The U.K. in 2019 -

Also, somebody suggested that parents who have difficulty coping with the needs of their children should perhaps have them taken away and put into foster care.

At the moment there is a huge shortage of foster parents, and particularly long term, experienced foster parents, which is why some children are moved around so frequently. Given the outcome for children in foster care and children's homes is not good - poor educational attainment, higher representation in the prison population, etc, etc, I don't think putting children in care - apart from in the most serious cases of neglect and abuse - is desirable or practical.

I think mother, son and grandson constitutes three generations or am I missing something?

Three generations where no one has worked Joelsnan? That is what we are being constantly fed. Obviously this is a case where, in each of three generations, someone didn't work. I have yet to see that headline.

There is evidence of what works. Look at the levels of social mobiliy of the children born in the fifties and sixties when the welfare state operated a better system of support. Many of you will say that parenting was better then, some of it was, but there were still inadequate and failing parents and families. But the children from those families stood more chance of building better lives because they were adequately fed and housed when they were young.

On a very basic level, I'm sure I would not be one of life's copers if I was dehydrated and hungry.

There is a plethora of evidence supporting early intervention and support for families. We have a government setting a standard that experts/research evidence is simply left wing propaganda. It isn’t. Look at the outcomes in other countries who actively seek to support their children.

Regarding education, taking ill prepared 4 year olds and expecting them to cope with a white middle class ideal of education is downright cruel.

Go on, slate me for " middle class".

Whitewavemark2 Very much appreciate the perspective you added to mine, extremely appropriate! The better offs are better educated to rip off the tax system big time! The better offs write the tax laws at the expense of the less educated and the vulnerable.

For me work ethic is just as crucial as a living wage.

Using zero hour contracts to massage unemployment figures is absolutely disgraceful.

One of the most precious things I learnt in my life has been to not expect everyone to be as able, healthy and as fortunate as myself to cope with life and its challenges. I learnt to judge the society I live in by the way it treats its less fortunate in all things be it health, housing, education, employment, social security, charitable organisations ... and their social and work ethics.

I've learnt by improving the lot of the weaker section of our society, the society as a whole will improve and becomes more secure for all. By investing in preventative measures to improve health, housing, education, ... we'll save moneys spent in law and order.

naheed good post

Yes, good post naheed

It seems that we have two 'camps' on here. Those who think that the state should care for all it citizens and those who think that care should only go to those who 'deserve' it... the language is positively 19th century...

Well said MaiziD. I’ve long believed we are going back to the future, Engles and Dickens would be shocked by the poverty in some parts of Manchester today.
Some of the comments here could have been made by Poor Law Guardians in the novels of Dickens or in the pages of Angela’s Ashes ?

So how exactly when we get this utopian welfare state from the posters who state

that the state should care for all it citizens

Do we differentiate between the deserving who have genuine needs and the feckless who also take, or are we not into 'judging' in any way shape or form?

Will there be anyone in this hippy-like 'love and peace' set up who says it cannot be a free for all? If not, those able to work and contribute to the pot which funds social care can also take time out, for no good reason, if every citizen is to be cared for.

Sounds fair.

Or will their be means testing. Of course there will be. And will the good caring, but at her wits end single mother who gives 100% to her children, on a limited income, get the same sort of care that the switched off, couldn't-give-a-damn lazy and self indulgent parent gets? One would hope so.

I think you'll find everyone who has posted cares very deeply that we have a duty to look after those who genuinely struggle. It is right and proper that the frail, sick, disabled, young, vulnerable, old and disadvantaged are known. I don't think anyone is disputing that, despite the Dickens/Angela's ashes slurs.

Is it right and proper that so many resources and a disproportionate amount of time and money is spent on the feckless/can't be arsed/it's too much like hard work brigade, who do exist, despite your protestations that we care for everyone. A bad parent has a get-out clause, or are they held responsible for neglecting their children?

Encouraging personal responsibility is what the 'Dickensian' posters are suggesting. If we make excuses and delve deeply into the backgrounds of everyone who is merely feckless we would be wasting resources, surely?

I suspect many posters here could tell a tale of a life that has knocked them down time and time again. I certainly can. No one delves into our back story, or the story of everyone who strives with determination and dignity to get back up again. Not everyone can rise, but we'd hope such people don't slip through the net. They do though, because they believe in independence, doing their best, making an effort.

Life is bloody unfair. There are many who get no breaks but they carry on. There are just as many who make no effort and expect the state to care for them from cradle to grave. They often know how to shout loudest too.

No discernment?
Fair?

Really?

MaizieD
seems that we have two 'camps' on here. Those who think that the state should care for all it citizens and those who think that care should only go to those who 'deserve' it... the language is positively 19th century

A very broad generalisation quite remote from the truth. Most are seriously debating how to deal with child deprivation and the various causes, no 19th century language.

We’d do well to remember that even in the 1970s we had many children living most of the year in residential schools. Those schools were gradually closed as it was recognised they were a haven for peadophiles and that despite their feckless parents, children fared
Better at home, with statutory and voluntary support.
Alongside these changes, many people were discharged from huge institutions as care in the community was believed to be less damaging (and cheaper).
One of the outcomes of these social policy decisions is the UK has parents with learning difficulties (for eg) living in the community And having children. Those families need support and rightly so. I’m sure they fit the deserving poor category.
The Uk recognises the complexity of supporting the feckless patents. It’s complicated. Complex problems don’t respond well to simple or punitive solutions

In the I today was a short report which, in my view, demonstrated very well the advantages of supporting people who appear to need help to parent more effectively.

QUOTE*Recipe-kit scheme helps children for years*

"A scheme that helped parents plan well-balanced family dinners for three months kept their children healtheir for years after, astudy has found.

"Low-income families [285 families involved in study] in Edinburgh and Colchester were given simple recipe kits to cook five healthy meals a week, with scientists studying the impact on their children's body mass index. The BMI of children who had been cooked well-balanced meals during the scheme fell by between 5 an 6 percentage points.

"Researchers also found that, in the three years after the study, children continued to eat healthily, even when there was no evidence of a similar change in their parents.

"Professor Michele Belot who led the study said "Dietary habits are more malleable early on in life." END QUOTE.

This suggests to me that many parents who may, on the surface, appear to be incompetent and perhaps uninterested in their children's wellbeing, may instead need more support. Far better, in my view, to offer such support than keep moaning on about people whose life experiences are unknown to us but who we nevertheless decide to label as feckless and lazy.

Eloethan, thanks so much for your post. I am too often motivated by memories of the families and children I worked with over forty years and feel I don’t do them justice as a result. I do know the research, you can’t appear before a Judge making recommendations for continued support with expensive, limited resources or alternatively recommend alternative placements without strong research evidence in support of your recommendations
The sure start family centres focussed on assessment, identified need - the had successes. It’s shameful to have destroyed that programme and others like it

Eloethan
I think one of the reasons poor diet has increased recently is the parents do not know how to cook. I dont know about you, but I was taught cookery from the age of 11 to 16 we spent one whole morning or afternoon cooking and baking from scratch making basic meals through to baking and Royal icing a Christmas cake. During my v poor time in early marriage I could always manage to rustle up a home cooked meal as well as working full time and having small children. By the time my daughter went to High school Home Economics was the 'fad' and lesson times had reduced it had become 'take a tin of this and a packet of that'. I think if any cookery is done in schools now it is very low priority.
Rather than try and support mothers individually when it may be too late to change ways, we should be campaigning for cookery, home and financial management to be taught as mainstream subjects getting them embedded early and rather than teaching things like General studies and subjects less relevant to successful life.

I did cookery at school but, to be honest, I didn't use that knowledge at home - my Mum did all the cooking. I just muddled through when I got married and eventually developed a repertoire of meals that I was able to cook reasonably well. Fortunately, my husband cooked too.

I think the difference when I was younger, was that there wasn't a great deal of processed food/frozen ready meals available in the shops - the only convenience food I can recall eating at home was (what we thought were very sophisticated) packets of Vesta meals that, from my recollection, were reconstituted by adding boiling water and tins of Goblin meat puddings. There wasn't the array, of frozen ready-made meals and puddings or the huge numbers of take-away outlets (apart from the local fish and chip shop). Now, people are inundated with adverts for KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, and ready meals from M&S, Morrisons, Iceland, etc, etc. Advertising is effective - that's why so much money is spent on it - so is it any wonder that external catering/convenience foods have been normalised.

I think you'll find everyone who has posted cares very deeply that we have a duty to look after those who genuinely struggle.

The 'deserving poor'.

I rest my case...

MaizieD
The 'deserving poor’ I rest my case

What case would that be?

Most of these parents who have no idea how to cook reasonsbly priced meals, have internet and a mobile phone.
In those cases, there is no excuse.

reasonsbly reasonably

I really do think many of you fail absolutely to recognise the chaotic lifestyles lived by some families and the results of this upon children. Cooking a balanced meal requires not only cooking skills but the ability to shop carefully in advance and plan. Even in the 1960s there were families who could not do this. My parents had a corner shop in an area of small terraced houses, many of the families were great but there were quite a few who lived hand to mouth. Who pretended to be out when the rent man came round, who came into the shop and asked for 2 slices of bacon, a loaf of bread and a small tin of beans "Cos I've nowt for the kids' tea," then the pennies and ha'pennies were counted out. Corner shops have gone of course so now the kids will probably go without tea. Child poverty isn't new. The fact that some are happy to let it continue isn't either. But some of those children from difficult backgrounds do grow up to be better mums and dads, and the more support they are given the more successes there will be.

Referring to the basic-menu article I mentioned above, would you describe the parents who were not feeding their children a good diet as lazy or bad parents? If so, how is it that when these parents were given some support, they didn't just carry on as normal because it was easier but instead set about changing what their children ate? Surely it shows that the vast majority of parents - even those who may not be seen as willing to put some effort into child care - want what is best for their children but sometimes need help?

Anyway, whatever people's views as to whether people are "deserving" or not, to withdraw financial or any other support will primarily hurt the children and will perpetuate the cycle of deprivation and disengagement.

Part of the reason the state National Insurance system came in is because prior to that "Parish Relief" system, etc., meant the people operating it - to whom forelocks needed to be tugged - decided who was deserving and who was not and it had to be made plain that these people were receiving "charity".

It seems, rather than actual making peoples lives better, some on here now see themselves a higher beings who can "judge" the deserving and the undeserving. I despair when I see those who believe themselves so morally superior having any influence whatsoever on our society.

The worst of it is we have all lived under the benefits of the systems brought in after the war and yet so many do not appreciate how much these have improved their lives and now, having done reasonably well under that system, wish to take it away from others. They do say the only thing worse than a liar is a hypocrite. I think we can see that on GN.

GracesGranMK3
It seems, rather than actual making peoples lives better, some on here now see themselves a higher beings who can "judge" the deserving and the undeserving. I despair when I see those who believe themselves so morally superior having any influence

I do not think that there are any of your 'higher beings' on this site. There do appear to be one or two who obviously have blinkered vision, some consider themselves to be of the highly benevolent nature who think 'free love and food for all, lets just shake the money tree'. Whilst blithly being unaware that all this 'free everything' comes from workers taxes, some workers (it is proven) take home less than some who potentially could work but choose not to. Everyone on this site is more than happy to give all support to the needy, however there can be no denying that amongst the truly needy there are a core of entitled people (probably since the 80s) who feel the world owes them, this despite contributing little and who really spoil it for the true needy. This is why we have ended up with the absolutely horrendous benefits medicals. If people played fair then the benefits system would work perfectly well for those who need and deserve it. And others would not encourage the 'entitled' few to take what they do not need or deserve.