I don't know what to think about this - Some parents need to be nannied by the state

[Another2Cats]

An article in yesterday's Times (share token below) with this title. I have thoughts both ways on this.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d2c38325-db32-4e36-a213-6d84be59a2f0?shareToken=58b28456ef3641836cb2ba7f3f70c791

[redacted by MNHQ for copyright reasons]

Considering RR has said this week that welfare needs reform - some parents need to snap out of their state reliance pretty quickly.

"but at what point do we say people have to take responsibility for themselves? If the state does everything then where is the impetus for people to do anything for themselves?"

At the point where you see evidence that not doing anything for people actually incentivises people to become better parents.

Is there evidence of this from research? From history? That children from the poorest and most dysfunctional families had comparatively better outcomes before the existence of social services, the welfare state, the NHS and social housing?

"Support should be targeted to those who need it."

What - like children who come from families who can't or won't meet their basic needs?

Gosh what an angry response.

I don't pass judgment on anyone - as I said in my first sentence. I started and run this charity, and I made a decision early on that the only criteria for access is need. You're hungry, we feed you, regardless of why you're without access to food. Also no limit on particular items etc, and no expectations of gratitude - I think you'll find that's not taken from my post, so I'm not sure where you've gotten that.

You say these particularly people don't genuinely need help. How do you know they don't 'genuinely need help'?

That's not what I said. I said that there is a tranche of people who expect someone else to do everything for them practically down to wiping their backsides, and that they display an extreme sense of entitlement. I'll give a small example, fully expecting that you'll pick holes in it, but you never know. One of my clients came to me last week asking if we knew of anywhere she could find a winter coat for her child. Now we don't have much budget for that and I went through various grant finders etc and came up with nothing. So I and another volunteer who also works in a charity shop worked together, and I gave her a budget of up to £10 and asked her to source a decent warm coat. She came in this week with a beautiful coat that would've passed as new imo. Offered it to the client. Client said no, because it looked like a school coat and she didn't want her child looking like she was in school uniform when she wasn't, and besides she already has a school coat.

I have an endless list of this sort of thing.

Now, we can have a really lively and interesting discussion about how some poorer families are more image-conscious and worried about appearances and being judged, whereas MC kids wander around in 4th hand mud-covered Boden because the parents don't have that fear, and how every child deserves many nice clothes etc, and the psychological toll of poverty and scarce resource for decision making. There's lots and lots to say. But in my opinion the example above is the sort of thing I'm not happy to see or lend credibility to. Buying a child a second winter coat because their first one looks too much like school uniform is not a problem I'm willing to take on, and I'm surprised that the parent thought it would be.

"some parents need to snap out of their state reliance pretty quickly"

What does that even mean?

You mean some parents need to just stop claiming benefits and move out of their social homes? Stop relying on government help with childcare? Stop expecting their children to have special needs support at school?

What an unbelievably stupid comment.

So my daughter is technically from immigrant family in France, we are English and her French was super limited when she started school in September. Now it’s October half term her comprehension of French is pretty good, she speaking a lot of French and singing full songs in French. The school is great, they do sport in the morning including balance bike lessons. Lots of free play and nap time. I was very apprehensive of this but she seems to be thriving, she started at 2 years 11 months. They do allow children to start in nappies now but I haven’t noticed any of dds class in nappies.

@TheWayTheLightFalls

"and the psychological toll of poverty and scarce resource for decision making. There's lots and lots to say. But in my opinion the example above is the sort of thing I'm not happy to see or lend credibility to. "

So on one hand you're saying that the stigma of poverty impacts on people's emotions and decision making, and on the other hand you just think the mother refusing the coat is an example of her shitty attitude?

My mum is 90. She was raised by a single mother before the advent of the welfare state and lived in dire poverty as a child. She experienced severe social stigma and abuse because of it. She eventually went on to become a diplomat's wife and live a middle class life, but I can tell you that the shame of her childhood has never, ever left her and it manifests itself every day in her decision making and emotions.

Just a tad.

There were plenty of parents who were great amongst my cohort, who encouraged their children to do better, took the opportunity of their child learning to learn stuff on the quiet themselves, who were proud of what their children did. They didn't need some posh bloke telling them they were crap at parenting when they created a warm, safe clean and loving environment for their children to grow up in.

And then there were arseholes, abusive, neglectful and absolutely not ever going to engage with anything. I had one of those and what made the difference was the school, the teachers, the safety of the environment, the cleanliness and calm, the knowing I wasn't going to be hit there. She could read perfectly well, she could do basic mathematics perfectly well, she could say 'Well, obviously, nobody wants Cambridge, if it's not Oxford there's no point bothering, ha ha!' whilst being damn sure that no child of hers was ever going to be allowed to get ideas above their station and go into further, never mind higher education.

He's assuming poor = stupid = crap parent and can be fixed by teaching who he sees as the unfortunate dim souls how to be somebody else, taking away the vital role that schools can fulfil by virtue of being Not a Parent. Take away the schools' involvement and make it all for the parents and you kick away the support from those who truly need it the most.

I mean, maybe she didn't need another coat the same as the other one. It made me laugh that she didn't like the coat you'd gone to such a huge effort (really??) to give to her. Good for her.

@TheWayTheLightFalls

"I said that there is a tranche of people who expect someone else to do everything for them practically down to wiping their backsides, and that they display an extreme sense of entitlement."

Your language here infers that some of your food bank clients demonstrate grotesquely infantile levels of dependency, and the example you give of this is a woman not being sufficiently grateful for being offered an unwanted item of clothing for her child.

Honestly you're not covering yourself with glory here.

@TheWayTheLightFalls it is very unprofessional of you to post details of your client like that. She could be on here and recognise herself.

I read an article in the Guardian a few months ago about a ‘Baby Bank’ where mothers in need could get used equipment, clothes and be given nappies etc. The two cases cited both had three or four children and were expecting another. No mention was made of the fathers. If their mothers can’t limit their families when they can’t afford the children they have, their children will inevitably grow up disadvantaged. People do have to take some responsibility; it’s a sad fact that if you’re rich you can have all the children you want like most things in life. If you’re not, you can’t (or shouldn’t).

I remember the dentist visits at my very middle class school in the 80s. It was the best lesson as we got disclosing tablets and very purple teeth 😁

What’s the difference between children centres and sure start centres?

We have amazing children centres in our area that have baby massage / breastfeeding cafes etc. Free activities for children / toddlers or at very little cost. Do all areas not have this still?

I know exactly the type of people she is talking about.
Personal experience from my own family, teen starts going off the rails, drinking, smoking, underage sex with grown men, skipping school. Concerns raised by family members which got dismissed as them being nosy and what do they know what it's like being a parent. School raises concerns. Conversations had about parenting as parent is big into a party lifestyle, out every weekend with friends, hungover Monday to Friday, barely home to cook meals and obviously the kids use parental absence to do god knows what.
When challenged, instead of accepting concerns, or listening to the impact its having on the kids, they kick up a fuss on how they can't possibly do what's needed because it will stop them from enjoying their life. It will stop them from partying, they will have to get up early go with kid to school etc. This weekend they wanted to put kid in a care home because the kid is "stressign them out", well yes, because that's what parenting does to you.

Probably a bit of that.

But there was no way that university numbers could have remained static and participation opened up to a broader range of socioeconomic groups without displacing private school pupils in favour of state school.

If you look at UK economic history in the run-up to Blair and Brown's Education, Education, Education based policies. Under Thatcher heavy industry had gone into decline, state intervention in high tech wasn't working, retraining and reskilling in former heavy industry communities wasn't working, financial services was the growth sector, Tebbit's solution was to everyone not smart enough to work in a bank was "get on your bike", etc. Under Major a start was made in improving the education system. Educating and upskilling the workforce was seen as an alternative solution to encourage international investment in clean manufacturing. Degrees were seen as attractive qualifications.

I think it's easy with hindsight to forget the optimism that was running through education and the university sector at that time. We're not drowning in underemployed graduates now because they were failed by the education/university system then. The economy failed to keep pace and the opportunities are lacking.

Goodness, so many people have misunderstood the point of the article.

Author isn't saying that only Cambridge and Maths are elite/worthwhile - rather that for many people, they could not identify the fact that of the list given, Cambridge is the most elite. Maths is clearly not the only subject worth taking - but many people did not know that compared to Business Studies, Maths is considered a more rigorous area of study.

Maybe some of you could have benefited from Sure Start yourselves...

I think if I were in dire straits and someone offered me a helping hand to feed my kids I would be extremely grateful to be frank. Especially if there were people out there good enough to spend their own money on making sure my family was fed.

Some people are entitled, some people will take what they don’t need, it’s just the way it is, people are people after all.

Food banks etc are there to help the service users. Not to make the volunteers feel better about themselves. As long as the service users aren't abusive or aggressive then that's fine.

If Sure Start centres were attended by 'good' parents, as well as parents in need of support, that can only have been a benefit and a good thing.

Firstly, no-one else can judge just how much a parent (usually a mother) might need help - she can be wealthy, well-spoken, educated, and still struggle massively with some or all aspects of parenting a young child.

Secondly and more importantly, a universal service is more acceptable to many people, whereas targeted services are stigmatising. We see the same principle with pensioners who will take the state pension that they have 'earned' but will not touch any means-tested benefits.
Struggling parents, of any social class, are more likely to attend a place that 'everyone' goes to. The poor, uneducated mother won't feel singled-out if every other mother she knows or has seen locally is going to the centre too.

Also, a place that 'every' parent goes to encourages mixing of people from different backgrounds, helping integration and cohesion and community.

Those who then don't attend, can be flagged for follow-up - are they unaware? or are they feckless, lazy, disaffected, anti-society, and their children in need of a great deal of support?

It is a mistake that both left and right make, to think of means-testing or targeting as a way of saving money, when in fact that undermines the whole service, sometimes to the point of it becoming entirely ineffective.

it is very unprofessional of you to post details of your client like that. She could be on here and recognise herself.

Thank you @PandoraSox , but I have changed enough details that that would be unlikely.

Your language here infers that some of your food bank clients demonstrate grotesquely infantile levels of dependency, and the example you give of this is a woman not being sufficiently grateful for being offered an unwanted item of clothing for her child.

@izimbra - no, the example I gave is of a woman coming to us requesting a winter coat for her child because she didn't have one, when in fact she had one but wanted another which wasn't "school". It's not the problem of a food bank or anyone other than the child's parent/s to provide multiple coats for children, and I think it's hugely entitled to assume that it would be. And I anticipated and addressed the example you give of your mum in my first reply to you. Poverty does leave scars and we make plenty of allowances for that in our work - though usually what we see is the other way round, people trying to get by with far less than is acceptable, like living with no fridge facilities. If your mum had one good winter coat would she be approaching a charity to fund another for her, do you think? Many people of her generation would have gone without one even, or "made do".

I have done my job for years now and seen literally thousands of clients. I unfortunately do stand by my assertion that some are unpleasantly entitled, and I have no idea what could be done to extend a bit less welfare to these people without harming those in acute need. You can sling whatever hyperbole at me you like; it doesn't make me change my conclusions of what I have seen professionally.

We're not drowning in underemployed graduates now because they were failed by the education/university system then. The economy failed to keep pace and the opportunities are lacking.
That is exactly my point. The assumption was that by giving all the youngsters degrees, the economy would improve. The two are not nearly so closely correlated.

But there was no way that university numbers could have remained static and participation opened up to a broader range of socioeconomic groups without displacing private school pupils in favour of state school.
This was Blair's biggest blind-spot - thinking that inequality could be tackled by improving the outcome for the disadvantaged without tackling unearned privilege and excess wealth at the other end of the scale.
Society is a pyramid. Attempts to create a non-pyramid society don't succeed, because basically humans are primates who think power and status are important. So the best a government can do is flatten the pyramid to be broad and not too tall. Blair tried to change the shape into a rhombus, or even a kite.
(This analogy is oversimplified and of course ignores the small 'underclass' below the bottom of the pyramid).
If universities were disproportionally stuffed with private school pupils, this could have been tackled head-on, but instead the option taken was just increase the places available.
IMHO a traditional university system, based on worthwhile research and giving places to the few 5% or so of youngsters suited to a highly academic research-focussed career, is the way to go.
University as a way of 'broadening minds' and career training is definitely not the best solution - there are better (and cheaper) ways of achieving these aims, such as subsidising adult-education as used to be the case.

Well, I care about my clients' privacy, so I amend details accordingly. I could NOT do that, and then get comments like yours, or I could do that, and then get accused of making things up. Rock / hard place... You either assume that I have given a comparable example that reflects the reality, or you decide you don't trust what I'm saying. Either is fine by me.

It's a very strange article to me in that he says parents need 'nannying' by the state in a derogatory sounding manner - and then says 'supporting is not stigmatising'. Hello! You're saying the support isn't stigmatising while calling it 'nannying' - you can't have it both ways surely?

Honestly, come off it. You presented that story as though it was 100% true.

If you had prefaced it with a disclaimer that you had changed a few details to protect client confidentiality, fair enough. But you didn't do that until I challenged you.