ED Mum Carves Clegg New One

[LadyDeliah]

Smiler, this wasn't about childcare for a couple where both are working. Of course people in that position should get the breaks. It's someone who is not working out of choice and whose husband is in a well paid profession, expecting others to subsidise childcare costs despite her not needing childcare.

[Otta]

Heard this woman on Radio 4 briefly this weekend.

it seems they'll let anyone be a barrister these days.

[El Pibe]

[FatherJack]

I hope this woman is able to explain the difference between want and need to her children.

[davidh]

well done forumites. high degree of top class pomposity

[Otta]

Only the best on the EDF Davidh.

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure why the state should be funding a

> lifestyle choice anyway.

A mother (or father) with a working partner who wants to go out to work is also making a 'lifestyle choice'. S/he might say, "I have to go out to work," and that might be for reasons such as career advancement or wanting more money, but it's still a choice. A choice doesn't have to be an easy one...

[Earl Aelfheah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/24/career-mothers-childcare-subsidies?INTCMP=SRCH

[Earl Aelfheah]

This actually turned my stomach:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/beware-the-fury-of-the-edms-thats-east-dulwich-mummies-8547004.html?origin=internalSearch

[*Bob*]

"We are the middle-class mummy clich?. We are the distilled version of the smug mothers on Mumsnet. You may laugh at us, with our play date "business cards" ("Isobel, 3, free Mondays"). But, as the Deputy Prime Minister found out last week, you cross us at your peril."

Err... VOMIT

[Bluerevolution]

Well I applaud Laura. Why should a "family" that have never worked, lived on benefits and are none educated "get paid for sprogging" ? She's a trained Barrister so her or her family has spent ?1,000s to get her through UNI/the Bar. Ok, she has chosen to bring up her children, doesn't fucking happen with dolies. Push them out, claim, ask for bigger council house and that cycle will go on.

Laura will be able to return back to the Bar(no cheap quips) when children of age but if they only have ?60,000 coming in that will be tight in ED, 2 Adults, 2 kids.

Why shouldn't they get tax breaks?

At least VAT on power/heating-something I'd advocate for ALL with children under 12

[Jessie]

Wow, that Independent piece. I find myself in none of that. Perhaps I should move to Penge.

[panda boy]

Bluerevolution, you seem to have missed the point.

Why should anyone get a childcare allowance when they have decided to stay at home to raise their children? What do they need the childcare allowance for? Not for childcare as they're performing that function.

[panda boy]

Bluerevolution, you seem to have missed the point.

Why should anyone get a childcare allowance when they have decided to stay at home to raise their children? What do they need the childcare allowance for? Not for childcare as they're performing that function.

[LondonMix]

The only reason to give people tax breaks / benefits for having children is because you want to encourage people to have children that otherwise wouldn?t or because you want to make it easier for parents to participate in the workforce. If you notice, the countries that have adopted the most generous subsidized child care were often trying to counteract very low birth rates (Germany / France) or were very concerned about female participation in the workforce and in general are progressive on women?s issues.

It?s debatable if British women need to be incentivized to have children in the same way German women do as the birth rate in the UK is still pretty high. Female participation in the workforce (if you think this is a worth aim) would definitely benefit.

Government money isn?t free. Priorities need to be set and means testing is essential. Bluerevolution, providing benefits to poor families isn?t a reward to the supposedly ?feckless? parents but to ensure that the children don?t fall below a minimum standard of living and get a decent start in life.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The independent article has made me really depressed.

[LondonMix]

The article in the Independent isn't remotely a balanced picture of who lives here-- just the set who has recently moved in.

Bluerevolution is right in one thing though. The policy is clearly trying to make it easier for people to have children to work. It?s an implicit goal of the policy. You could equally adopt a policy that made it easier to be a stay at home mother but the government isn?t trying to specifically encourage that. There are clearly parents on both sides ? some who would prefer to stay at home but can?t afford it and equally some who are at home and would rather work but can?t afford childcare. The government has made helping those who want to work the priority. Overall, increasing women?s participation on the workforce is an economic benefit to the country as a whole, increases tax revenues etc so take ideological concerns out of it, you can see why they?ve made their choice.

[Chillaxed]

Not like you to stoop to generalisations LM. I've recently moved in and can assure you that I saw nothing of my family in the article.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The article in the Independent isn't remotely a

> balanced picture of who lives here-- just the set

> who has recently moved in.

[LondonMix]

That's true. And I am a newcomer and wouldn't say I'm like that either. I just meant only those who have moved in are that affluent, not that they share those views. I think the views themselves are in an even smaller minority than the economic status! :)

[Magpie]

The opposition to this additional benefit should be taken in the context of the removal of child benefit, and it is really related to the inequalities of how that change was implemented.

Now we find our that families where both parents are in employment will get additional support up to a combined income of ?300k, yet the single earner family on ?60k gets not child benefit. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

[LondonMix]

The new benefit applies to single parents (just not married couples with a stay at home parent) from what I understood. The test is still 150k per person though so again if couple makes 300k they get it but a single parent on 160k wouldn't. Anyhow, the sums are now so rediculously high I can't see much cause for complaint.

[????]

Sooooooo

Choosing not to return to work but look after your kids/baby is a choice that you have to take the consequences for, free will and all that, but choosing to have kids that you have no means of looking after and housing is a choice that the state takes the consequence for.......I get it.

BR - don't insult the working class/underclass for gawd sake on benefits etc - fine to to do this for their dress sense, pubs, food choice or language obviously, but the middle class in the 'just above me bracket' are a fine target for the EDF's petty inverted snobbery, fire away

[*Bob*]

Some general truth of course in that ????, but - to labour the specific point - the allowance in question is there to make it easier for you to get out to work, not to make it easier for you 'not' have to get out to work!

Personally - (speaking as a dreaded middle claarse incomer) our household has lost-out in various ways on account of these changes and previous ones, but I won't be bleating about it on Talk Radio, the local internet forum, or in a national newspaper, because - basically - we're still fine and (comparatively) have a pretty cushy life - whilst some people listening and reading can't afford to heat their homes. It would just seem an ill-judged and tasteless thing to do - and I think that's why many are 'firing away'.

[Saffron]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Laura will be able to return back to the Bar(no

> cheap quips) when children of age but if they only

> have ?60,000 coming in that will be tight in ED, 2

> Adults, 2 kids.

Well, they're very welcome to move out of ED. There are cheaper places they can certainly live just fine. Maybe she and Diana Carney can cry in their lattes about it together:

The wife of the new Bank of England Governor has sparked fury by suggesting that the couple are struggling to find a place to live in London despite receiving a ?5000 a week taxpayer-funded housing subsidy.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/bank-chiefs-wife-with-5000-a-week-home-allowance-sparks-fury-with-high-rents-tweet-8549669.html

[????]

oh, don't worry *bob*, i am in the losing out category likewise and certainly won't be moaning, just noting both the slight sneery tone and inconsistency in argument about choices....besides, I haven't done one of these for ages.....