A Working class Mumsnet proposed!

[madhattershouse]

Frank Field has proposed some ideas for removing poverty by means other than just financial. One proposal is the setting up of a mumsnet type site for the working classes. Isn't mumsnet meant for all or am I missing something? Are the working classes really needing this or is it a gimmick? article [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/frank-field-welfare-sacred-cows
here]]

overmydeadbody: Surely anybody can access the Internet for free in the li-

Oh.

Move along, nothing to see here...

didn't they already try this.......moildies >>

well i don't think im posh enough to even be considered working class and i've been on here for years.

the man has some halfway ok ideas but falls down on the fact that he clearly has no idea what he is talking about

"nob jockery" is this not a very derogatory term for homosexuality?

Yep, all the poor working classes are suddenly going to flock to their local library to use the computers there to access a website created for them by the government, telling them how they could help themselves get out of poverty.

And of course, for all of those people who have no idea how to access the internet, they can go to those free computer literacy classes that are available.

Then all their money troubles will be over.

Anyway, there is already netmums.

Personally I don't really know what 'class' I am, and I care even less what class the rest of you are either. Mumsnet does a great job of providing information, opinion, fun, personal experience from a fantastic mix of people who generally seem to have the common bond of wanting to do the best they can for their families. That should be enough. So there.

Hmm, working class on Mumsnet?

Dont the ferrets keep gnawing through the computer cables?

One of the great things about MN is that unless someone chooses to reveal you don;t know whether they are male, female, black, white, gay, straight, a parent or not, wearing a mini or a burkha....

That's, IMO, fab.

The ferrets are too busy eating the sausage rolls from greggs to eat computer cables

Frank Field is a jackass.

Will there be a test before membership? Will one be required to eat chips for a week, or buy a certain number of scratchcards? Do you need to be a socialist? Is it for Sun readers only? Will Greggs do all the admins? Cor blimey guv'nor, sounds like a right rum do to me an no mistake. Apples and pears.

Yes, Netmums is named in the governments 'Birth to five' book - a bit of a pointless piece of literature really. I only read it to disagree, and the people that need that sort of advice most may have dificulty reading...

i have to say i think the government wastes immense amounts of money and forests worth of trees producing pamphlets telling everyone how to parent. A more targeted approach would be better.

Agree a 'working class' Mumsnet is a stupid idea.

And a government department should never be allowed develop its own social networking site - it will only end in tears.

< STEP AWAY FROM THE IT DEPARTMENT NOW - MR FIELD.>

What they actually need is a well thought out and implemented social networking strategy. The good people at MN, Twitter, Facebook etc. have done all the hardwork already Frank - you just need to understand how to use it (and if you are lurking I'll tell you my ideas - for a small fee ).

What a fucking stupid idea.

Lol at Scumsnet

I would suggest chavsnet but think I may be attacked by pitchforks.

There are plenty of working class people on here. What does it bloody well matter anyway? Why do we need a workhouse version of mumsnet.

Just goes to show Frank Field knows fuck all about mumsnet.

I agree with MrsDeVere - good post.

Patronising old fool.

Uggsnet?

"A healthy pregnancy, positive but authoritative parenting, high quality childcare, a positive approach to learning at home and an improvement in parents' qualifications, can ? trump class background and parental income."

Um...obviously?

I'm with him on a few points, but a "working class version of mumsnet" is offensive. I know plenty of people who make plenty of money who cannot, for the life of them, muster anything resembling positive but authoritative parenting.

IM oh so humble, "forrin" opinion, narurally. :)

presumably the high quality childcare will affordable at minimum wage.....

FF is a twat.

And then surely we'd need 'Poshnet' as well. For those who are superior even to the 'middle classes'. Otherwise they'll be left out and that's discrimination innit?

AIBU to let Jocasta play polo in the garden even though the gardener says the pony is ruining the turf?

The report further proposes that in future governments should not automatically each year increase benefits for children. Instead, they should consider if money to be spent in automatically increasing benefit rates, could not, in that year, be used more effectively to widen life chances - and thereby defeat child poverty - by building up the Foundation Years

This is just outstanding bullshit, I mean really you actually have to have some pretty big balls to come up with that and keep a straight face.

I've just read this through and some things stuck out to me;

1. "The poor would have to be blamed for their own misfortune".

Who else should be blamed for anyone else's misfortune? We make our own surely?

2. "Bring back our benefits".

No one is ENTITLED to anything. If you want more money, you should've gone to university and got a better job/not had children unless you could afford them.

3. "Bad idea for schools to catch only people from certain areas".

Perhaps some of us don't want our children learning how to hot wire a car at the age of 10. Perhaps some of us want to shelter our children from 7 children single parent families. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the best for our families, and just because some of us earn more than others and have had a fantastic education and upbringing, I don't think this means WE should be punished.

unquietdad had it right. Go to the library and use the free resources (like education) if you want the internet.

There is NO SUCH THING as poverty in this country when there is a benefit system, free housing and the option to reproduce at every God given hour.

But I agree, I think a separate website would be useless. I like to see what goes on in other people's lives. Dinner parties and promotions aren't as much fun to read about :P

Not sure what i am - I work in middle management but have a mountain of debt and therefore live in relative poverty, I have a good degree but live in a flat which is too small for 5 people, I read Zola in French and love poetry, but can't afford to MoT my second-hand car, I've been a member of NCT and existed on benefits. My family is widely travelled and among my 5 siblings has 6 university degrees, 2 divorces and 1 alcoholic.....I'm working class because I need to work to put food on the table...I'm middle-class because I'm university educated and have lived and worked abroad???? I don't know...............

you're not Frank's target audience demented - his focus is on breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty, disadvantage, worklessness, inadequate parenting, low self esteem, narrow horizons - which don't seem to have been factors in your upbringing. I think nowadays your 'class'- if at all relevant, and that's questionable - is probably defined by your opportunities and your upbringing, not by what you actually do with your life. So you can stay on mumsnet

There's a lot of sense in what i have read so far of his report, but I agree the 'working class mumsnet' thing does sound a bit [sceptical]. i need to see the actual reference tho rather than third hand press mangled version of it. Agree about govt IT projects though - STEP AWAY!

The more I hear about Mr Field and his report, the more I think it is all one giant, unimplementable gimmick.

One massive missed opportunity.

'Life Chance Indicators' - we cant even agree about the value of measuring a child's weight and height - let alone trying to measure their cognitive, emotional and physical development.

'The single objective of the new Foundation Years services is to improve the life chances of poorer children.' - so if you are unfortunate enough to not be 'poorer' (not even sure what that means), your child's development has no relevance to service providers? Perhaps we should take steps to actively reduce the life chances of non-poorer children, that would level things up a bit.

LifeForRent - you seem to have missed the point, rather. The government is embarking on a massive programme of library closures. Except that they are doing it at one remove, so they can claim they aren't - it's all down to those pesky councils and nothing to do with central government at all, honest guv.

As for misfortune, you need to look up the definition of the word. The clue is in the 'fortune' part. Anyone can suffer from bad luck. Whether that bad luck is ill health, being born into poverty, being born in Middlesborough not Belgravia, disability, being born with talents that society has bizzarely deemed are only worth minimum wage (being a great carer, for example).

Most people who aren't investment bankers would probably judge caring as far more socially useful and important than fiddling about with stupid financial products that even the bankers don't understand. Yet the bankers earn ££££ while the carers earn pennies. Probably something to do with the fact that caring is traditionally women's work and banking man's.