Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

I completely agree with you DaisyAnne. My youngest child is still at school for what it is worth

JaneJudge

I've worked, not worked, been full time, been part time, been a carer, been a sahm, worked from home. People do what they can. It's about time we stopped criticising one another for the choices we made, some of which is never a choice.

Lots of people just simply cannot work either, through disability or mental illness and lets face it, if it is such a big deal to take a sleeping baby into work to vote in the early hours of the morning, what hope do people with disabilities have for adjustments to be made for them?

It is SO depressing

I think there is far more over-sensitivity than criticism. What happened then, happened then. It may or may not be what young women and their partners want now. It's for new mothers that the laws will be made, not our generation.

If posters do not insist on telling those young women - and anyone else who will listen - that they know what is best for other people's babies, I doubt anyone would be commenting on their past choices. It is for the younger person to decide; they do not need instruction based on what individuals did in the "olden days".

I would say the same for the parents of severely disabled children,

yes, absolutely.

DiscoDancer1975

Doodledog

Oh....and my husband kept us. He earned enough. I certainly wasn’t, and never have been, a scrounger.

Again, nobody has said that you are or ever were a scrounger.

I would take issue with the idea that your husband's contributions covered you, though, or that his contributions have impacted on your scrounger/non-scrounger status. They would have been based on his earnings, so were his contributions, and nobody else's. Your own healthcare, pension etc is entirely separate.

Are you suggesting that a single parent who has no partner to 'keep her' is a scrounger? I doubt that that is what you meant to say, but that is the logic of your argument.

IMO, SAH parents are not scroungers, but I do feel that it is only because other people work and contribute to the system that they are able to make the choice to stay at home (whether indoors or otherwise), and that they should recognise this when they criticise those who have made different choices.

I’ve never suggested anyone is a scrounger. I simply don’t know their circumstances to be able to comment.

As for single mother’s, I have nothing but admiration for them, doing such a hard job alone. In this instance, I would say work outside the home is essential.....for their sanity, and to be able to meet people.

I would say the same for the parents of severely disabled children. If anybody needs a break from caring responsibilities, they do. The fact that they are paid such a pittance for 24/7 care is a disgrace. At the very least, they should be paid enough for a carer to replace them for a couple of days, so they can work part-time, if they wish.

People do what they can. It's about time we stopped criticising one another for the choices we made, some of which is never a choice.

I couldn't agree more.

Doodledog

*Oh....and my husband kept us. He earned enough. I certainly wasn’t, and never have been, a scrounger.*

Again, nobody has said that you are or ever were a scrounger.

I would take issue with the idea that your husband's contributions covered you, though, or that his contributions have impacted on your scrounger/non-scrounger status. They would have been based on his earnings, so were his contributions, and nobody else's. Your own healthcare, pension etc is entirely separate.

Are you suggesting that a single parent who has no partner to 'keep her' is a scrounger? I doubt that that is what you meant to say, but that is the logic of your argument.

IMO, SAH parents are not scroungers, but I do feel that it is only because other people work and contribute to the system that they are able to make the choice to stay at home (whether indoors or otherwise), and that they should recognise this when they criticise those who have made different choices.

I’ve never suggested anyone is a scrounger. I simply don’t know their circumstances to be able to comment.

As for single mother’s, I have nothing but admiration for them, doing such a hard job alone. In this instance, I would say work outside the home is essential.....for their sanity, and to be able to meet people.

I've worked, not worked, been full time, been part time, been a carer, been a sahm, worked from home. People do what they can. It's about time we stopped criticising one another for the choices we made, some of which is never a choice.

Lots of people just simply cannot work either, through disability or mental illness and lets face it, if it is such a big deal to take a sleeping baby into work to vote in the early hours of the morning, what hope do people with disabilities have for adjustments to be made for them?

It is SO depressing

Oh....and my husband kept us. He earned enough. I certainly wasn’t, and never have been, a scrounger.

Again, nobody has said that you are or ever were a scrounger.

I would take issue with the idea that your husband's contributions covered you, though, or that his contributions have impacted on your scrounger/non-scrounger status. They would have been based on his earnings, so were his contributions, and nobody else's. Your own healthcare, pension etc is entirely separate.

Are you suggesting that a single parent who has no partner to 'keep her' is a scrounger? I doubt that that is what you meant to say, but that is the logic of your argument.

IMO, SAH parents are not scroungers, but I do feel that it is only because other people work and contribute to the system that they are able to make the choice to stay at home (whether indoors or otherwise), and that they should recognise this when they criticise those who have made different choices.

As a SAHM, I didn’t literally stay at home. I started off with my first baby, just meeting family and friends. By the second, I was going to toddler groups with the first. Met new people. The only one I remember working, used to do evenings in a supermarket. No career aspirations there....just needed the money. No one else worked. This was mid eighties.

My third child came, late eighties, I was super busy. To and from nurseries, and later on ....by the time my fourth came...schools.

Still more toddler groups/ playgroups. Met so many people, never a dull moment. Still....no one worked, that I knew, unless there was a financial need.

Once all my children were at school, I helped a lot in school. Mid nineties by now. I heard children read, went on school trips, and anywhere else I could help. I remember one instance, where a child was very poorly. I told the teacher, and asked if they could contact the parents. She said this child’s parents were at work, and many parents got annoyed if the school ‘ bothered ‘ them! I don’t know what happened, as I left.

I started regular exercise, which I still do to this day. Sometimes, I had trouble fitting it all in. The school day isn’t that long.

Of course there were all the chores, which I did. My children were children, and were not expected to do chores, just do what I asked, when I asked, which wasn’t often. I had a friend much later on, who wanted her career, and their was a rota of all the jobs for the children, on her fridge door. Fair enough for her, just not for me.

Oh....and my husband kept us. He earned enough. I certainly wasn’t, and never have been, a scrounger.

My children are mid30’s. They’re part of a large group who formed friendships in school that continue. The majority now have children of their own. The women reduced their hours and do the bulk of childcare and the practical, emotional care of family life. There have been a few relationship break downs. Where the couple weren’t married, or failed to have written agreements, the women have all come out in a poor financial position. As for the impact on the future career prospects, earning capacity and pensions, inevitably their prospects are not in the same league as their partners.

Today is what Parliament will be legislating for. Perhaps we need to know before adding our opinion.

I don’t have much experience of what tends to be the norm nowadays. Shortly before I retired one of our solicitors had a baby and was pregnant again before her maternity leave ended. She went on to work part time closer to home so probably best of both worlds.

I have never liked the title "stay at home mum" and yet it seems to be used most by those that say they stayed at home. But did they? And, more to the point, do mothers now?

For those of our age, small children are our history. Many of those "children" will have their own families by now or possibly decided not to. The way we live our lives are history as are the strictures we felt we had to live by. There must be far fewer parents who now decide not to go back to work more quickly after a baby's birth these days. Even when I was first married - all that time ago - people were going back to work quicker and more mothers had the expectation of a career than had previously. I seriously wonder what proportion do "stay at home" these days. This argument seems to be about something historical rather than the shape of an individuals' life today.

No worries.

Germanshepherdsmum

I was talking about the couple in volver’s example. My son and daughter in law don’t have children.

Ah right. My mistake.

I have been called a lazy scrounger too.

Not by me you haven't*. I really resent the accusation that I see SAH parents or carers as scroungers. I did not say that, Maisie said that I said it, when in fact I italicised the fact that I am not saying that it is wrong that SAH parents have access to things paid for out of tax, and also said that none of the choices made by parents are wrong, or morally superior, which is how some of the digs at working parents came across.

*If your comment wasn't aimed at me, then I apologise for taking it personally - it's just that you used the exact phrase that was used against me by Maisie. I did not say, or imply, anything of the kind.

I was talking about the couple in volver’s example. My son and daughter in law don’t have children.

Germanshepherdsmum

Wfh is pretty common now volver. Clearly this woman is in a job where wfh is entirely feasible. Same with my son and daughter in law who now go into their jobs as solicitors in London only 2 days a week and wfh the rest of the time. However there are a great many jobs where wfh is completely impossible. The only 'take away' from this is that she and her husband share the childcare equally which is good, and why shouldn't they if they can both wfh?

How can they work and undertake child care while they are supposed to be working? Is it just collecting and delivering to school?

Working from home is often just that rather than working at home. People have always worked from home, going out to customers, etc. It sounds as if your DS and DDL are working at home.

JaneJudge thanks for raising the invisible army of parents who care for their children with disabilities. You know better than I do the care is 24 hours a day, every day. Carers allowance goes nowhere near covering the financial pressures never mind anything else

If you don't care for young children, someone else has to care for them

I had a child with a disability which made it impossible for me to work. I got paid £60 ish a week in carers allowance before she went into 'care'. Her care from the LA now via social care now costs in excess of 6 figures a year, just care not housing costs etc.

I have been called a lazy scrounger too. Turns out I was saving taxpayers loads of money

We have indeed had this discussion before.

All the same, can you please explain how you think that education, health etc are funded, and what would happen to these institutions if everyone decided to stay at home?

I am demonising nobody. I am responding to the accusations that working parents are not doing the best for their children by pointing out that all workers are making it possible for SAH parents to SAH. Which I believe to be the case.

Growstuff is doing a good job of saying what I think in defence of my earlier post, so I won't repeat it. I will, however, say that (a) I did not suggest that spending was funded by taxation, and (b) I did NOT suggest that SAH parents (whether mothers or fathers) are parasites, scroungers or shirkers, and would like an apology for that accusation.

Growstuff says in one breath that she knows that taxation doesn't fund spending, and then posts about how are things like education and healthcare funded? How she can reconcile her first statement with her second is some thing of a mystery to me. In effect she is just agreeing with you and perpetrating the myth that she says she knows is a myth. Very weird.

I will not apologise for something I haven't said. But if you take the view that SAHMs are not 'contributing' to public goods while taking advantage of them, it is dangerously close to leading to demonisation of them as scroungers, spongers, or whatever, similar to a sadly popular view of benefit claimants.

I think we've had this argument before and come to no conclusions. But if only we could lose the 'taxation funds spending ' myth we could completely change the way we look at social funding and taxation. The reality is that the government spends before taxation. As the government is the ultimate source of just about all money it would be hard put to tax it before it spent it.

Growstuff is doing a good job of saying what I think in defence of my earlier post, so I won't repeat it. I will, however, say that (a) I did not suggest that spending was funded by taxation, and (b) I did NOT suggest that SAH parents (whether mothers or fathers) are parasites, scroungers or shirkers, and would like an apology for that accusation.

I am saying that there is no getting away from the fact that it if most people didn't work and pay for health, education, roads, libraries, pensions and services, others would not be able to choose not to, (or not unless their partner were expected to pay their contribution for them until they re-entered the workforce, or unless we all had to pay for health, education etc as we used them). How else would they be available to all? What would happen if nobody worked?

My personal view is based on 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. I think that 'society' should pay for all children (and adults) to be educated, to have healthcare, social housing if they want or need it, and a decent pension, and that this should be paid for by progressive taxation of all capable adults. Taxation would have to be higher than it is currently, but as we wouldn't need to pay for all the things mentioned, and if everyone were expected to pay, most people would see a net gain. Those who didn't would be living in a much fairer society and would have a safety net if their lives became less comfortable, so overall we would all benefit.

That would only work if we all contributed if able to do so, however, and would mean that as a society we would have to have conversations about what choices needed to be made regarding the right of individuals to opt in and out. There are all sorts of possible ways for people to 'pay back' financial contributions, but as it stands these are entirely voluntary and not everyone takes them up - I'm sure we all know as many 'ladies (or gentlemen) who lunch' as we do stalwarts of the WI or other voluntary bodies.

growstuff

MaizieD

People who have stayed at home, not paying tax and having their NI contributions paid for them have been able to do so only because other people went to work and made those contributions whilst also paying for commuting and childcare out of their salaries.

This is complete and utter, breathtaking, nonsense. Taxation doesn't fund spending, it doesn't fund whatever DD imagines SAHMs benefit from at the expense of mothers who work in paid employment. And the payment of income tax and NICs are not a measure of the worth of an individual.

So it's not only nonsense but it is suggesting that a SAHM is some sort of parasite on those who are in paid employment. They no doubt join the nation's list of scroungers and shirkers.. It's downright insulting.

I disagree with you (and, yes, I am fully aware that taxation doesn't fund spending).

How do you suggest that a person's healthcare and children's education is funded, if tax and NICs aren't being paid? Obviously, there are indirect taxes, but they're only part of the money which finds its way back to the Treasury.

Who repays student loans if a graduate isn't working?

I don't agree that an economically inactive person is a scrounger or a parasite. I think that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that children are well cared for, but there are costs to society involved. One of those is that at least one parent is possibly not contributing as much to the Treasury as others and most people accept that. I think we should have heavily subsidised childcare for those who choose to work.

Actually indirect taxes make up about 50% of the income brought in by tax with NIC and income tax providing the other half.
As for the statement about graduates not working paying back loans many graduates in work are not paying back because their salary is too low. The government have realised how badly the student loan system was working and are set to introduce a lower level for repayment and a longer term for repaying. What effect this will have on student nimbers remains to be seen.

Leonardo are Italian and I think that is telling.