Problem Families

This lady speaks the truth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9416535/Problem-families-have-too-many-children.html

And I'm far from being a right-wing nutter.

How the hell do you categorise 'problem families'? Not sure what can be done to change that either, if people are going to have kids they're going to have kids.

I think if it is blatantly clear that you could never afford to raise a child, you should not do so..

popping out kids in that situation is irresponsible at best.....we have all heard of stories of people having that extra kid to get a bigger council house/flat

I've been saying the same thing for years.

I think if it is blatantly clear that you could never afford to raise a child, you should not do so..

While I agree with this statement, do you think it should be the job of a government to dictate this?

You get benefits for the first 2 kids and no more, that would make some difference

As for keeping them in school rather than ignoring them playing truant, that needs an answer urgently but god knows what it is

How the hell do you categorise 'problem families'? Not sure what can be done to change that either, if people are going to have kids they're going to have kids.

There is a 5pt thingy which, if you tick 3 of the 5, means you fall into the category "problem".

I listen to her on the wireless last week & thought her totally & utterly spot on.

I work in some of the most deprived "white" wards in England & I couldn't argue with any of the points she makes, & I'm a leftie!

The article is largely right, but totally misses the pont. Large problem families exist because generally, doh, the parents have problems.

Its the same around the world - poor people with little educational attainment that have few opportunities apart from scraping a living in a bad job have bigger families - whether there is a benefit system or not. Compare middle class and underclass family size in any developed or developing nation regardless of benefits. Throw in low self esteem, the attractions of lots of kids telling mummy they love her and a bigger house (big house = success right?) and you can see why they do it.

So yes, its not right that people have children they cant support. But what are you going to do? allow the kids to grow up in absolute poverty and breed a new generation of crims and problems? force sterilisation of the mother and take all the kids into care? Have the whole family 'disappeared'?

Good post, but we need an answer.

I know a number of hard working intelligent couples who don't and won't have any kids.

The wrong people are having kids and there is no way for society to improve (or even recover) in the long term

Good post, but we need an answer.

 

I know a number of hard working intelligent couples who don't and won't have any kids.

 

The wrong people are having kids and there is no way for society to improve (or even recover) in the long term

I used to work for a grant making charitable trust that gave money to social and environmental causes. The environmental projects were invariably more interesting and ground breaking (sic) than the social ones - mainly because social problems have been looked into for hundreds of years and there is still no adequate answer to how society should deal with people who find it difficult to cope in day to day life - whether through mental illness, low intelligence, personality disorders etc. I doubt that there is any variation or combination of financial inducement / penalty, training/education, counselling/ drugs, social / criminal policy that hasnt already been tried somewhere at some point and been found wanting in some way. There is no silver bullet.

There is no silver bullet.

Unfortunately I think this is the first time that the problem has been combined with people from the other end of society electing not to have kids though.

It used to be something that you automatically just did, but not any more

Put the 'other end' of society to one side for a moment. People that are very wealthy will have as many or as few children as they want because money will be no object.

It's the people in the 'middle' and 'bottom' who are struggling. My daughters waited until they were in their mid to late thirties before having children because they wanted to be secure and to develop their careers and because, quite frankly, they couldn't afford to have children any earlier. They'd both love to have three or four children but time, as much as money, is against them. They're both expecting their second (and final) child because their biological clocks will be running out very soon.

People at the 'bottom' sometimes have large families for religious reasons and some of them probably thought they were secure in work, only to find they weren't. Quite what we do about people (and, more importantly, their children) who find themselves in this unforseen situation I don't know. The government obviously feels that taking benefits away from them will suddenly reverse the irreversible.

Problem families present a real challenge. Since there has quite often been a generational history of unemployment and crime (and I'm talking two or even three generations), it's tough to think of a quick fire solution.

However, if we're not careful, we'll have a country full of people at the top and in the middle and very few at the lower end (I hate those phrases!). Who will do the jobs that require little or no education or work ethic?

It would sound very much like social cleansing to me!

Don't misunderstand what I mean when I say the other end of society

I'm not talking about wealth

I'm talking about a willingness to work and contributing.

Also, employers now expect so much and many couples are so heavily 'worked' that kids just become an option they never get time for (and also they don't want to take the income 'hit' to have them)