View Full Version: Every Child Matters

Shrewsbury Forum > General Chat > Every Child Matters



Title: Every Child Matters
Description: or do they really?


Andy Cooke - May 26, 2007 09:09 PM (GMT)
The government are not only failing in promoting the welfare of children in this country they now are failing child asylum seekers See here Furthermore they are failing to meet targets in child poverty in the uk See here The fact that they are failing in all these areas does not suprise me but it begs to ask the question are Social Services departments who are supposed to protect the welfare of the child, failing here as well ?

British children are among the unhappiest and unhealthiest in Europe, according to a new league table.See Here

Do the government really care, after all kids dont get to vote do they? <_<

And yes I did put a lot of failings in the thread, personally I have seen enough of this 'government'!

jonesy55 - May 27, 2007 07:52 AM (GMT)
Whilst i'm sure the government could do more to help vulnerable youngsters, most of the failings mentioned in the article about that league table are nothing to do with government, eating together in the evenings, watching too much TV, families splitting up, bad diet are all the family's own responsibility, if a family doesn't want to behave like this they don't have to.

The child poverty situation in this country got much much worse during the 1980s and although the target of halving it may be missed, there has still been a big reduction in the past 10 years. The trouble is that whenever a poverty reducing measure like tax credits introduced, people start whingeing about 'scroungers' and saying that they pay too much tax for these things. Social Services departments are also under-resourced and overworked but people don't want to pay more council tax to help the situation. If you want public services as good as those in Scandinavia or France for example, they have to be paid for and the British public don't seem willing to pay the higher taxes that people in those countries pay.

PS I thought you didn't believe in helping child asylum seekers anyway??

Andy Cooke - May 27, 2007 11:09 AM (GMT)
No Jonesey, I have never stated I wouldnt like to help child asylum seekers. I would like to see more management of the whole situation because it just adds fuel to the fire.

Regarding your first point
QUOTE
Whilst i'm sure the government could do more to help vulnerable youngsters, most of the failings mentioned in the article about that league table are nothing to do with government, eating together in the evenings, watching too much TV, families splitting up, bad diet are all the family's own responsibility, if a family doesn't want to behave like this they don't have to.
The government are trying to do something here actually by training, yes training people to be good parents. I am involved with this professionally.You seem to want to excuse this government a lot also!

jonesy55 - May 27, 2007 11:18 AM (GMT)
Ok, fair enough. What do you suggest the government can do to help make life better for kids in this country?

Andy Cooke - May 27, 2007 01:22 PM (GMT)
Firstly I dont think that the family, marriage and a 'for life' partner are endorsed effectively in this country.Family values are very important for a childs stability. The welfare system regarding child benefit and income support also need reviewing

It also down to educating parents about family values, which unfortunately especially in our country, because of divorce rates and indeed single parent families, is difficult to put across. These values have not been passed down from generation to generation; very often now a child will become pregnant just to get on the housing register.

Regarding young people, you need to make them valued in soceity and give them responsibilities to maintain these values. People are only too ready to 'slag' them off and beleive me I am not a 'do-gooder' here its common sense against PC which is at fault here I think we need to learn from other european countries too in the way they bring up their children, as a nation that once had an 'empire' we seem very 'stuffy' to learn here. How Britain compares

Britain does not have a ministry for families, although several EU members do, including Germany, France, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary.

* UK: Lone parents get income support with a core benefit worth £65.45 until children turn 16. They can also get child tax credits, and lone parent premiums. Child Support Agency has been criticised for failing to make absent fathers pay maintenance. The Government has a target of getting 70 per cent of lone parents into work by 2010.

* SWEDEN: The state meets 89 per cent of the costs of child care, compared with around 25 per cent in Britain. Swedish lone parents get four times the investment in training and employment programmes than in the UK, an entitlement to reduce their hours by 25 per cent until their children are eight, paid emergency leave, and better incentives to work - just 6 per cent of lone parents in work in Sweden are poor, compared with 14 per cent of those who work part-time in Britain.

* DENMARK: Along with Sweden, Denmark makes little distinction between lone parents and other benefit recipients in terms of their obligation to look for work. But it spends the most on the family - 3.9 per cent of its GNP - and pays out the fourth highest amount in child benefits, at €120 (£80) per week. Up to 80 per cent of lone parents are in work, compared to just over half in Britain.

* THE NETHERLANDS: Child benefits are low - €72 per child per week (according to 2005 data). Of the major European nations, only the Netherlands has a lower employment rate than Britain for single parents, while the average across 14 EU states is 65 per cent. In Luxembourg, 95 per cent of lone parents are in work.

* AMERICA: Although one third of all births in the US are to unmarried women, employment rates of mothers in general are relatively low - around 75 per cent according to some research. It has the lowest expenditure of family benefits as a percentage of GDP one study shows.






kateharris - May 29, 2007 10:30 AM (GMT)
[QUOTE=Andy Cooke,May 27 2007, 01:22 PM] Firstly I dont think that the family, marriage and a 'for life' partner are endorsed effectively in this country.Family values are very important for a childs stability. The welfare system regarding child benefit and income support also need reviewing

It also down to educating parents about family values, which unfortunately especially in our country, because of divorce rates and indeed single parent families, is difficult to put across. These values have not been passed down from generation to generation; very often now a child will become pregnant just to get on the housing register.

i agree with everything you say !!
i think the government could do alot more to help but alot of problems arise in the home. parents do need to encourage stability and family values. i think people have become too hedonistic, whereby if they stop getting along with their partner, well the grass is always greener!! instead of working at it.
i remember thinking years ago when the mariried couples allowance was abolished that that summed up the governments attitude to marriage!!!
it is very important that children grow up in a stable atmosphere and i think it is down to the government schools and parents




Hosted for free by InvisionFree