"It may be better news for women... to look after their own children and fit jobs into the child's day"

[SleepWhenImDead]

So says Jill Kirby, director of the Conservative think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies in this BBC article.

Seriously, what planet is this lady on? She makes out like it's a NEW idea for women to either not to work or to work hours to limit the amount of childcare that's needed. Well done Jill, we'd never thought of that before you suggested it!

I'm going to be hard hit from these cuts to public sector, I'm currently on maternity leave but due to be made redundant anyway. The public sector is the place I'd need to get a job, and get child-friendly hours. DOes this Jill think we get to CHOOSE these things, like a job is something you do for fun to avoid looking after your own children?! Think I might as well give up even hoping for a job and soon we'll lose our child benefit as well. I'm attacked on all directions!

Define a non-job, Anna?

Houses are wildly overvalued in the UK. We need to get back to a situation where banks cannot lend excessive multiples of income.

Opps meant to finish with women need to work as a single salary cannot cover costs anymore these " non jobs " as you call them help people live without claiming . If women have to return to home then surely the amount being claimed in tax credits will increase?

What's a "non job" bonsoir? Paramedic, teaching assistant? Nurse? Carer? Hospital administrator?
And why is it an issue for mothers to be doing these jobs, not fathers? Why aren't we suggesting that fathers should stay at home and look after the kids.

Scary thing is, I don't think Jill Kirby is a lone voice.

Excuse me?!?!?! So the single parent is going to get it in the neck, regardless???

People whinge about single mums living on benefits, then turn around and whinge because those same single mums are trying to work and they may have to subsidise their childcare?

Maybe they'd just be happier if we rounded them all up and put them in a home..preferably off-planet or something....

A Real Nappy Lady.

I met her, when I was pregnant with DD. Her salary was paid for by KCC.

at this
Although...for families where both are working just below the higher rate threshold, wifey goes back to her kitchen, husband gets a better job, becomes higher rate taxpayer, BANG and the child benefit is gone

Well, economically the Tories want us back in 1930, and obviously this woman wants our social development pushed back there as well.

What are all these "non jobs" anyway??

Oh yes, the mothers doing non-jobs in the public sector - nurses, radiographers, OTs, social workers, who needs them when the Big Society can do it for nothing .

What I find interesting is that on the one hand this woman is saying that women should go back to being sahms when at the same time they are cutting back CB - which is the only thing that makes it feasible for some women to work part-time or be sahms.

Personally, we will struggle to manage when CB goes, so I will be looking to get a job with more hours. And that means I will no longer be able to do any voluntary work or look after aged relatives. So where does that leave the Big Society?

It is, however, outrageous if the Tories simultaneously want women to be home based and doing all the back-breaking, spirit-draining work that that sometimes entails, and they take away Child Benefit.

x-post, Decorhate.

Ah, right, a Real Nappy Lady. There must be literally several hundreds of those up and down the country. My local council, for example, spends £0 on promoting real nappies.

Won't bother arguing that they might be doing a worthwile job.

Next example?

is that it Bonsoir, one real nappy lady ?

Obviously the Real Nappy Lady is a very extreme example .

But the truth is that, as a society, we cannot afford a lot of the public sector jobs that are "nice to have" rather than essential.

Oh this is good news, means I don't have to bother sending DD to university. Fantastic.

Whjat the bloody hell is a real nappy lady?

And where do you draw the line? And why shouldn't that woman drive an ambulance?

We will always need care workers (in increasing numbers even if we all stop being so selfish and using childcare) - are women allowed to do those jobs? Don't see long queues of unemployed men keen to fill vacancies.

Real Nappy Lady = a council employee who tries to convince mothers-to-be at childbirth preparation lessons to use Real Nappies rather than disposables.

Does anyone know what is going to happen to ta jobs? Are they going to be cut, or will they cut teachers and use tas as supply? I would have thought that being a ta was about one of the only jobs that would fit around school. Very mixed messages.

"But the truth is that, as a society, we cannot afford a lot of the public sector jobs that are "nice to have" rather than essential."

Do we have a lot? So far, you've only named one...

Hawkmoth just what I was thinking. There was me worrying about helping 3xdd to pay for Uni and now I just need to bother with ds!

Erm, Real Nappy lady sounds like a socially useful job to me. More real nappies being used = less waste going to landfill = local authorities not paying as much landfill tax and therefore being able to divert the money to other things like respite care for children.

The problem is with valuing a job according to how much it is paid as opposed to the social value it brings. There are plenty of well-paid jobs out there which actually destroy public value - for example, someone whose job it is to help rich people avoid paying tax.

Here is what the New Economics Foundation has to say about the 'Big Society' element of the spending cuts:

The Big Society
?These cuts reveal the not-so-hidden agenda of David Cameron?s Big Society,? said Anna Coote, Head of Social Policy at nef. ?The Government wants to reduce the deficit by replacing paid with unpaid labour through more ?voluntary? action. But the net result is a double-whammy for Britain?s poorest communities. On the one hand, support for third-sector groups is being slashed as local councils take the brunt of the cuts. On the other hand, the very same groups are expected to deliver the ?Big Society? by filling the gaps left by a retreating state. Life will get a lot tougher for those who are already the most disadvantaged ? a recipe for social injustice and wider inequalities.?

www.neweconomics.org/press-releases/spending-review-nef-response

They DO seem to want to go for the nuclear 1950's family ...tax breaks for being married? SAHM's the 'preferred' option?

I feel bad for the single parents out there! I am lucky enough to be able to stay home (although we are seriously skinto) but if I was a lone parent I would be even more concerned about the cuts than I am already!