If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Had a baby? New Labour wants you in the workhouse
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As most of you know, I think that the welfare state is hopelessly bloated. It does more than enough to help out the feckless and the lazy, (such as Karen Matthews and the mother of Baby P) yet does next to nothing for those who genuinely have fallen on hard times. Put simply, I believe that the welfare state is so ridiculously large that it has to be radically reformed - otherwise, the nation will go bankrupt attempting to pay for the dismal failure of politicians to improve our society.
Who would have ever thought that New Labour would actually agree with my analysis? Me neither. Yet they do. According to Times Online; "ALMOST all benefit claimants will be forced either to look for a job or prepare for work if they want to continue to receive state handouts, under a shake-up of the welfare state. Single mothers of children as young as one and people registered unfit for work will be compelled to go on training courses and work experience or risk cuts to their benefits. In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: 'Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.'." Click here for more details.
New Labour politicians are probably the most devious, loathsome mendicious shits ever to exist. They all deserve to be tied to a tree and beaten as if they were piñatas before being boiled alive. I'm sure that that Nu Labour's torture-happy friends in Uzbekistan would be happy to help us carry this out to improve international relations. What the fuck are civil servants putting into ministers morning coffees? Making single mums of chidren as young as one go to work? What, so the aforementioned babies can be placed in ZaNu Labour-approved child care centres? I don't recall the state being better placed to raise children than their natural parents.
Not content with forcing everyone out into jobs - has no one told that useless Purnell prick that the economy's in recession at the moment? - they also want to get the details of every child in the country onto a database. This scheme was introduced by the creepy Margaret Hodge in 2003. The very same Margaret Hodge who failed miserably to do anything about the infestation of paedophiles in Islington care homes during the 1980s. The very same Margaret Hodge who branded Demetrious Panton, one of those people who suffered vile abuse in Islington at that time, as "extremely disturbed". Anyone with half a brain could work out that this was a disreputable person with a disreputable idea. But not New Labour!
So not only do they want the parents to go out to work, they want to know everything about their kids as well. They intend to ask 60 questions about "children's sexual behaviour, their family's structure, culture and religion, their views on 'discrimination', their friends, secret fears, feelings and family income, plus 'any serious difficulties in their parents relationship'.". And why exactly is any of this information the business of Gordon Brown and his government?
I'd do anything to see these bastards all thrown of power. I really would. And what's worse is that the Tories would hardly change a thing about it. Utter wankers, the lot of them...
Who would have ever thought that New Labour would actually agree with my analysis? Me neither. Yet they do. According to Times Online; "ALMOST all benefit claimants will be forced either to look for a job or prepare for work if they want to continue to receive state handouts, under a shake-up of the welfare state. Single mothers of children as young as one and people registered unfit for work will be compelled to go on training courses and work experience or risk cuts to their benefits. In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: 'Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.'." Click here for more details.
New Labour politicians are probably the most devious, loathsome mendicious shits ever to exist. They all deserve to be tied to a tree and beaten as if they were piñatas before being boiled alive. I'm sure that that Nu Labour's torture-happy friends in Uzbekistan would be happy to help us carry this out to improve international relations. What the fuck are civil servants putting into ministers morning coffees? Making single mums of chidren as young as one go to work? What, so the aforementioned babies can be placed in ZaNu Labour-approved child care centres? I don't recall the state being better placed to raise children than their natural parents.
Not content with forcing everyone out into jobs - has no one told that useless Purnell prick that the economy's in recession at the moment? - they also want to get the details of every child in the country onto a database. This scheme was introduced by the creepy Margaret Hodge in 2003. The very same Margaret Hodge who failed miserably to do anything about the infestation of paedophiles in Islington care homes during the 1980s. The very same Margaret Hodge who branded Demetrious Panton, one of those people who suffered vile abuse in Islington at that time, as "extremely disturbed". Anyone with half a brain could work out that this was a disreputable person with a disreputable idea. But not New Labour!
So not only do they want the parents to go out to work, they want to know everything about their kids as well. They intend to ask 60 questions about "children's sexual behaviour, their family's structure, culture and religion, their views on 'discrimination', their friends, secret fears, feelings and family income, plus 'any serious difficulties in their parents relationship'.". And why exactly is any of this information the business of Gordon Brown and his government?
I'd do anything to see these bastards all thrown of power. I really would. And what's worse is that the Tories would hardly change a thing about it. Utter wankers, the lot of them...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The Government will probably try to get it through on the grounds that cutting the welfare bill is essential due to the "difficult economic times" that "hard-working families" face thanks to problems "which began in America". (as endlessly repeated by Macavity in the past year) Much of Labour will oppose it. The question is what the Tories would do about it. I also suspect it would get huge opposition in the House of Lords.
It's got to be stopped either way. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The cost of subsidising childcare will probably outweigh the money saved by quite a long shot
and why do they need to know those things? have they given a reason? sounds stupidly like 1984
As an aside point, I find the way the Matthews case has been used up by sectors of the press (and David fucking Cameron in one of the papers today) to have a pop at the welfare State as the pinnacle of malice and utter cuntiness.
There should be more investment made into helping people off benefits and into work, but I dont think that needs to come with a big stick, just a decent carrot. Most people would rather be out and doing things and long term unemployment is dire for your health.
It is because of such bullshit that the government is now contemplating forcing parents into work.
At the moment it is 16.
I think that unless you can make businesses be more family friendly, or schools more working parent friendly, then it wont work.
Its really not easy to find any job that fits around UK school hours
Sure isn't!
Of course it isnt, which is why I said we need far more carrot than stick.
I know in some towns now they are doing 9.30-3 slots at most of the big shops so that mums can work and still pick up their kids without an issue. Its that sort of flexibility which seems to be the way to go.
One of the women I worked with at McDonalds did 9:30-2:30 every weekday, and didn't work in the school holidays or weekends, and because they always get in extra staff over the school holidays anyway (mostly because the part-time school/college kids would go full-time hours) it wasn't a problem. She actually went in and said, "can I just work the school hours?".
Much as I hated working there, there are worse jobs, especially if you're not working the massively busy periods. McD's were very good in that they were pretty flexible with hours (unless you let them walk all over you, like I did, and then you end up getting out of bed at 3am every damn day). You can also book time off at pretty short-notice without a problem.
Obviously I'm not branding every young mum or every single parent in the same bracket but theres enough of them out there which means something has to be done! Being a parent is a hard job - agreed but I grew up with my Dad leaving for work before I got up for School and getting home later than me, my mum worked at a school so had school hours but...... I was fed a proper home cooked meal every nite, I was helped with my homework when it was needed, my house was always pristeen clean....so to argue that these jobs can't get done if the parents are working I believe is wrong!
These jobs get done when you live on your own anyway, cooking for an extra 1 or 2 doesn't take extra time, just a bigger pan, its actually easier cooking for 3/4 than it is cooking for 1 IMO! You would clean your house anyway, so a little extra needed obviously cleaning up after kids mess but certainly not so much that if you worked you wouldn't have time to do any of these things!
You have the likes of Shannon Matthews mum who wouldn't do any of these things even though she didn't work!
I can understand looking after a child is hard work, especially at a young age when they depend on you 100%, but I firmly believe that parents should still work...if anything just to provide a better life financially for their child!
If benefits make it more financially rewarding than working then that needs to be looked at cos its wrong if workers get less than benefits.
Also about this questionaire... sure it seems like its a kind of Big Brother prying into peoples lifes...but if it helps find out people like Shannons mum then I'm all for it...people like this shouldn't have children and I'm pretty confident there will be a lot of Karen Matthews out there!
Source?
But lets assume its true, I do think that if your kid is at school you should be looking for some sort of work. I agree that finding work which is suitable is going to be difficult, but thats why I keep stressing there needs to be more carrot than stick.
Plus benefits need to be more flexible, I know one single mum who only works 3 days a week, she could work more and wants to, but if she did she would loose more than she would gain. Which is bonkers really.
Ah yes, silly me. Because like most other things with this lot, it's about showing who's boss.
It doesn't take that long to make a home cooked meal. And what's wrong with cooking over night? My mum does that and she normally works 10 hour days.
Both my parents worked full time from when I was 11 and guess what? They managed to do all the above.:rolleyes:
It really does depend kat, I know some who do exactly that and the kids are left to fend for themselves mostly. Although the counter argument is that a parent has their own life too and shouldn't be a slave to their kids. I dunno, I can't complain in that regard and most of my friends were very well catered for but I know of several parents who are on benefits and do just laze about. I don't know whether it's pure laziness though or whether someone gets into such a routine that going out and getting a job is just too stressful.
Awesome for you Melian but you're missing the bigger picture that not everyone can and the harder you make it the more people won't.
i often dont manage it. Try having several children to supervise whilst cooking a healthy meal
Polly Toynbee yesterdays Guardian.