Who’d be a single mother? Soon after Labour got into office it clobbered single mothers by abolishing lone parent benefits. John McTernan remembers the saga ruefully.This time they may not be heard as so many other groups have been clobbered also- but there is a double whammy [actually...far more than double...see comments. AP] that will hit them really hard in this Budget.
The Coalition will force them onto Job Seeker’s Allowance once their kids are five years old. Job Seeker’s Allowance is just what it says on the tin- you are expected to seek work while on the benefit. Even more than that, you are pressured, coaxed, cajoled, levered into getting work.
Clearly, family life and parental commitment and involvement is not particularly valued by this Coalition. Remember, it is married couple’s allowance that is David Cameron’s personal favourite tax break. By definition, single parents are not married…
But it gets even worse for single parents. In the Coalition’s reforms of housing benefits, if you have been on Job Seeker’s Allowance for more than a year then your benefit will be cut by 10% automatically (see 2.54, p48 of the all new easy to read Budget Red Book.) From April 2013, when your child hits 6 you could lose your home on top of losing dignity through being forced to choose between your parental duties and the Government’s requirement that you actively seek work.
In some ways, I preferred old style Tories. They would moralise about family values and rail at single parenthood but when push came to shove their paternalism may have held back the brutality. This lot claim to be modern and socially liberal but nonetheless punish those who find themselves not living up to a Tory ideal of the family- married, middle class, and a couple of nicely brought up kids.
There is only one way to describe this: immoral. Oh and it is anti women, anti-family, and the notion that these measures will not increase child poverty is simply rubbish. As is the notion that this Budget is progressive.
June 22nd, 2010 at 21:26
The abolition of Health in Pregnancy grant and the change to the Surestart Maternity Grant payable to the first child only (including twins and higher multiples as this is the way the benefits system works) are also aimed at single parents.
June 22nd, 2010 at 21:51
This budget seems to hit women in so many ways. Freezing child benefit, cap on Housing Benefit will both hit single parents.
Services – which lone parents, especially women, rely on – are expected to bear the brunt of the cuts and be reduced by 25%.
This will mean less available childcare during term time and school holidays for those the government expects to go out and work – or have their benefits cut.
Low paid women make up the majority of public service workers whose jobs could be cut, and whose pay and benefits will be frozen or reduced.
It’s a huge step back for women. It’s going to be extremely tough for all single parents – men and women – and their children. This is not a family friendly, or child friendly budget.
June 22nd, 2010 at 22:15
This budget is the sound of Government retreating from it’s responsibilities. Some people will feel very alone if the Con-Dems continue down this route.
And, worst of all?
Nick Clegg propping the whole thing up:
http://pencilandpapertest.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/i-agree-with-nick/
June 22nd, 2010 at 22:40
I get what you are saying. As a Lib Dem, these are the aspects of the budget which worry me a lot. The Housing Benefit, Surestart maternity grant and DLA medical assessments to name but a few.
I’m not so opposed to lone parents being expected to look for work when their youngest goes to school. I misheard Osborne and thought he’d said first child (and that was confirmed on BBC website at first) and had a complete meltdown about it. The only thing is that you have to be realistic about what sort of jobs a lone parent can do – there needs to be some sort of top up benefits to cover part time work and there can’t be any compulsion to work outside the hours when childcare would normally be available. That requires the benefits system to be more flexible than it has ever been before……
If someone can show that they are looking for work, then they should not be penalised for not getting a job. Also, it’s important that the proper support is given to all people seeking employment especially if they have been on benefits for a long time.
June 22nd, 2010 at 23:16
Another overlooked implication of transferring single mothers onto JSA is that it may effectively remove their rights under Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act to withdraw their child from (or simply not register with) the school system. This is not just a restriction on educational choice but, given that bullying is an oft cited reason for parents electing to home educate, a threat to single mothers ability to give their children the support and protection they see fit.
It is all the more pertinent given that many home educators saw the perceived threat to home education from Labour as a reason to withhold their vote. Needless to say Tories and LibDems were only too keen to offer their own assurances.
While perhaps only a small number of single mums will be affected it is a further way that the practice of educational preference becomes the preserve of the middle and upper classes.
June 23rd, 2010 at 09:38
On, Ch4 Dispatches this week a audience member made the following observation: ‘Every mother is a working mother’.Substitute parent for mother and the folly of Osborne’s measures become clear..
Parenting (particularly lone parenting) *is* a job.When done with care it brings tremendous rewards for parent,child AND the rest of society.Stable care up until the age of 7 has been shown to have significant long-term positive impacts on a child’s academic achievement and future contribution to society,both financially and socially.
George Osborne said…’when their child starts school’.My son being a July-born child, started school,shortly after his 4th birthday,and for the 1st full term only did 1/2days.So, under this regime I would have been required to find a job that would allow me to work 16 hours,(the lowest amount possible to qualify for tax credits),drop my son off at 8.45am and return at 12.30pm?Show me these mythical jobs I’d love to see them.
These jobs are of course mythical-so small children will be going to childminders (if one can be found), possibly before AND after school.At the age of four,and at vast expense to the state in the form of childcare subsidies.
I am not anti- the idea of single parents working.Handled with care and sensitivity it can do great things for people’s self-esteem (and reduce welfare dependency).But to insist that parents leave their children to seek paid work when they are so young is grossly unfair.
June 23rd, 2010 at 09:58
What is actually wrong with expecting a single parent to seek work when their kids are not at home, but at school?
There seems to be some sort of expectation that a woman sitting at home alone during the day is almost desirable simply because she has a child at school.
I fully accept that being a parent isn’t exactly the easiest of jobs, but equally, we should accept that the vast majority of parents seem to manage the two tasks.
If a parent is declared to be medically incapable of holding down a job when their kids are in school, then I would suggest there are wider issues which should be looked at through disability allowances etc.
For everyone else – there really is no excuse.
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:49
equally unfair for all the mothers in a relationship, who have to go out to work and leave their children either with relatives or childcare (which they also have to pay for, normally without government help) to support the single parents who choose to stay at home and receive benefits – maybe in receipt of said benefits these lone parents could offer to do community work in return for the benefits they happily take without making any financial contribution to society.
June 23rd, 2010 at 17:18
In response to IanVisits I would say this; there wouldn’t be a problem, with parents working whilst their child is at school,if there were jobs with sufficient flexibility to allow a parent to work during school hours,whilst honouring their parental committments outside of those hours.There aren’t.The result is parents handing their children over to family members (would love to know the savings made by successive govts,due to free childcare provided by Grandparents btw), if they’re lucky, or to childminders (many of whom do a splendid job) if not.
The illogic of successive governments on this issue is really quite bewildering.A single parent caring for his/her child at home, costs the government £140.24pw in cash benefits (plus housing), in return for which *we*, society, know that the child is being cared for by someone who is dedicated to that child’s wellbeing, in an appropriate setting to that child, & with all the benefits to us that will accrue in terms of that child’s future contribution to society.
Whereas, the government think it preferable, that very small children, be removed from that care, with the possible disruption and its consequences, handed over to professional carers (that costs us in childcare subsidies),so that their sole carer can take up a part-time (&often)low paid job.Its short-sighted.
As I said in my previous post, I am *not* anti- lone parent working, for the reasons I put forward there,& agree with Jane Jones that volunteering, could be an excellent method of helping parents stay/get in contact with job opportunities.But as to her point that it should be ‘in return for the benefits they take’:You have your return-he’s my son,called James, and in the future, he’ll be paying the taxes that will fund both our pensions.All parents are working parents.
June 23rd, 2010 at 17:29
Sorry everyone,I seem to have gone comma crazy in that last post!Perils of pausing for thought whilst typing..
June 24th, 2010 at 15:04
I agree with the article, but I would add that Disability Living Allowance cuts are also quite serious. If there is a single mother who is also disabled, life will be very tough indeed. For the record, and this is a fact, disability living allowance is not an out-of-work benefit. Indeed many disabled people in work get this benefit, but it covers additional costs that their disability has on day to day life. For instance, someone who can’t use public transport may be using the extra money to travel on taxi’s to get to their part-time job. In many cases, the expense of life for disabled people is far greater because there are some things they just cannot do without resorting to an expensive alternative, and Disability Living Allowance covers these costs. To withdraw this support from people would make several thousands of people disempowered and take away their independence because if you remove DLA, then you also remove the support people get as a result (care, transport, social services). People will be hit pretty hard because a lot of the support DLA entitles them to will be withdrawn as well, and that is the real cost of this budget. People who have started to rely on this support, to overcome many of the disabling effects of their condition, so they could actively contribute to society will no longer be able to do that if DLA is stopped. In many ways, the loss of DLA is what will disable people because the benefit itself has helped people become a part of mainstream society, and many people who already receive it did not get it easily. a lot of people have already had medical tests, and people who get indefinitely are those who have a lifelong condition that severely affects them. They don’t just hand out DLA to anyone, and only 50% of claimants actually get it. The rules are very stringent, and most of the DLA claimants that do not work will find it impossible to get work, which is why they are not working already. Thise that do work may not be able to continue because if they are no longer considered disabled, even their employers would not help them f it means paying out a lot more to keep the employee in work. It is just simple maths, and I think the consequences of this will be dire. Come 2014, the economy would not have miraculously recovered, and the people who are already hardest hit, will have to go through a lot more hell. We may see old-fashioned poverty in the UK but I guess that is what makes the rich feel good about themselves: ‘thank God, we are not like those scroungers and lowlife’s’. Sure, support for people who do not deserve it or need it has to be assessed correctly but it also has to be fair. To make savings by reducing benefits, by definition, means they are going to stop most people’s benefits but how do they propose people deal with that? The bills will come in, the property rent will come up, the kids need to be fed. Where is the money going to come from and if people can’t support themselves any longer, what are they going to do? Live on the streets? It is illegal to live on the streets, so I guess prison is another place they can put you… Maybe I am being melodramatic, but I think targeting single mothers and disabled people is not going to solve anyone’s problems because, for single mothers, there are very few flexible jobs. I am a male, I do not have kids and I work part-time but even my employers do not allow me to take time off when childcare needs necessitate it. I may be the only person in a customer facing position, and we may already be short-staffed. You can’t just leave the place if your child gets sick and has to be taken home, or if the hours you need to go and pick up the kids from school is when your mid-shift. I think people who make these rules up need a reality check…
June 24th, 2010 at 15:19
Hi,
There used to be a woman at my workplace, who never seemed to be of any use. She came in, made calls al day to check up ‘on her kids’ and then, before you knew it, just when you needed her she had to dash out because one of her kids had an accident at school, or the kid got sick, or had no one to take him home. No one liked that woman.
This is the reality of a lot of single parents working. It is stressful, it is hard, and no one likes people that who are misunderstood at the workplace which causes more problems. Sure, in an ideal world, the kid goes to school at 9, the mother turns up at work at 9. The kid has his lunch at school, the mother does so at her workplace. The kid finishes school, but maybe Mum is running late, or finishes at 5:30pm. If it is a small child, that is a lot of time for the kid to get hurt or injured. Things are always going on. I have a few nieces and nephews, and their parents work, by the way. The kids often stay with the granparents, but every single day some enormous problem arises where the parents need to be called out from work. From the single mothers point of view, she does not want to be the ‘problem’ person at work, and you know this is true. If there was a woman like that working with you, and as a consequence of her frequent absences, you and your colleagues had to do a lot of extra work, then you will not like her. She will be pushed out, and made to feel worried about her job. Yes, tat’s a great life!! I think we should foot the bill for these women. It’s not like they do a lot of good stuff with the money they will save anyway. They will just give it to a private company or hold expensive public consultations and subsidise MP’s expenses. I think the government really needs to look at how things affect people on the ground, and then they will see that things are as they need to be. No one gives money to people for fun. The only reason they do so is because on paper it cannot be refuted that the claimants need help. If they didn’t they wouldn’t get any support. Also, all those people bleating about this being fair etc. Get real. If you lost your leg, and then your job, and started to have trouble paying for things, and needed the help, all this support that will be taken away will affect you as well. Then you will see how all this is so tragic, but I guess it doesn’t matter because I can pay for my flat, and for my life without needing public funds. If other people aren’t like me, then I guess they just need to be slipped into shape by the endless work agencies, and government quango’s…
June 24th, 2010 at 16:24
It’s not just Housing Benefit that’ll go down after a year, of course. The JSA itself will also be reduced by 10% after 12 months. This, despite the fact that anyone staying on JSA for a year has likely had to do so because there aren’t any jobs.
This is a horrific budget for anyone with any kind of difficulty gaining employment. Apparently it’s claimants’ fault that there’s only one job going for every 6 people on JSA… anyone tempted to believe that these cuts aren’t ideological in nature need only look at this measure and the attack on DLA. They prove otherwise. We always knew the Tories would rather not pay benefits at all if they could get away with it; what shocks and appals me is that the party I supported because I believed its claims to stand up for fairness has shrugged and abandoned the poorest to their fate to get its name on the letterhead.
August 3rd, 2010 at 22:39
having worked within the Department of Work and Pensions for 20yrs and more recently a single parent adviser I totally agree with the changes to be implemented from October 2011. I am currently based within a children centre advising single parents on tax credits and all incentives available should they take up work. I am fed up with seeing the single parents coming into the centre with their 3rd/4th child, whilst still being a so called Single Parent, dropping their children off for free childcare under the Flying Start programme, normally accompanied by their male “Friend”. Of course they state they are still single parents, unable to work due to back problems or depression, but are more than happy to make arramgements with their friends within the centre, to go out the weekend to dance the night away as the grandmother looks after the child every weekend whilst they hit the town. their children all have ADHD and receive DLA for the child. this is NOT I must emphasise a generalisation, this is fact of at least 8 out of 10 single parents I deal with. It is very frustrating when you are told, i dont have to work until my child is a certain age and not interested until then. It is so rewarding when you actually get a single parent who wants to work/train and employers these days do accept that single parents need support in the workplace more than 2 parent families. This country can ill afford to allow people to stay on benefits for years on end. As for the comment that the single parent receives benefit for not doing anything, a previous statement was that that the return for benefits she received, was her son who will be paying for taxes when he is older and starts work, well i am sorry, but statitics show in my area that children from non-working single parents are more likely to become single parents themselves, which I have seen from 14/15yrs of age and start the benefit regime all over again. there are more 38-40yr old grandparents in my area than married couples.
November 30th, 2010 at 12:41
Hi there… Bit of a delay here with my comment – I just found this page while searching for something else. I am a lone parent, now on JSA, and living in the North (I can’t relocate, as the children’s father would lose access to them).
There are many issues here. Just to give my own case as an example: I retrained as a teaching assistant last year as I needed a job with school hours and holidays. I qualified in July. Since then, there have been precisely three jobs for teaching assistants within travelling distance (15 miles)(it’s now November). One of them was 10 hours a week, the other two full time. One of the full time jobs attracted 197 applications. I am on the bank staff for my county council’s learning support service, but they have not called me in yet. So now I’m having a complete re-think (again)applying for admin jobs, for which I am not qualified or experienced, but the job centre need to see that I am doing something. I have had my JSA suspended twice over beaurocratic mistakes or technicalities, and this is extremely stressful – I am desperate to get off it. Yesterday, I had a call ‘reminding’ me to attend a meeting at 3.30 today, which I had not had any notification about at all. The timing means my children will have to make their own way home from school and let themselves in. But I don’t dare ask for it to be rearranged for another time as past experience tells me they will mark me down as unco-operative and suspend the JSA again. My friend, also a lone parent, was advised that she should leave her children unattended while she worked during school holidays ( her youngest was 10 at the time). I am having to think what else I can do, but am not prepared to leave the children for long periods unattended, and the only local jobs are male oriented (welding, plumbing, HGV) or shift work (care work) or shop work requiring weekend shifts. I have a Masters degree, but it is absolutely no use to me whatsoever, and in fact I rarely mention it on application forms as I think it’s more of a liability.
To generalise, what I think will happen is that these pressures will lead to an increase in crime, prostitution, children being left alone or with unsuitable carers (grans with alzheimers, bullies, irresponsible teens). Many lone parents will be in a worse position than me, as I am currently running a car (not sure for how much longer), without which two of my three teaching assistant jobs would have been impossible (not on a bus route).
Sorry for the protracted whinge. I am by nature extremely upbeat normally and I hate to depress people. I just thought it might be useful for you to hear how it is at the front line.