£200 bribe to bring your children up properly

[KeyboardJockey]

Fucking Cameron:



Meaning they haven't completely scrapped the welfare state and dumped it onto the charity sector, yet.



'enliven the voluntary sector'

I don't have a problem with the voluntary sector providing services but they should be services above and beyond what are communially supplied services not an excuse to dump the communally supplied ones.

The problem is many charities and community groups want to do someting for their local areas but find them selves hampered by onerous H and S rules, the Children Act and political correct blocking by local authorities as excuses for not supporting organisations that they cannot control.

 

[_angel_]

I don't have a problem with the voluntary sector providing services but they should be services above and beyond what are communially supplied services not an excuse to dump the communally supplied ones.

The problem is many charities and community groups want to do someting for their local areas but find them selves hampered by onerous H and S rules, the Children Act and political correct blocking by local authorities as excuses for not supporting organisations that they cannot control.

They will be an excuse to dump state support, of course they will be. Really shouldn't be encouraging charities to do what the state should be providing.

In an ideal world they wouldn't even need to exist. Acknowledging they should expand into public life is an admission of failure to even try and achieve an ideal world.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

They will be an excuse to dump state support, of course they will be. Really shouldn't be encouraging charities to do what the state should be providing.

In an ideal world they wouldn't even need to exist. Acknowledging they should expand into public life is an admission of failure to even try and achieve an ideal world.

I agree (although I dislike the term State Money/Support as it all comes from the communal tax payer in the end. Governments don't have money of theri own but they do have OUR money) but it isn't an ideal world. Sometimes local charities can be more flexible than the more centralised approach and this should be encouraged. But I do see and am worried by the plans by both New Labour and New Tories to have voluntary orgs taking over the delivery of services by communal organs.

 

[brasicritique]

This whole idea just demonstrates the politcal ineptness authoritarian nastyness of brown and nl and also reveals that a lot of the posters on the thread who have fallen for it hook line and anchor need to ask the right question and think about the INTENT BEHIND IT this scheme is a stunt and will fail as

1 this whole intiative is not based in principle it is based upon a mish mash of ideas first of all spin to 're-engage with the heartlands' secondly to get people to get there kids immunised thirdly to get access for other local govenment departments to access to these people and there kids and fourth to get as much information as possible on said people and five this policy is an extension of the survalence state and six you are not going to get £200 without going thru hoops the price for this money is government monitoring you for over 10 years of your childs and familys life worth it- other factors which means it will fail are

2 no one belives that thatcher can be to blame after 10 years of nl

3 by coming up with this stupid idea brown has

A alienated the wider public who are also beging to feel the binch as the crunch kicks in

B shifted the blame onto those on low incomes ineffect we have a folk devil that has been created to take heat of the government as these people have not asked for £200 to get there kids immunised which is one of the main reasons this idea is being introduced given low take up rates of immunisation amongst the target group

4 given that a huge amount of tax credits have gone uncliamed wowing to the fact

A it was to complicated for people to understand rasing questions of literacy

B when people did apply they were messed about and pushed into debt by it all

this scheme will also act as a deterent and remind people what the government give with one hand it takes with the other


5 the main group who will have there arm twisted into applying for this money will abe those already involved in government schemes at the moment namely single mothers

6 once it becomes clear and word gets around that you only gt the money by letting doctors inject your kids this will put people off- in fact it is the duty of all those on urban to say this to as many people they know

7 once people understand that to get your £200 this will involve a benefits audit and such affect your other benefits as it will because YOU ARE NOT GOING TO £200 WITHOUT IT AFFECTING OTHER BENEFITS OR LOOSING OUT ON SOMTHING ELSE FULL STOP AS NL ARE EVIL LYING SHITS

8 once people realise that to claim the £200 they will have to let social workers into there lifes who have there own government set targets to take kids into care this will also deter them from claiming it

9 this scheme will lad to 'government agencies sharing data' in other words for your £200 you get the govenement directly involved in your life with fucking busybodies ringing you up why hasnt tom been to schoool is tom eating his greens we have organised a visit from social services etc etc

10 there is no proof this scheme wil 'encourage social mobility' social mobility is going backwards

11 this scheme is to cover up the fact the government has introduced schme which have seen child poverty rise and miss there own targets

12 this is about the growth of the surevence state and civil liberties issues as much as anything else

so all you slimey little parilementry reserchers who lurk on these boards take this message back to your masters fuck of and leave us all alone

at lack of thinking by many on this thread

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No I'm in favour of proper services not bribes. [more vacuous and meaningless platitudes in place of informed analysis]



No but I would make the crim scum spend some time on public humiliation punishments. [probably because you’re a nasty, vindictive prick and a slime ball – the sort of medieval crank that the enlightenment should have flushed off the face of earth centuries ago]


No for that you need to to go to some of the threads where the SWP members hold sway. Plenty of anal annunciators there.[the Socialist Workers Party have no power in the country – they are inconsequential to me. The ruling ideas, shared by middle England filth like you do however.]

^

 

[brasicritique]

It's not about the parents, it's about the kids.

no its about both

 

[brasicritique]

in fact why not change the name of this thread to the i love new labour thread they have the kids interests at heart . Like fuck so you correctly bring upyour kid only for them to be denied a good education as th elocal school is shit. There are so many holes in this whole scheme it will fail expect the tories to scrap it and rightly so

what does ^ mean? is it a dig at my post?

 

[zenie]

I said that in response to someone else...

SO if NL are lying scheming shits who do you think would run a better givernment, the tories? Cos that's the choice we have.

 

[zenie]

Like fuck so you correctly bring upyour kid only for them to be denied a good education as th elocal school is shit.

What are you on about? Is this some presonal vendetta against Labour because your kid couldn't get into their first choice school?

 

[brasicritique]

What are you on about? Is this some presonal vendetta against Labour because your kid couldn't get into their first choice school?

i am on about the fact this scheme is linked in government and NL thinking to social mobility and a concept which is based upon correct behavior of the individual - and a fear of an underclass- if yourve read fouclut then you might understand where i'm am coming from

your joke about not getting my kids into school is crass and ignorant maybe if the education system in this country was not the way it was then we would not be as many problems as there are in society

 

[brasicritique]

I said that in response to someone else...

yes i kno wbut i was using it to make the point that you cannot seperate the actions of the state towards the child from the parents

SO if NL are lying scheming shits who do you think would run a better givernment, the tories? Cos that's the choice we have.

With respect this is not about running a better government i have never claimed it was and your whole tories or labour arguement is bland but i sthe type of thin g that excites durruti This scheme is about 'those hard to reach' which means those who like me who say 'labour or tory they are all shit were not voting for any of you or playing your game'

 

[shagnasty]

Brown gets more desperate by the day .the problem is that these policies are not being properly thought through.question should be asked are is the policy going to help the target area is it going to help in a positive way.brown is like a puncher who can't box looking for the knockout blow .its quite worrying really because while all this is happening the country is not being governed properly

 

[brasicritique]

i agree with what you are sayin got a point shag nasty but these schemes are always multi purpose which is why i have tried to demonstrate it is not simply about doing somthing positive whilst giving an idea as to what some peoples reactions to it are and are going to be

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Are there actually enough _places_ on these things for everyone to take them up anyway?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

^

Fuck off. I see more meaningless partisan drivel from you than ever emanates from any orifice of mine.

 

[_angel_]

8 once people realise that to claim the £200 they will have to let social workers into there lifes who have there own government set targets to take kids into care this will also deter them from claiming it

9 this scheme will lad to 'government agencies sharing data' in other words for your £200 you get the govenement directly involved in your life with fucking busybodies ringing you up why hasnt tom been to schoool is tom eating his greens we have organised a visit from social services etc etc

Where do social services get mentioned?

I don't think they're going to take kids into care for not eating their greens but I can see the potential just to make themselves bloody annoying.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Fuck off. [now kbj's being really mean to me ] I see more meaningless partisan drivel [oh rly? I thought there was a near consensus amongst all parties outside U75's fledgling conservative contingent that you talk unmitigated bollocks] from you than ever emanates from any orifice of mine. [I'm starting to think you only have one orifice]

0

 

[Fullyplumped]

The very real and main cause of relative child poverty in this country is the massive inequalities of income that exist.

True.

The most effective way, therefore, to deal with this issue is to properly ensure that those on the biggest incomes make appropriate contributions towards society as a whole i.e. pay more tax, or even pay the proper amount of tax.

No it isn't. It's to put money in the hands of poor parents and give them incentives (cos it'd be harder to force them) to use services that will benefit their children.

Ask poor parents. Should we tax other people or give you money?

 

[Fullyplumped]

It looks a nightmare to administer, though.

I may be out of touch - isn't this how the maternity sure start grant works? You only get the money if a nurse confirms you attended ante natal classes?

Edited after checking - yes it is.

For a Sure Start Maternity Grant you will also need to show that you have received advice on the health needs and general welfare of the new baby and, if you claim before the baby is born, on maternal health. There is a certificate on the back of the claim form for this.

The certificate must be signed by a health professional, for example:
a community or hospital midwife
a health visitor
a practice nurse.

Not my field now, but I do recall many midwives or nurses didn't bother too much with requiring mums to atttend classes as a conditon of signing the forms, but at the end of the day children whose mothers don't attend ante natal classes do worse than the rest. I imagine the government has learned that doing good by stealth isn''t working and are planning to be more upfront with making financial incentives conditional to doing what's best for their kids.

What bright ideas has KBJ and others as to how to get kids of poor parents who don't use services like sure start to do so? Or is it OK just to see these kids miss out, if you get to maintain your odour of sanctity?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Ask poor parents. Should we tax other people [i.e. the rich] or give you money?

Both please.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Both please.

Taxing working parents doesn't by itself put money in the hands of working parents. I suppose it does make smug out-of-touch lefties feel better that they are punishing working parents.

Best way to tackle child poverty is to get parents working to support their children, and to make sure that these children are making best us of services.

Sounds like the wicked authoritartian policies of this evil Labour government, doesn't it! Hopefully the nice Tories will be along to sweep all this superstructure away, and then the smug out-of-touch lefties will have something to really feel outraged about. Which is that I think they're really after.


"authoritartian" - excellent word, by the way.

 

[Fullyplumped]

rantetty rant rant

Why isn't little Johhnny eating his greens? Cos of Brown and his evil plans. What we need is "services". Proper ones. Then children will get their immunsations and so on. And higher taxes on working parents.

Stands to reason, dunnit?

 

[zenie]

your joke about not getting my kids into school is crass and ignorant maybe if the education system in this country was not the way it was then we would not be as many problems as there are in society

It's a joke you fuckin idiot, talk about sense of humour faliure

yes i kno wbut i was using it to make the point that you cannot seperate the actions of the state towards the child from the parents

Well I'd rather you didn't quote me out of context, it's a bit of a silly thing to do tbh. And why can't you seperate them?

This scheme is about 'those hard to reach' which means those who like me who say 'labour or tory they are all shit were not voting for any of you or playing your game'

So you're a parent on benefits then? Cos that's the target audience, not those that can't be arsed to vote.

Why isn't little Johhnny eating his greens? Cos of Brown and his evil plans. What we need is "services". Proper ones. Then children will get their immunsations and so on. And higher taxes on working parents.

Stands to reason, dunnit?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

No it isn't. It's to put money in the hands of poor parents and give them incentives (cos it'd be harder to force them) to use services that will benefit their children.

Ask poor parents. Should we tax other people or give you money?

Yes, but unless the inequities that currently exist in the general taxation system are addressed so that the soar-away incomes of the top decile are (1) contained and (2) contribute their fair share, then there is no money to pass to poor parents. Stands to reason doesn't it?

As an example, the need for the massively bureaucratic and costly tax credits system could be reduced enormously by taking low earners out of the tax system entirely by shifting tax thresholds further up the income scale. As well as making subtle changes higher up the scale, whether in terms of higher rates at higher incomes (anathema to some i know) or by spending the resources saved from tax credit administration of more effective enforcement of taxation collection for those earning the most.

 

[scifisam]

I may be out of touch - isn't this how the maternity sure start grant works? You only get the money if a nurse confirms you attended ante natal classes?

Edited after checking - yes it is.



Not my field now, but I do recall many midwives or nurses didn't bother too much with requiring mums to atttend classes as a conditon of signing the forms, but at the end of the day children whose mothers don't attend ante natal classes do worse than the rest. I imagine the government has learned that doing good by stealth isn''t working and are planning to be more upfront with making financial incentives conditional to doing what's best for their kids.

What bright ideas has KBJ and others as to how to get kids of poor parents who don't use services like sure start to do so? Or is it OK just to see these kids miss out, if you get to maintain your odour of sanctity?

What looks nightmarish about this is that it depends on so many different agencies, rather than just one. Unless they have vaccinations and so on administered at Sure Start premises, maybe.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I may be out of touch - isn't this how the maternity sure start grant works? You only get the money if a nurse confirms you attended ante natal classes?

Edited after checking - yes it is.



Not my field now, but I do recall many midwives or nurses didn't bother too much with requiring mums to atttend classes as a conditon of signing the forms, but at the end of the day children whose mothers don't attend ante natal classes do worse than the rest. I imagine the government has learned that doing good by stealth isn''t working and are planning to be more upfront with making financial incentives conditional to doing what's best for their kids.

What bright ideas has KBJ and others as to how to get kids of poor parents who don't use services like sure start to do so? Or is it OK just to see these kids miss out, if you get to maintain your odour of sanctity?

I have no problem with giving money to parents. I just can see that this system is going to be abused.

If you want a bright idea what about having a better Health Visitor service for young families? Nutrition could be one of the things they deal with. You don't get your money unless you can prove to the HV you are at the very least making the effort to look after your kids.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

What looks nightmarish about this is that it depends on so many different agencies, rather than just one. Unless they have vaccinations and so on administered at Sure Start premises, maybe.

Its the authoritarian aspect of 'you must report to the Sure Start premises and you must have vaccinations' it does remove a lot of power and respoinsiblity from the parents.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Taxing working parents doesn't by itself put money in the hands of working parents. I suppose it does make smug out-of-touch lefties feel better that they are punishing working parents.

Best way to tackle child poverty is to get parents working to support their children, and to make sure that these children are making best us of services.

Sounds like the wicked authoritartian policies of this evil Labour government, doesn't it! Hopefully the nice Tories will be along to sweep all this superstructure away, and then the smug out-of-touch lefties will have something to really feel outraged about. Which is that I think they're really after.


"authoritartian" - excellent word, by the way.

eh? I said I was in favour of taxing the rich. You can't truly tackle poverty without addressing the question of inequality. This was the orthodox Labour Party view for over 100 years. A recent poll found that 75% of the public think that the gap between high and low incomes is too wide in Britain. Maybe they're all "smug out-of-touch lefties" too. Or perhaps its the Nu Labs who are out of touch (not to mention the disgusting, filthy tory vermin and scum)?

 

[brasicritique]

Where do social services get mentioned?

I don't think they're going to take kids into care for not eating their greens but I can see the potential just to make themselves bloody annoying.

look angel are you telling me that in order to get this money given that it is linked to 'brining up your child' that the socail services will not be involved in at least some aspects of 'delivery'

are you saying that there will not be no 'interdepartmental sharing of information between different governemnt agnecies at a local an national level?

are you really suggesting that in order to get this money it will not be 'means tested' in relation to other benefits

if you have read the governemnt document on how this scheme is going to implemented and it does not allude to any of these points whatsoever that i have made them ok i will say i am wrong but if you are going by the story in the newspapers them like i said to many people are not asking enough questions or thinking about the reality of such polices


are you saying that this scheme has not created an impression that the poor are getting extra benefits at a time everyone is begining to feeel the crunch - look at andys post - any sympathy that did exsist towards these families is being eroded by the incompetence of fabians like brown and policies such as these

i am not suggesting kids will be taken into care for not eating greens you are taking me far to literally - the idea anyone would be taken into care for not eating greens is silly.

what i am suggesting this whole heres £200 pound with no strings attached arent nulabour nice is complete and utter nonsense its propaganda at most and ignorance at least

is this £200 pound a one off payment or a yearly payment? - can you apply for it take the money and not bother getting your kid vacinated while ignoring any recomendations made by the agencies involved without being 'sanctioned' and them claim it again ?what does the state get out of it ? who benefits from this scheme? what does 'hard to reach' mean? etc

If the governemt were really interested in the welfare of children they would ban all the junk food adverts aimed at kids and pass laws restiring those articicial things and high levels of sugar and salt in kids foods - but they dont do they and that is one of the reasons we have obese kids isnt it

i am not giving you the brasic treatment angel all i am saying is and asking people to do is maybe look at this in a wider context of the governments record with regards to the youth and anti poverty stragies as a whole and you will see it has got more holes than a string vest

i have to say i think there is some sort of left wing wish forfillment going on on these boards whereby people wnat some positive change from a labour government so much that when a scheme like this comes along the finer points of it are ignored and critcism of it ignored or interpreted as pro tory

 

[brasicritique]

Why isn't little Johhnny eating his greens? Cos of Brown and his evil plans. What we need is "services". Proper ones. Then children will get their immunsations and so on. And higher taxes on working parents.

Stands to reason, dunnit?

Its got nothing to do with 'evil plans' i think nulabour are evil when i see the state of affairs but i dont absolve any politcal party from this as this is due to the system.where have i mentioned taxes? judging by your inane post maybe your parents can back date a cliam of £200 for you as somthing has clealry gone wrong with your development , that is if they have not disowned you already