Hungry Britain

I've worked on the appeals now for almost 20 years.
Before that I worked for the benefits agency ( before ATOS)

I know people in London with good jobs who have to choose between food and rent, there are not enough social workers who understand about living on a budget, one proudly brought me a magazine that had an article on how to feed your family on £5 a day, told her that was £35 a week and I had £20 on a good week, and would only feed 4 of the 5 children not to mention the adults.

Breakfast clubs and after school clubs aren't usually run by teachers. Parents pay for meals. I gave up paid work when my DSs were born in the early 1970s. We could just afford for me not to have a full time job. We didn't have holidays, let alone foreign holidays and we didn't have a car. I did odd jobs and part-time when my DH was available to look after the boys. I went back into full-time teaching when my younger DS started school. My job fitted in very well with the boys. Very few jobs do. Unfortunately, my DS and DDiL are bringing up our grandsons in the 2000s, in London, where the house prices and travel costs and every other cost are stupid. Neither has a family friendly job. I respect their right to organise their lives in the way they feel suits them and their family.

I was reading an article in the paper at the weekend about families being moved out of London as their rents were beyond the benefit cap. One was a single mum who had been working but her mum' who did the childcare, died of cancer and as she could not afford private childcare and the rent (£500 pw) it was better financially to give up work. Now however she has been moved out of the area where she was born and brought up and may have to move again to a 'cheaper' area in the NE of England. Oh yes, let's fill up the NE , where jobs are scarce anyway with lots of families with no support network & no job opportunities. Something so very wrong in the system!.

I'm very glad that my Dd and son-in-law are managing to bring my grandsons up in London on just son-in-law's salary whilst my Dd stays at home and does the childcare. I guess it's down to the fact that they waited to have children until s-i-l was qualified and settled into his career. Not a bad way to go about things.

But, of course, I fully respect other people's life choices, if it suits them and theirs.

My Dd cuts up carrots, cucumber , cheese and gives it to the DG"s with their tea , oh and apples and whatever fruit she has so they get a good deal of their 5 a day.
They have school dinners which seem to be well balanced also .
They eat breakfast with her also as SIL is busy going off to his job !

Why do you assume that it is a lifestyle choice to be poor jingle or indeed have a job that is not deemed to be up to a certain standard ? I am sorry but your last post comes across as very smug and self satisfied as if everyone should be "qualified" and have a "career" before they even think about having children. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "waiting until they are qualified to have children" surely it depends on what they "qualify" as. My son (a qualified electrician) and DIL both work damned hard and long hours in jobs they probably hate. They both get rubbish wages. They are just doing whatever it takes to make an honest living and keep a roof over their heads. After all we can't all be solicitors, accountants, doctors, dentists and teachers can we?

I don't assume it is a lifestyle choice to be poor. That post was in response to Lilygran' s.

My DDs could not afford to stay in London. Fortunately both SIL had movable jobs and DD1 commuted to London. DD2 was at home with toddler and baby. Both have had to make 'choices' to match the needs of their family. DD2 has a bigger home but does not go away on holidays, did not (until v recently) have a car and they walked everywhere, no extra curricular clubs/classes etc. and cooked all meals from scratch..she could be that Jack woman!
DD1 deliberately chose a less expensive (mortgage) house so they could afford an annual holiday and a car. Horses for courses! But both lucky to have partners in f/t work though not particularly well paid (firefighter / builder). Both DDs are really the main breadwinners. DD1 works 4 days and DD2 3 days and they all get by!

I had my kids early-ish jingle then built up my career after motherhood!

Well said Gillybob!

I am smug about my daughter and her little family. Smug, proud, and happy.

Shoot me now.

Because you have no idea how hard my son in law has worked, and at what cost, to get where he is now. Nothing was actually handed to him on a plate.

Jingle , and so you should be , my feelings exactly !

I had an employee in the same position as that described by penstemmonShe was a great person, really reliable, good at her job and then her Mum died, very suddenly from an embolism after a fairly routine non-emergency operation.Apart from the trauma of this, S had to deal with the fact that her child care had gone too. When my employee went to the benefits agency to ask for help she was told she would be better off not working as the costs of childcare in the school holidays would not be covered. We tried our best to make it work, but she was financially far worse off by working. The system is inflexible and lacks understanding. We did enquire whether she could work during term time and have the summer off, which I was happy to do, but no go, it takes an awful long time to get benefits started again when you stop them.

People who are in a fortunate position or have families in a fortunate situation need to be mindful of others whose hard work may not bring the same rewards.

Absolutely Penstemmon- but people also need to make choices that 'make sense' for their situation too. My DD1 says she'd love to have a 3rd or 4th child- but they've agreed it would not be right, as they struggle with very busy and responsible jobs, long commute, and want to be able to look after their kids well, listening to them reading, playing, listening, preparing good meals and packed lunches, etc. They can cope with 2, but are fully aware more would make this very difficult- especially as they started their family in their mid 30s. Is it 'smug' to make choices which you can deal with and cope with and not burden others? I personally do not think so.

Exactly, granjura. As I said somewhere else on this thread, what's wrong with expecting people to live within their means?

Of course the unforeseen can and does happen, jobs are lost, pregnancies may be accidental, but it would surely be better if more emphasis were placed on responsibility rather than entitlement.

I always wanted five children . had my DD then had twins , and was told that any subsequent pregnancies would more than likely end with twins again. {how they knew that I do not know ]
So we decided enough was enough , rather give the children we had a decent standard of living rather than stretch our resources !

If the hard work has been there, penstemon then help should obviously be forthcoming.

I suppose you can look at it both ways. It does seem unfair that larger families should be the prerogative of the better off- but my daughter's point is that it is actually the other way round nowadays- and she thinks it is really unfair, actually. And I can see her point.

Mistakes happen, life happen, illness, accidents, deaths- and this is what the social welfare is for, and absolutely rightly so... but ....

where does one draw the line. I can truly understand that people who work really hard, make the sacrifices, work very longhours, and cut their cloth according to means- then see others run roughshod over it all- and expecting others to pay the bills. DD1 and sil get up at 6am everyday, and take it in turn to return home for 5.30, the other parent often not home till late due to responsibilities. My OH worked 130 hours + when our kids were young- there was no choice, and it was not for greed, that is for sure.

Gillybob I felt an ouch! At your remark of 17.30
Should I not have worked and qualified?

Good programme on ITV tonight - The Rise of the Working Poor.

Apparently there are more low-paid working families classed as being in poverty in the UK now than there are on benefits alone - that can't be right, can it?

I have just watched this programme and done my sums, it appears I am living below the poverty level and on a zero hours contract, however, I still have never missed my mortgage and car loan, never missed a bill and have food on the table (not a lot towards the end of a lean month).
I don't have debts such as loan sharks or catalogues, my stuff is second hand and ive never had a holiday for years but as long as my family are ok and I can cuddle my little granddaughter I don't ** care.
I will never ask for help, im probably not eligible and I wont be going to the food banks.

I watched the programme and zero hours are downright cruel. Apart from not knowing what is happening next week how can these people prepare for their retirement, what retirement? They will be working until they drop.

I feel sorry for those trying to work and afford child care like the primary teacher.