Tories prepare to 'protect' youngest single mothers from Labour

The Daily Mail calls it "a startling reversal of positions for the two main parties" but notes that the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, is "uncomfortable" about Labour's intention - announced yesterday - to force single mothers to seek work once their youngest child reaches twelve months of age.

Mr Grayling told The Mail:

"Nobody could accuse me of being soft on welfare reform but there is a real issue about the welfare of children early in life. The big problem is the availability of the right kind of childcare."

The Conservatives would rather Labour focused efforts on getting the much larger number of people on incapacity benefit into work.  In an echo of the bipartisanship that David Cameron showed towards Tony Blair's 2006 education reforms, the Conservative frontbench nonetheless promises to help Welfare Secretary James Purnell pass the vast bulk of his measures.

Janet Daley is unimpressed with Mr Purnell's package.  She believes the proposed reforms are "over-hyped" and should be more closely modelled on the USA where the work requirements on single mothers, in particular, were much tougher and "the rate of unmarried births fell like a stone".  The Mail leader-writers also protest the flimsiness of Mr Purnell's insistence that "every claimant must do 'something'." "That may only include updating a CV or 'finding out about childcare'," they complain. The Mail leader concludes:

"The timing, too, leaves a lot to be desired. What a farce that ministers did nothing when jobs were readily available, but now seek to get the long-term unemployed, including 100,000 drunks and drug addicts in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, back into the workplace at a time when there are no jobs."

Comments

[meli]

Couldn't agree more. Ok yes, it is a problem. But where are the daycare centers for all of these children? And where are the jobs for these parents? People are losing their jobs left and right, this has got to be the most insane time ever for the government to propose this.

[London Tory]

Chris Grayling is 100% correct.

Young kids needs their mums, particularly when returning home after school. Labour will breed another generation of latch key kids with this policy, loitering on street corners and learning anti social behaviour from an early age.

[pp]

10 out of 10 for having the confidence to follow Tory principals even if the result seems counter-intuitive.

People who can't afford to look after children shouldn't have them (which is as much an argument for making parenthood cheaper as anything else)-- but once they are here there is a duty to the child, every child is potentially a massive asset to the UK and deserves the best we are prepared to pay for.

It is good to see labours failings being shown up on so many fronts.

[pp]

p.s. as per the mail article - labour made some good promises when they came to power - now, over a decade on every one can see what labour promises are worth...

Blair said that every time he did complete a reform, his main regret was that he hadn't gone further -- something I hope the shadow cabinet take on board...

[support the strivers]

Huge fan of Grayling normally but he is TOTALLY wrong on this.

why should the married bus driver with 2 children, struggling to pay Brown's taxes and make ends meet, subsidise the women who CHOOSES - and let's be clear it is a career choice for many - to have a posse of children.

the tragedy is that these children are produced for their income generation potential. we need to deter the mothers. first step is to stop encouraging via the benefits system.

Grayling et al, do what you know is right as opposed to what you think will get you soft left votes.

[Deborah]

All good citizens must make sacrifices for the greater good. Working for the motherland must take priority. It is the right thing to do.

[Deborah]

"Labour will breed another generation of latch key kids with this policy, loitering on street corners and learning anti social behaviour from an early age."

Our new extended schools programme provides young citizens with a structured environment to continue their studies, learning more about their role in the success of the motherland. To ensure that no young citizen is deprived of this opportunity, schools hours will match those of the workers.

[London Tory]

@ 'support the strivers'

You are entirely wrong. These children do not choose the families into which they are born. We cannot write them off.

Why should the state pay for these kids to attend after school clubs and sure start whilst it also subsidises the [exhausted] Mum to stack shelves in Tescos ?

Once again, as with Haringey, Labour shows that it is more interested in ticking boxes and achieving 'outcomes' than helpling real people, and a civilised society.

[Matt Wright]

The Purnell proposals will go down like a lead balloon amongst Labour activists. The timing is also ridiculous. Labour, like so many other issues, totally failed to address key issues while they were in office and the economy was doing reasonably well. They opposed our NHS reforms, messed about for years and then half-heartedly and belatedly came back to our reforms at the last minite. They asked Frank Field to look at welfare and "think the unthinkable" 10 years ago and as soon as he did he was sacked. Frankly we should point this Govt is totally incompetent and have wasted money and time. We should the prinicple of benefit reform but require a key amendment and question the timing.

[I've been mugged by Darling]

I'm sorry but is Graying a Marxist or does he just live on another world?

It's right we back genuine mothers who have fallen into trouble but why should taxpayers back the workshy?

For those on a low incomes who decide to get off thier backside and go to work face being mugged by the taxman to fund the workshy.

If a government wishes to end the high rates of single mothers then a good education is vital.

For young working class women with a poor education the option of living on state hand-outs and getting a council house is far too tempting.

A good education for all with the chance to earn a good paypacket will slash the numbers of new teenage single mums.

State hand-outs is the socialist answer. The real Conservative answer is the freedom to earn money through work and slap down the over bearing state.

[rugfish]

People who say people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them need to face the reality that they do and deal with it properly and sensitively and in a way which is socially acceptable. ( Regardless of the why's and wherefore's ), we do have single or divorced women with children. It is not evil it is a fact of life which has to be dealt with.

The other fact of life which has to be dealt with is the ability of a single mother to afford childcare, and so too the social effects of many millions of our people being brought up without the good a mother brings into a child's life which has implications for wider society too, including the costs of badly turned out adults to our society.

Personally I find it quite disgusting that a government can not see the overriding social problems it will cause by a policy which forces mothers to abandon the nurturing of their children which are our future citizens, especially when they tell us we have low indigenous birth rates and a need to increase migration to this country. In fact I find it sinister for a government to not see mothers, generally speaking, as carrying out the biggest service a person could give to this nation and instead wanting to almost criminalise them for being in a predicament which we have all let happen as people don't themselves seem to care enough to think about anything other than their own selves and in essence have themselves broken our society by such selfish and materialistic thinking.

Bah humbug to Labour, leave them kids alone !

[support the strivers]

london tory, I think you will find in life in general that you persuade more people by searching for consensus and then arguing rather than by point blank statements like "you are entirely wrong" which lead one to the conclusion that, really, you're not a awfully intellectually open or alert mind as noone's argument can be "entirely wrong".

the reason I have my view is that i see it as fundamentally wrong for some people to work to support others who don't. it is right for people to take responsibility for themselves. it is wrong morally, physically and intellectually for people to get money for nothing, from the toil of others.

it is also evil of us to incentiviise them to have children to fund their own lifestyles. horrendous for the child. horrendous.

Q.e.d., even if it costs the state the same amount for the surestart after school club that you mention, as it would for benefit for the mother, it sends a very clear signal. we don't support you or your actions. you and your family - because there is a partner at least somewhere here -MUST learn to support yourself.

i repeat: why should the bus driver sweat and stress all day to pay for single mothers?

and i also repeat: Grayling loses respect for this as i suspect he is not doing it out of principle but out of a misplaced sense of voteseeking. (on this he is of course completleyl wrong - why can't SW1A people "feel" how the tide is in the country?)

[meli]

And where are the fathers of these children? Why are they not providing for them? These women did not make these babies by themselves.

[London Tory]

@ support the strivers

Apart from a few UKIP ers in Essex, I would suggest there are very few votes in keeping mums and young parents apart at the behest of the state.

We already have a vast swathe of Vicky Pollard's in this country- the Shannon Matthew's of this world who are sent to school for their breakfasts at 7am.

Your ideas would create more- not good for the long term future of this country.

[Dave McEwan Hill]

An attitude change is required in this a debate. It's not the mothers (single or otherwise)that is the important issue here. It is the child.
The child is the citizen of the future, the seedcorn of the nation.
Any resource the state spends on insuring a stable and protected environment for any child is money well spent. Many of the most primitive societies on this earth have a better understanding of a community's obligation to all its children, not just the ones that have the good fortune to have sensible parents.
Of course, if you want to buy Trident missiles and so on you probably can't afford to support your children properly

[David_at_Home]

"Apart from a few UKIP ers in Essex, I would suggest there are very few votes in keeping mums and young parents apart at the behest of the state."

I assume you mean mums and young children.

Well I am a Ukiper and I think that young children need their mums to be around most of the time. Most people, very probably all people, with whom I associate would agree, regardless of political affiliation.

An apology would be appreciated.

[michael]

As a Conservative I want all parents, including single parents, to be able to choose what is best for them and their child.

What sort of Government would try to make single parents work when a child reaches twelve months?

For some parents that might be the best option. For others without family support or good local childcare facilities or children with particular needs, it could be entirely the wrong thing to do.

The welfare state is there to support people to make the right decisions, not to distort people's lives in a way which isn't best for them and their children.

[Ken Stevens]

You might also give thought to reversing the professionalisation of registered childminders, which has steadily been drawing them into the same regulatory net as for corporate childcare.

Statutory Early Years Framework, etc, has been lessening the attraction of childminding in the home which by its nature is not a highly remunerative occupation (because of the sensible limits on the numbers of children that can be cared for by one person). My wife doesn’t think she would start childminding nowadays, as the requirements have steadily gone somewhat beyond the basics of verifying a safe, loving home environment plus record keeping and tax returns.

Domiciliary childminding should be regarded as a complementary rather than competing role as compared to nurseries, playgroups and preschool settings. My wife’s parenting methods have produced three well-adjusted graduates of our own and users include professional folk well able to afford corporate alternatives, so forget the old Hogarthian image of baby farmers!
She continued childminding long after our younger married life when the money kept the wolf from the door and our own had launched into adulthood, simply because she adores having the little @*%#s around the house. There are times when I am delayed from giving you all the inestimable benefit of my advice & opinion because I have been ousted from the computer by a snivelling brat or two!

Aside from the homely domestic environment, my wife has, during decades of minding, been a useful source of guidance to parents experiencing difficulties with their kids. That aspect is perhaps a particular attribute that could be considered in relation to ‘youngest single Mums', i.e. for mentoring and not just minding.

Let those who wish to pursue childminding as a profession, gaining the requisite NVQs, diplomas and degrees do so unfettered by all means.

But leave a valuable niche for those who simply, as my wife puts it, provide the next best thing to being at home with Mum.

[John]

The Welfare reforms announced by the government regarding ‘single parents’ will be as effective as trying to empty a bath with the taps still running; as much comes in as goes out. Nowhere is there any attempt to reduce the numbers coming onto benefits in the first place.

The term ‘single parent’ is itself part of the problem. As far as my biological knowledge goes all children have two parents – married, single, separated or divorced. Theirs is the responsibility for the upkeep of their children, not the ever-suffering tax payer.

It needs to be a criminal offense for dead-beat dads not to provide for their children. It should also be made easier for their incomes and assets to be requisitioned in order to provide for them. That just might make them more responsible.

Benefits shouldn’t be given for children born once people are already on benefits. This simply pays them to have more children.

Yes, those currently on benefits should be preparing for the workplace and, at the latest, once their current youngest child is at school, they should be required to go out to work like the rest of us.

However, we now need to say enough is enough; from a given date benefits will not be paid to new ‘single parents’. Only have children if you can afford to support them. It’s called freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

No longer should we allow them to use their children to blackmail us by asserting ‘it’s the children who suffer’. Tell that to the absentee dad!

It’s one thing having a welfare system that helps people through unexpected difficulties, another where it’s used as a meal ticket for a deliberate lifestyle choice.

[support the strivers]

John, you have put it brilliantly. peopel CHOOSE to have these children. we need to take away the incentive. Currently other peopel's children are suffering because their tax bills are so high to pay for irresponsible parents' children.

London Tory, it's an attemtp not at winning UKIP votes - Grayling has been instructed to seek soft left/liberal/floating voter types. it's all part of the rebranding.

[Angelo Basu]

How about being kind towards current parents but introducing very tough measures in respect of currently unconceived children (ie no child related benefits for any children born after October 2009 for those currently on benefits and no account of such children to be taken in deciding whether a claimant should be required to take steps to seek work). That would balance out compassion to children who have already been born with a strong disincentive on those who already are unable to support themselves or their existing families against having children.

[2020]

What if parents were legally bound upon the birth of a child to provide for it - notably in financial terms? We now have pre-nups ... how about pre-birth?

[Ken Stevens]

2020
What, a government wealth warning on every contraceptive packet?

Oops, no, forgot: contraceptives not relevant to topic
;-)

[Aadm in London]

We appear to have forgotten that the Wisconsin welfare reforms didn't save a penny from the welfare bill - they just meant that instead of spending money on welfare cheques, money was instead spent on getting people into work (a very expensive exercise it turns out). This was felt to still be a good thing (being in work is good for you), but it wasn't a money-saving exercise.

[John]

Aadrm, yes there are short-term, up-front costs but don't forget people moving into work start paying taxes and NI. It also helps to break the cycle of children following their parents onto benefits. So, if we move existing claiments off benefits -admittedly more dificult now we are in Brown's 'Bust' - and stop others moving onto them, the financial costs will be recovered and the social benefits are immense.

[Votedave]

Chris Grayling is in support of much of this new "welfare to work" drive, after all it was the Conservatives who originally proposed it.
But the Conservatives are the party of the family and we are quite right not to stand in the way of a mother's natural right to be with her children. Having lots of children is nothing new - in the past people used to have over ten siblings - as my grandmother did.

[Deborah]

I suspect the money is less of an incentive than the opportunity to get your own place.
If young single mothers were given supported hostel accommodation rather than their own flats, getting pregnant might seem less attractive. A supported hostel, could also help by providing girls with the opportunity to improve their education and learn life skills.

Of course many women from apparently stable relationships are left holding the baby through no fault of their own.

[John]

Votedave, The problem is for some 'mother's natural right to be with her children', other equally deserving mothers - and fathers- have to go out to work to pay the taxes that pay for it all. Yes families used to be large. I'm one of six, but my Father went out to work to support us not ask others to do it for us. It' simply not right that people (including many single parents) working hard on modest incomes, struggling to provide for their own families, should also have provide for those who simply will not make the effort to support themselves and their children

[Votedave]

You have valid points, John.
However, what concerns me is; who looks after the children before they start school when the single parent has to go to work, there are no grandparents and no affordable care services? The children would have to go into compulsory care which can only lead to more family breakdown.

[John]

Votedave, I said earlier that parents should go back to work once their youngest is at school. Anyway, there are millions of families acros the country who cope with the dificulies of holding down a job and looking after children. They don't simply fall back on benefits. It's because bringing up children is so important, difficult and expensive that people should think twice before doing it. A child shouldn't simply be a means to extra benefits. More generally, of course, if governments didn't take so much tax off parents in general, they could afford for one parent to remain at home to provide stability at home. Ultimately, if you want the pleasue of the conception, you must except the responsibility and expense of the upkeep.

[pp]

Much as I hate state interference in family matters (or pretty much any matter really)...

Maybe child related benefits should only be paid to mothers who have taken and passed a state sponsered course/exam in child care...

Failing the test would not mean that a child would be taken into care (or anything similar) just that the taxpayer is unwilling to pay the mother to care for it...

[No one you know]

OK...3 points -

1. The fathers issue - sorry if this is too far off topic but it's very easy to blame fathers when discussed issues around 'young single mothers'. I would argue, and know that this happens for a fact, that the benefits system actually encourages the 'single' part of the phrase. Often young mothers will break up with their boyfriends because the benefits are better. Young fathers are viewed as nothing more than a financial resource, just one that's either paying or not. I would argue fathers are much more than that to a family. That the institution of the family is the thing the benefit system should be encouraging and supporting. Get a young father engaging with his child, moving forward in his career and hopeful for the future and the chances of the mother being properly supported and the child having a healthy upbringing, I would argue, greatly increase.

Let me put it like this...How often to you hear about 'young families' in debates on this subject? (even including young families on benefit). You don't. The whole direction of the debate and THE SYSTEM ITSELF is based on the foundational belief/starting point that these WILL be single mothers. Young FAMILIES are therefore disincentivised to stay together and try and make a go of it. Young fathers are pushed to one side in the current system and vilified by all sides. How do we expect the statistics to change unless we start championing the young FAMILY and supporting young fathers to take responsibility for this new life that's come into the world? At least providing a supportive benefit framework for this to take place!

2. I believe mothers should be encouraged back to work, especially those who may come from a culture of living on benefit in their families and/or immediate local communities. I do worry about the availability of affordable childcare, and this should definately be looked at as part of the package of changes coming into effect. At the same time though, the state should be there to provide a supportive framework for these young families to make a FUTURE for themselves (ie become aspirational and believe they can create successful lives without depedency on the state)...not answer every problem they may face. The problem with labour social policy is it creates this culture of dependency. The state, by it's very nature, can't fix all of our social problems. Social problems require a socially constructed solution. The family is the best benefit system humankind could ask for. The support of a loving family is what our children need - not a culture of state dependency. Our benefit policy should aim to support and encourage young families. Obviously young single mothers also need support, let's give them that when it is absolutely needed, but let's not create a system that actually encourages the breakdown of the family unit right from the start. We're setting them up for failure!

3. The argument of bus driver paying for single mum doesn't add up. The bus drivers taxes are not going to be cut either way on this. I understand the rationale of your argument and agree with the sentiment...but looking beyond the hypothesis at the reality of Gov't spending, it's a non-argument.

[No one you know]

OK...3 points -

1. The fathers issue - sorry if this is too far off topic but it's very easy to blame fathers when discussed issues around 'young single mothers'. I would argue, and know that this happens for a fact, that the benefits system actually encourages the 'single' part of the phrase. Often young mothers will break up with their boyfriends because the benefits are better. Young fathers are viewed as nothing more than a financial resource, just one that's either paying or not. I would argue fathers are much more than that to a family. That the institution of the family is the thing the benefit system should be encouraging and supporting. Get a young father engaging with his child, moving forward in his career and hopeful for the future and the chances of the mother being properly supported and the child having a healthy upbringing, I would argue, greatly increase.

Let me put it like this...How often to you hear about 'young families' in debates on this subject? (even including young families on benefit). You don't. The whole direction of the debate and THE SYSTEM ITSELF is based on the foundational belief/starting point that these WILL be single mothers. Young FAMILIES are therefore disincentivised to stay together and try and make a go of it. Young fathers are pushed to one side in the current system and vilified by all sides. How do we expect the statistics to change unless we start championing the young FAMILY and supporting young fathers to take responsibility for this new life that's come into the world? At least providing a supportive benefit framework for this to take place!

2. I believe mothers should be encouraged back to work, especially those who may come from a culture of living on benefit in their families and/or immediate local communities. I do worry about the availability of affordable childcare, and this should definately be looked at as part of the package of changes coming into effect. At the same time though, the state should be there to provide a supportive framework for these young families to make a FUTURE for themselves (ie become aspirational and believe they can create successful lives without depedency on the state)...not answer every problem they may face. The problem with labour social policy is it creates this culture of dependency. The state, by it's very nature, can't fix all of our social problems. Social problems require a socially constructed solution. The family is the best benefit system humankind could ask for. The support of a loving family is what our children need - not a culture of state dependency. Our benefit policy should aim to support and encourage young families. Obviously young single mothers also need support, let's give them that when it is absolutely needed, but let's not create a system that actually encourages the breakdown of the family unit right from the start. We're setting them up for failure!

3. The argument of bus driver paying for single mum doesn't add up. The bus drivers taxes are not going to be cut either way on this. I understand the rationale of your argument and agree with the sentiment...but looking beyond the hypothesis at the reality of Gov't spending, it's a non-argument.