Stay at home mums on benefits

[Jenny2998]

I am 21,single, and am currently bringing up my 2 children ( 8months, and 3 years) on benefits.

I made the decision to be at home with my kids because i feel it is incredibly important during the first years of their lives.

i don't like being on benefit, but currently cannot find any way around it - i have been trying unsuccessfully to find work at home for the past 3 years. i am keen to become a childminder so that i can support my family, but in the flat we live in at the moment that is just not possble.

so, until the situation changes one way or another i will remain on benefits. The most important thing to me is my children, and i am all too aware that if i did choose to go out to work and miss out on their childhoods, that i would never get this time back.

so, am i to be condemned as a scrounger just because i want the best for my kids? what are your thoughts?

I am repeating myself from another thread becasue of lack of time (sorry) but whether people should have children once they are on benefits or if they can't afford more is obviously subjective. In my personal opinion it is obscene to spend endless amounts of money on children and frankly from all of the discussions on Mumsnet one of the things that comes across is that many of us are on tight budgets ourselves. In a way that goes with the territory for many people. Whilst one family may have thousands to spend on their children each year others survive on much less and both may have happy family units and fine children. Children need to grow up to be productive and happy members of society (doesn't that expression smack of capitalism)whilst in an ideal world it would be great if all children could reach their potential in life with self esteem and confidence. Both things go together and are much more important than whether ones parents are on benefits or not. As others have pointed out; benefits are largely a stop gap and only a major element in peoples lives in pockets of the country where the job market is severely lacking. I acknowledge that living on benefit/low income does have an impact on such things but people constantly turn out good in the face of adversity. A civilised society needs a benefit system and those few who do milk it would, I imagine, milk the system/others whatever the social security system is like.

It seems to me that many people have children by accident - one way or another. Is it more acceptable if you have money in your pocket or not whether that child was planned or not? (This isn't to say that those children aren't loved.) It is responsible not to have children if as a family a couple feel they can't afford it/your not parent material etc., etc., but I am personally very uneasy at the idea that people on low incomes or benefits shouldn't have children/more children. Doesn't this smack slightly of eugenics? As a single parent I would have been mortified to have found myself pregnant again and took no risks but contraception is not 100% effective and I hear of people from all walks of life and incomes having children for many other reasons beyond they were planned and there was enough money in the family pot. As some people have pointed out here it is not a black and white issue. I wonder where the idea that people on benefits are more likely to have more children comes from. Yes it is immensely annoying to hear of people who seem to have everything materially whilst one might be struggling to pay the mortgage but surely there is more to life anyway. But that doesn't mean that the majority of people on benefits are milking the system. I read recently that middleclass people are tending to have bigger families. It is certainly more common now than when I was a child for a family to have three or four children. There are two points here, firstly that one mustn't assume that all middle class families have lots of money to spend on their children and secondly one mustn't assume that raising children should only be approached from one perspective. As Mumsnet often proves difference makes the world a much more interesting place.

Winnie - I totally agree with what you've just said!
Bugsy - don't you agree that mother's should have the choice to stay at home or to work? If we take your argument to its extreme, single mums on benefits would be forced to return to work asap against their will. I'm sure that many single mums are not on their own by choice. I would much rather pay for a single mum to stay at home and look after her children, than 'doleys' who sign on every week and have no intention of doing any kind of work whatsoever, or go moonlighting.

As I've said before, parenthood is one of the hardest jobs there is, and then you're on your own it much seem doubly so. I wouldn't describe mums on benefits as takers at all. You could argue that JK Rowling as a single mum on benefits should have been out there looking for work instead of writing stories to entertain her children. We all 'give' in one way or another to society and I'm sure single mums give a great deal back.

LisaV, I wasn't saying that mothers should be forced out to work, I was just trying to say (obviously not very well) that I wasn't sure that they had an automatic right to stay at home, regardless of the financial situation.
Obviously, I don't think that children should suffer or that parents should suffer simply to earn a few pennies. However, we all can give examples of those families who really work hard to keep their heads above the benefit line. I have a friend who works evenings at a call centre to provide extra income for her family. By working evenings, her husband babysits and she doesn't miss time with her small children. Before this job, she stacked shelves at her local supermarket in the evenings.
Because she is not paying for childcare, her extra income is very significant to their family & keeps them off state support.
If there are manageable ways of keeping families off state support then I think they should be tried. That is why I don't think mothers should have an automatic right not to work.
Hope all that makes sense

But, the Government decided if we all didn't earn nearly £200 per week then we are entitled to WFTC, so some parents and I am careful here in saying parents and defining one parent over the other, could be entitled to this.

Lil, I do agree with what you are saying, now theres a surprise, (hows the BUMP), we have a girl in our local village who in Unemployed, well unemployable, drug addict, prostitute, and her mother who is slightly disabled looks after her child, now this girls mother receives NOTHING, and she gets all the benefits in sight, including a new fridge freezer after she sold her other to get money for her drug habit.

There are also those who sit on their fat arses and expect the Tax Payers of this country to keep them in a style that they are accustomed to, and I as a Tax Payer,(wait for the crying in January!!) really do object to that.
End of rant and rave, as I am very stressed at the minute with DEFRA, they could not organise a piss up in a brewery if they bloody tried!!

Lil, when you say "I don't think that asking parents to be financially responsible for their children is unduly harsh!!" - what do you say should happen if they can't?
I really want to know how you think this should be organised, and what you think should happen to parents and children if it's not possible, where do you draw the line, who draws it, etc???

Isn't trying to put the financial clamp on single parents on benefit going to be really detrimental to their children, in some cases? As it is, a shockingly high number of children live in families with very low incomes. If you financially punish parents for having children on benefit to deter them from having more, what sort of life are you mapping out for their existing children?

And, as Winnie pointed out, lots of children are the product of accident and chance. What about those single mothers who think that they have found a new partner, go on to get pregnant again and their partner then leaves them?

I don't know how this would work in reality, but IMO you have to ensure as much benefit as possible goes to meet the children's needs first, not end up, in a minority of cases, subsidising the parent, enabling them to get by OK at the expense of their children's general welfare.

That is a horribly sweeping statement, and I know that in a vast, vast, majorty of cases, single parents make huge sacrifices so their children don't go without. But if benefits addressed the child's needs first ie food, clothing, toys, books and other equipment, leaving a livable minimum amount for the adult, it would deter the minority thinking that a sustained motherhood on benefit was an easy ride.

But having said this, I am under the impression that the benefits available to single parent families mean that they are hardly living in the lap of luxury, and I am not sure I agree with, say, a voucher system for children's clothes, toys and books.

Should the government have have the power to determine how single parents spend their benefit income?

According to Government there are NO families living below the breadline as to say. What is the definition of a sponger and a family that is really in need of help? I know a lot of single parents, male and female who through no choice of their own have been left as single parents, and to have a job and find child care would leave them worse off in the week. The majority of the single parents I know do work and are lucky enough to have their families and friends who are willing to help out with childcare, as this becomes easier when the kids get to school age, and only need looking after for a few hours. What I do object to are the spongers in society, that sit and do bugger all and expect us to keep them, and there are those who get what they want.
One friend I have is a single mum, and has applied for 78 jobs in our area since the beginning of the year, and hasn't got one of them, guess who got them, the women who've had their kids and are over the age of 50, something wrong there I would say!

Tigermoth, yes clamping down financially on single parents would be detrimental to the children but I have to say a voucher system would be so awful. People become single parents/out of work for a variety of reasons and to stigmatise them in this way even more would be hideous. A voucher system has proved not to work for asylum seekers I can't see why it would work for single parents. Furthermore, the implication is that the parents should only spend the money on their children and not on themselves. In reality to get that bottle of wine/packet of cigerettes/'new'(charity shop) jacket, on benefits one has to go without something... from what I've seen firsthand and through working in a Banardos office this usually means food or heating is limited (Mums tending to go without lunch everyday so that they can afford the small pleasure of that packet of cigerettes/bottle of cheap wine/piece of clothing). To suggest that people who can't afford a night out, a trip to the theatre or cinema etc, etc should not have their one pleasure in life because it may be squandering tax payers money is hideous. Imagine for one moment being stuck in four walls every day, no money to go out (with or without the kids), no money for little luxuries like presents for the child whose birthday party your child has been invited to. No money for babysitters, or a new iron when the old one finally dies a death! As for Christmas, forget it... Christmas happens for the longterm unemployed because they have gone without other things big time throughout the year. A packet of cigerettes or a glass of wine (or even a bloody tv licence!)might, hopefully, just help to keep one sane. You can barely keep going week by week, if you don't have a car and you keep the usre of the phone to the minimum. I know that family life is a struggle financially for many people on benefit (or not) but I truly believe that the reality of living on benefit is not what those few individuals we all know of who do seem to get everything project. Often people have huge debts to do this (on benefit or not) or they have unseen income from family (or illegal activities). Call me naive (and I am sure some of you will) but I do believe that the stereotypical 'sponger' on the dole is infact not someone simply living off benefits. It is then, I agree, a criminal offence Why should all people on benefits be virtually demonised because of a minority. Surely the best thing that can happen is that the system works to uncover the fraudsters? Frankly, when I was on benefit (in the holidays between semesters)if I'd had any less to live on for my daughter and myself I'd have probably been suicidal. (And I had grants and loans to buffer me either side of the period of benefit.)

There are however some things which need to be addressed like how ineffective the CSA is. Why is it that it seems that the fathers who want to maintain their children are often financially crippled whilst those who dodge the system get off scott free? Why is childcare and the general attitude to parents who work (and therefore have to have time off in illness/emergencies etc) so awful in this country?

This may come across as if I don't understand or I belittle the financial difficulties of parents who do work and struggle. I don't. I simply feel that pin pointing to individuals who obviously take huge advantage of the system doesn't actually help anyone. In fact, call me cynical, it is actually a device to stigmatise people and therefore deter them from claiming in the first place. What this actually does is stop many families from claiminf wftc, I've even come across a sixteen year old with a baby (and no family near) who lived off her child benefit alone for months! In setting one family against another very little is achieved. How many of us would report someone who is obviously moonlighting? It just makes people bitter and the cycle continues. I was, obviously, thankful for the benefit system and interestingly I was the only one amongst my peergroup of maybe ten single mothers (on my course) at uni who went onto benefits in the holidays, because I was the only one who had no extended family to rely on for childcare. However, my daughter was of school age and I suspect that had my daughter been younger I would have wanted to remain at home with her as I had done whilst part of a couple.

Which brings me on to the idea that women should work once their children are of school age. Where are the jobs and the childcare that makes this always possible. In the southwest once a child reaches 11/12 there are no afterschool places for love nor money? For the afterschool clubs that exist there are huge waiting lists and, as we all know, the expense is phenomenal. This also does not take into count a myriad of other complicating factors, like the difficulty in getting a job after 4-5 years as a SAHM (who has possibly, stuck in her home with no money, reduced self esteem, no clothes for an interview... etc and if you have a child who needs particular special attention what then? Besides which, there is an underlying assumption that childrearing gets easier once they are at school. It doesn't it simply changes and one set of problems are removed and another set of problems begin. Some of us want to work before/once our children are at school we are prepared to make the adjustments/sacrifices thats required, those who sah may be making other sacrifices. I agree that we should all be doing what is best for our children but one frazzled parent for two hours a night and weekends who is doing the job of two parents as well as a paid job is not necessarily what is best for a child.

On that negative note I will finally get off my soap box

I must say the idea of giving people vouchers instead of money horrifies me. The last thing single mums on benefits need is further stigma. The disaster of giving vouchers to refugees doesn't need repeating, IMO.
In any case I think that the majority of mums, whether they are single or partnered, on benefits or not, working or SAH, put their children first. I think you'd find it quite hard to find many people on benefits who are getting fat at their children's expense. (In any case benefit hardly translates into extreme riches. Last time I looked income support was slightly under £50 per week for a single person. Not sure how much is added on per child but I'll bet we're not talking much here.)
I know horror stories abound but the huge majority of people want the very best for their kids. Look at the stories posted here- Tigger's friend applying for millions of jobs, Janh's mates working extra hours in the supermarket and weighing this against enough time with their children, Lizzer being a superstar with her uni plans and voluntary work so that her daughter will have a good lifestyle and role model, Jessi's Mum struggling to make ends meet. Lizzer's little friend from her NCPCC project sounds like her horizons are narrow, through no fault of her own, but not as if she wouldn't love children dearly and put them first. Likewise, the young care-leaver (for whom I babysit sometimes) revealed yesterday that she'd bought no new clothes for herself since the birth of her baby as all her money went on stuff for the child. Where are the evil bounders claiming benefit to rob us tax-payers of what's rightfully ours in this little lot? Does anyone actually KNOW someone who claims benefits long term without a valid need to do so?

P.s. Have just seen your post Winnie (had minimized mine while emailing) and I think it's spot-on too. Wouldn't have needed to post mine if I'd waited for yours!

Scummy- me superstar??!! I'm honoured, but don't feel like one today, not after dd's fifth temper tantrum, grrr...

Winnie and Scummy, I'm wanting to agree with everything you say but something is holding me back? Which, given my circumstances, feels odd because I should whole-heartedly agree. I think its possibly having lived near a 'bad' area (as in socio-economic factors) in the past I have witnessed first hand some of the attitudes that accompany some people who live on benefits. Some people really believe that the state should pay for everything they do, rent or own - indefinitely. It is these people that have to have their attitudes changed and I'm sure it is partly to do with their lack of motivation and apathy that our system, as a whole, forces them to feel. What I am saying, and given my voluntary job you won't be suprised, is that I think if we want to tackle these problems it has to start in schools and be built up from there for future generations. There are many programs running throughout the country that are aimed at giving young people real hope for their future. To make them understand they do not have to lead the same lives as their parents. Sadly there are nowhere near enough of these schemes so far. Perhaps this is one way to start as I have witnessed first hand people who rely and demand benefits for as long as they live on this planet, giving little thought to their or their children's future. They really believe that life has dealt them a bad hand and they'll do what they can to escape such horrors of daily life, bottle of whiskey, nick a few clothes to pay for a bit of pot, fake illness and depression to get pescription drugs for free. Take, take, take what they can without regard for anything and anyone because they truly believe that is how you should lead your life, how you 'get ahead'. I'm not talking about isolated people but whole housing estates and blocks of flats. Tigger's example will be one of thousands and it doesn't just have to be heroin addicts. Please don't forget that the national average for child poverty stands at a whopping 32%. I cannot believe that all the parents of these children have inclinations to lower that figure...

I think that sometimes we assume that people want to break cycles of generally low living standards yet(and I realise how bad this may sound, but I'd like to hear any opinions on it before you condem me to the rack and the screw) how can we assume that some people have the intelligence to implement this? (eek!)

Winnie - excellent post.

It's interesting that it is those on benefits who are so easily condemned mainly because they're often more visible. Yet we're reluctant to condemn tax avoiders and evaders because they are usually "respectable" businesses.

Winnie, Scummymummy - hear, hear. Why should parenting be the preserve of the affluent? And as for vouchers - grrr!

I shall probably go over some points others have mentioned but here goes.
I dont agree in young women getting pregnant just to stay at home because they can get benefit. I know some young mums get themselves into situations purely by accident but I have heard of a lot of circumstances where they have got pregnant on purpose knowing full well they dont have to work again. However, since becoming a mum I know how hard it is to leave my child so I have found work where I can take him with me. I also agree that it is very important to lay down the foundations for a child in the early years so they need good role models. I dont agree with the current system where, in some cases, people are better off by claiming benefits than working because wages are too low or by paying all the childcare and travelling they have no money left, I wouldnt work either. Lizzer is actively training to work so therefore not just dosing around (I do know people who do this btw). Maybe these young mums could be involved in a training scheme at local colleges where there is a creche. It would perhaps give them some worth again and when their children reach school age they can start work and feel good about themselves.
Sometimes I think the cycle needs to be broken. Some children think that living on benefit is the only way to live. I have always worked, I suppose I have been lucky in a way and I am in a stable marriage with dh earning a good wage. But I still would work even if I was on my own, as a family we have always worked.

I can understand Jenny2998 decision to want to stay at home and look after her children while they are young, but some do scrounge. I think there needs to be training in place so the women who want to work can still look after their children in their early years, imo, the most important years.

Lizzer, I don't doubt what you say and will reply when I have time... but briefly (sigh of relif from everyone) it is a matter of expectations. If one is brought up in an environment that robs, cheats etc, etc... then yes, this is what they will expect to do all their lives. It is a question of providing the right kind of education to break these cycles. In Banardos I was regularly faced with young women and couples as well who at fifteen and sixteen (with small baby or baby on the way) saw this as the only way of gaining any status in society... often these were children who had grown up in care, or were from such dysfunctional families they had been living on the streets... this was an area of high unemployment where children had to think for a while about which member of their family worked.
... it really is a huge problem but the answer is not to demonise those on benefits per sa.

Lizzer me darling, my rack and screw set is still at the blacksmiths for essential repairs after the Gas Masks thread!

I know it can seem like people are "take take taking" sometimes. I too have worked in inner city secondary schools (one of them is occasionally mentioned in the media for very negative reasons) and now work for a voluntary organisation that helps parents with children under 5 who are having difficulties. The families I've met in both these jobs are almost universally on long-term benefit. Before you get to know people it's quite easy to look at their files and judge them negatively- benefits, single parents, more kids than they can cope with, history of addiction, learning difficulties, etc etc ad infinitem. I can honestly say, though, that one of the lessons I learned fast, once I started meeting the faces behind the forms, is that it's mostly for reasons way, way beyond their control and that the majority of people are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

I think your point about there being whole housing estates and blocks of flats where people are living on benefit is true and a huge factor in the general problem. We've all heard of no-go estates where gangs, drugs and anti-social behaviour are much in evidence. What chance do people have on these estates? We're a very divided society in this way, I think. Large pockets of people living in impoverished conditions live right next to people of affluence and never the twain shall meet- the rich man's in his castle, the poor man on his housing estate. Their kids don't go to the same schools, they don't shop in the same places, they don't have access to the same facilities- their lives are, in fact, in effect, segregated. There are few messages getting through to people living in poor social conditions that things can be different.
I think you're right that projects such as yours are needed in abundance but they're just not in place. And we're dealing with people who've got entrenched low expectations from generations of unemployment and, often, a myriad of other difficulties.

I agree that some people don't want to break the cycle of low living standards. I think this is one of the saddest things of all. One of the blokes my partner went to primary school with is in this position. He's never ever held down a job for more than 2 days and, yes, I'd say he believes he has a right to benefit. His brother, mother and father are in the same position and they live together (he's 34, his brother older) in a smallish council flat. I have to admit I sometimes cross the road to avoid this family (especially the mother, whose racism is somewhat more stringent than Hitler's) but I feel desperately sorry for them when I stop to think about what their lives must be like. Any agencies involved have long since given up on them. They stay within their 4 walls or wander the streets. They are very depressed. They certainly don't have the wherewithall to lift themselves out of this position.

Many other people do have the wherewithall. They just need a lot of help to deal with their circumstances

Every message I've read here, since yesterday makes, IMO, a valid point. This is such a huge problem. No, I don't think the voucher system is a good idea either, for all the reasons Winnie's post outlined. And as Scummymummy says, vouchers have not worked for refugees. However, I think in discussing this it's easy to concentrate on the single parent and the possiblity of them having more children and forget the child/children they already have.

For instance, to break the cycle of generations on families on benefit, do you try and change the mother's outlook and aspirations, or do you work with the existing children and try to ensure they grow up equipped and motivated to get a job? And how much should the state interfere in this?

Like Lizzer I have some experience of 'bad' estates. In my case I spent 10 years, from my mid twenties to my mid thirties, living on a huge council estate in a 'bad' (violent/druggy) part of SE London. My block mostly housed what the council deemed 'problem' families, many on long term benefit. Some were single parent familes, some not, and some were sort of in between. I wouldn't say, from what I could witness, that any family openly neglected their children - there was plenty of moonlighting going on, as well. However poor the area, the pubs were always full.

In the 10 years I was there, I can't think of one of those familes who changed, apart from having more children. I suppose though, that if you are a single parent, with, say, three children, with low aspirations, no qualificatons and unaware of any choice, the sheer effort of changing your life is totally overwhelming - on the boards here where we agonise over going part time, or going back to work at all etc. And I assume we are, on the whole, an educated and employable bunch.

As I've said in an earlier post, I really think that every adult, parent or not, deserves benefits that ensure a minimum standard of living. How could we kid ourselves that we live in a civilised society if the government we vote in was prepared to let others starve? And single parents need to be made aware that they have a choice and given masses of help( childcare/education etc) to get a better life. I personally would vote for a government that raised our taxes to finance this.

But is it more effective to start with the next generation - their children?

scummymummy.I have to say i actully am ashamed to know someone who has 3 dependent kids and on benefits,and she is fully able to work,infact she is one of those damn annoying scrounghers who does work whilst claiming benefits,it angers me so much that people like this are able to do this.We struggle financially and cannot afford luxuries like nights out etc but this person can infact 4/5 nights a week as well as expensive clothes.And if she needs a new fridge/cooker/sofa etc she gets a loan/grant from the DSS,we have to save for weeks even months to be able to buy these sort of things,people like this should have all benefits stopped and made to support themselves.

I,ve also lived on a run down drug infested council estate,and alot(not all) of the people liveing there were on benefits with no intention of ever working.Of course benefits should be available to everybody who needs it,And i agree that help is needed for people to change their outlook of life and to help in every way possible to assist people back to work.I think my anger is aimed at people who work whilst on benefits,and those who have no intention of ever working.Why should working people support this type of down right lazieness

I know, I know I was generalising way too much in examples given (and there was me not wanting to be 'tarred with brush'a few msgs ago, shocking ). I was not trying to criticise your postings in anyway Winnie and Scummy, and agree with most things said, just wanted to point out the fact that there probably still would be people not wanting to work or change their lifestyles even if opportunities were presented to them on a silver plate. I'd really like to know how many people actually think this way and I can only hope this figure is not in the majority, I guess?

Speaking of divides in living standards, I was catching up with an old friend recently who now works as a midwife in the hospital where I was going to have dd, before splitting with ex and moving back to parent's house about 70 miles away. As I mentioned the area which were living in wasn't great and I was somewhat relieved when my friend started talking about part of her duties in the antenatal unit involving administering methadone to the addicted mothers and liasing with social services and making arrangements for some babies to be taken away. Luckily where I had dd was a completely different story and the only drug abuse I could see were those Mother's sneaking off to have a cigarette while their babies slept! You are so right when you talk of segregation Scummy, but this time I was pleased to have been...

Tigermoth, RE "However poor the area, the pubs were always full" - I couldn't agree more...

I remember reading a report about a primary school in an area where living on benefit was the universal norm. The teachers said that when the children first started school, they were as full of life and fun as any child. For the first few years the teachers could inspire and motivate them as normal, and they were interested in school. But as they passed through the primary years they changed, as they contrasted what the school said to them with their home lives. Their attitude became 'why do I need to learn, when I am not going to get a job?' They just felt the teachers were lying to them about the life they could expect.

The teachers said they faced an extremely hard job convincing them that they COULD do something else with their lives. They used to bring in old pupils - the very few who had gone on to work - just to show the children that things could be different. One 'old boy' - just one! had even managed to become a policeman and made regular visits to the school.

Any parent finds it hard to combine work and family. A single parent coming from a background of benefit reliance will, obviously!, find it even more so.

While all single parents should be supported, doesn't the long term hope for getting future generations of a family off benefit start with e changing the child's attitude? With luck, they will not be encumbered by children of their own when they reach 16 years, and so the prospect of work or study is not so impossible. I think it's these children who need lots of extra help. There was talk of setting up a government fund to give teenagers a pool of money to help them set themselves up, if their parents couldn't manage help them, whether it was helping to pay for study, an interview suit, or some means of transport to get them to and from work. I think this would be an excellent idea.

More and more I am coming to the conclusion from this thread that what infuriates people most is seeing other people getting something for nothing when they (or people they know) work hard and still only just get by. We seem to have moved onto a discussion about whether people are actually in need of benefit or not and what people seem to be saying is that we all know of people who aren't and yet still claim benefits. Perhaps, and I can't believe I am writing this, the only way for the benefit system to work is for everyone to take responsibility and 'shop' anyone who they KNOW are cheating the system. How many of us would be prepared to do this? How many of us are so convinced by the evidence that they know what is going on? Maybe if society did police itself in this way their would be more money in the pot to invest in all the programmes that are necessary to change peoples expectations.

Tigermoth, you ask an interesting question, however, it would seem to me that one can't concentrate on the next generation without helping the parents. Those parents may have 40 years of work potential in front of them. What we need is a climate where individual responsibility is the norm and at the same time celebrated. My Gran was a single parent of five children in the fifties and she worked constantly, and was proud of the fact that she had never in her life borrowed money. Whilst I am not suggesting for one minute that this is the way to go for everyone, maybe what we do need is to create a climate where people are proud to be supporting themselves and see the benefit of supporting themselve and fundamental to helping this rather than lowering benefit levels is in fact raising incomes. Finally, I am not sure what is taught in citizenship lessons at school but I try to teach my daughter that we have a collective responsibility for each other and that we get nothing in this life without putting something in. I wonder how many people moan about paying taxes but fail to acknowledge what they actually pay for? it did astound me when Bristol Council got the people of the city to vote as to whether the council tax should go up and the figures were presented and the reality meant that without an increase in council tax teachers would be lost. The public voted for teachers to be lost!!!!! What does that say about our collective responsibility? I think that Mrs Thatcher has alot to answer for in her promotion of an individualistic 'society' where each and everyone of us look out for ourselves(which IMO is not the same as being individually responsible).

You are so right, Winnie. "There is no such thing as society" has got to be one of the most despicable and irresponsible things said in public last century. I really, strongly feel that 10 years of Thatcherist ideology has had a lasting, damaging effect on this country.