"Single mothers with secondary school children should seek work" - BBC news this am.

[mumblechum]

What does everyone think? Apparently 70% of single parents already work, and a third of those who don't have a good reason not to, eg have a child with a disability.

My first response (have always worked at least pt) is "of course they should, the lazy buggers", but a 12 year old child can't really be left to fend for themselves EVERY day after school, can they, and I don't suppose you could get a childminder to look after them for just 1.5 hours a day.

My own experience is that my ds (year 7) does need a fair bit of tlc still, especially with all the upheaval of changing schools, more work, making new friends etc.

What do you reckon?

They're just a visible and easy target for a reactionary government without enough brains to think of something original, much less outside the box.

I mean, 150,000.

Some of whom are going to be mothers of children with SN. Some of whom are going to be shattered, recovering from a divorce or a death, but rejoining the workplace in a couple of years.

Is it right to harrass and vilify all of us and our children, for the sake of that miniscule proportion who are so very odd and pathetic (in the real sense of the word), that they think living on benefits is better than earning their own living? I just can't believe it is.

I can't believe the government can't think of bigger and more serious issues to tackle, tbh.

i have been a LP and i agree that LP's should have to seek work once their dc are at senior school,but 7 that is way out of order.

they will bring that crap in then start slagging off all the LP's who leave their dc home alone.

at the end of the day,mums cant win,because the country is run by men and they dont have a fucking clue.

Haven't read the whole thread - are people generally for it or against it?
(Or has it turned into the usual bun fight?!)

Personally I'd rather the government spend their money providing a decent maternity allowance and low cost childcare for the under 5s. I think it's damaging for children to grow up never seeing a parent in work.

I don't actually want the government to change the law - I think lone mothers are an easy target and this implies there's millions of us lounging around watching Richard and Judy all day long. But it should be a luxury to stay home with teenage children - not a right.

I'd love to stay home with my child but I simply can't afford it. Are you trying to tell me my 4 month old needs his mum less than a 14 year old?

Hold on a mo - what about us married ones who can't afford not to work? I've had to work since mine were 6 months - they're now in after school care, and the baby will have to go to nursery in a few months because I have to go back.

It's not reactionary, it's just common sense. Someone's got to pay for your kids - and that's you and your husband/partner through working, not the state (ie all the other taxpayers) for years on end through benefits.

I'm a married working poor woman. I've never been able to afford to stay home with my wee ones.

But you know what? I wouldn't trade places with a lone parent on benefits any day.

I think that something has gone very wrong when a generation of people think that it is a 'right' to stay at home with their children while others have to go out to work to pay for them through their taxes.

What Bubble said.

I work at cleaning and behind bars.

Every morning, I clean my local pub. since my kid was 3 months old, he's come with me. He's now 2.8, and he still comes with me.
His grandmother has him on Wednesday mornings. I clean the pub, then clean a bachelor's house.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings (from 5 til 7) I clean another lady's house when my dh is back from work to look after ds.

On Sunday nights I work behind the bar in the pub I clean.

On average, I work 21 hours a week whilst still being a SAHM. There is a huge demand, everywhere, for cleaners.

We need the money, and that's the bottom line. I feel that I've found a compromise that suits the family at present, but do I like cleaning other people's houses?

Do I fuck

Of course not, you are setting up extremes.

I'm saying that some 14 year olds are extremely vulnerable and if they don't have the emotional input they need at the time they need it, they will suffer into adulthood and possibly cost the country more money. But even if they don't, do we really as a society, want to create more emotionally fragile people for the sake of the peanuts that 150,000 cost us? Are we really so mean?

I agree with you actually, it is damaging for children to grow up in a household where no adults work. But omg what a can of worms that is. People who choose not to work, in a system which generally does "make work pay" now, have so many more problems than not working, that forcing LP's out to work just is not going to do their kids any favours. As I said before, people who prefer to live on benefits than earn their own living, have got so much work to be done on them, before unleashing them on to the job market. That alone is not going to solve any problems, it's just going to create new ones for their unfortunate children and employers.

The make work pay agenda has really worked for many LP's. Mothers who have been out of the job market for years, or who were never in it, some of whom may have had the most wretched lives, have had the courage and support to go into the marketplace, sell their labour, be rewarded for it and gain an enormous sense of self-respect and pride. To introduce an element of co-ercion, so that the trust and courage is gone, just seems so destructively stupid.

my mum was a single parent(my dad died when my mum was pregnant with me),and she got a job as a dinner ldy when i started ft school,then got a similar job with more hours when i started secondary school.my older sister and i would make our own way home and my mum would get in about an hour later.it wasnt a problem.

i would be rather worried if i felt i couldnt trust my older dc at home for an hour after school by the time they are 11 or 12,but every child is different.

i had a friend who was a single mum,and she never had any intention of getting a job till her dc left school.she would defend her right to be at home all day waiting for her 12+14 year old to get back from school.
i think that attitude is wrong,and that her girls will grow up thinking they dont need to work,whereas i grew up with the attitude 'you have to work for your money'.

however,i dont think the government should bring in a law that forces lone parents into work,untill they have sorted out,properly,the tax credits system,making sure absent fathers pay maintenance,decent,affordable childcare,and back-to-work schemes that aren't run by patronising,self-righteous twats.

Why not force SP's back? The rest of us are - we don't qualify for benefits, but don't earn anough for one of us NOT to work.

It's called reality. The Govt. doens't put food on our table, shoes on our feet etc - we do, through work.

"I would be rather worried if i felt i couldnt trust my older dc at home for an hour after school by the time they are 11 or 12"

Me too. But it's not an hour is it? Isn't it more like 3 or 4 hours? I'd get a childminder or an after school club for that age tbh. Maybe by around 14 or 15 they could be trusted to stay home alone longer. (Mind you what am I talking about, they're probably having sex by then. )

Perhaps the absent fathers who are on benefits could be made to do unpaid work to support their children as well. Because if I recall a friend whose partner did this had to pay 80p out of his giro to her. Disgusting.

But some of us think that the tax credit system should be recognising the value of bringing up children paolosgirl, and subsidising parents so that they can use their tax allowance for childcare or to fund one of the parents staying at home at least sometimes.

It's called prioritising what we think is important as a society.

Oh and as for the taxpayer paying for "years on end"

The average period of being a lone parent is five years.

Not years on end, really.

I agree with diva. My mum too worked from the time I was about nine. Sometimes it was a bit crap when I was ill because I had to stay in the school sick bay rather than go home but I've always grown up believing that if you're able to work, you should work.

Oh and incidentally I am a lone parent.

Absolutely - use your tax allowance for childcare whilst you go out to work - excellent idea, I'm all for that.

Yes, but the average working life is about 60 years, and there is always another person who has another child and will rely on benefits, so it is your entire working life really, the whole time you pay income tax, you are paying a percentage to people who chose not to work and life on benefits.

Sorry that should have been 45 years.

Aside from death of a partner, severe illness, a child with a disability and some financially convoluted divorces.

If you choose to have children.You should be able to financially support them.

"The average age of being a lone parent is 5 years"

What does that mean?