Carrying on from yesterday's post about Simon Collins' article which featured a number of talking heads bleating about separating babies and mothers when the baby is 12 months or older. Psycho Milt at No Minister has written an on-the-money post highlighting this drivel.
As I pointed out yesterday, the work requirement may be as little as 15 hours a week. Now it occurs to me that Work and Income already funds mothers on the DPB to put their pre-schoolers into daycare for up to 9 hours a week. That's right. They pay the mothers to look after them as well as paying someone else to look after them.
But surely that practice should stop because it causes the very separation the talking heads are anguishing over. How much support would a campaign along those lines get? Bugger all.
I suspect the only separation that really bothers the types that Collins turned up is when mother has to go to a job she doesn't want. The objection is not about the child's well-being.
Paying bureaucrats is not a stimulus programme
8 minutes ago
2 comments:
Is it true that we pay DPB's to babysit their own children and then we pay more for someone else to baby sit the same children during the same time period.
If so why hasn't Bennet jumped on this. I would just luv it if the Govt. would pay for someone to look after my work for a period each week whilst I swanned off for a bit of fishing. Whitebait du, do you think Paula would do that for me?
No doubt there'll be some "acknowledged research" declaring that attachment in the first two years, although apparently vitally important (to stop your child turning out as psychologically damaged as those middle class kids whose mothers work for a living - or something), it's easily traded off against the even more vitally important need for single mothers to get time away from their kids without needing to bother friends or family.
Post a Comment