parenting courses are good things.

AndNowits7 That is my point. If a household is earning GBP50k a year but paying GBP25k a year in childcare, their income for calculating benefits should be a household income of GBP25k not GBP50k. Right now we have this insane system where families can't afford for both parents to work and its the children who suffer. I also think nannies should be fully deductible because as soon as you have 2 or more children it is often cheaper to hire a nanny than use a CM or daycare. It also helps reduce the stress for the parents, helping them stay together.

I also have an issue with Cameron saying teachers should be like tiger mums. Since when as a teacher always been female and the parental figure? DD's teacher is there to teach not parent. As parents, it is job as the parent to get my DD to school and ready to be taught. Two distinct differences.

I believe children are now more likely to have an Iphone than a resident father.

Are you 100% sure about this, applesetssail? I think many of us would be interested to hear the source.

According to government figures 33% of children do not live with both parents, of whom approx. 90% will be living with their mothers. So just under 30% of children have non-resident fathers.

According to OFCOM about 31% of children aged 5-15 own their own Smartphone.

So on the surface, it looks like slightly more children own Smartphones than have resident fathers.

Gov figures of percentage of children living with both parents
ONS figures on lone parent families
OFCOM

I salute you perspicacia because that's more than I'd ever have been arsed to do, but apple said Iphones. Not Smartphones. Well done though.

If 30% of children have non resident fathers, 70% of children have resident fathers.

Also, the 31% will be very heavily weighted towards 12-15 year olds, not 5 year olds.

In the UK approximately 45% of smartphones are iphones, there doesn't seem to be data on under 16yo ownership.
I wonder if children are less likely to own iPhones and more likely to be given a cheaper smartphone? That might skew the figures.

Sorry for the type merry I meant non-resident.
Apparently 2% of 5-8 yos have their own smartphone; 20% of 8-11yos and 65% of 12-15yos.

I love the fact that someone is recording all this stuff.

according to your figures children are still more than 70% likely to have a resident father and only 30% likely to have a smartphone.

Actually, I suspect that most 15 year olds have smart phones, but smart phones are just part of modern life. They also probably live in homes with baths and televisions (although they might consume all media via their smartphone...)

Regardless of the smartphone comparison, a third of children being raised by lone parents is an awful lot of children. It would be interesting to see the breakdown by socioeconomic group because my head is thinking that the majority would be from the lower two groups.