Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan Clench

£190 pregnancy grant.

Recommended Posts

This has got to be the daftest thing I've heard in a while.

 

£190 grant to be paid to all mums-to-be in final weeks of pregnancy - Invest & Save, Money - The Independent

 

The Government has pledged to give expectant mothers a one-off payment of £190 during the final few weeks of their pregnancy.

 

The Health in Pregnancy Grant will be available from April 2009 and will benefit tens of thousands of women a year. The grant will be paid to all mums-to-be – in other words, it will not be means tested – but to claim the cash, a woman must be under the care of a midwife or health worker.

 

Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said he warmly welcomed the grant, particularly as it was to be universally available: "It is important for it to be non-means tested and available to all pregnant women, as their continued health during pregnancy is important for themselves, their baby and their family."

 

The nature of the grant has changed since it was first announced in the pre-Budget report of 2006. Back then it was proposed that child benefit would be paid to all women from week 29 of their pregnancy. However, the Government has now decided that a one-off payment at week 25 would be easier to administer. Ministers hope that the grant will help women to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle as they enter the final few weeks of their pregnancy, by which time most of them will have stopped working.

 

 

Am I missing something here?! Why is this necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has got to be the daftest thing I've heard in a while.

 

£190 grant to be paid to all mums-to-be in final weeks of pregnancy - Invest & Save, Money - The Independent

 

The Government has pledged to give expectant mothers a one-off payment of £190 during the final few weeks of their pregnancy.

 

The Health in Pregnancy Grant will be available from April 2009 and will benefit tens of thousands of women a year. The grant will be paid to all mums-to-be – in other words, it will not be means tested – but to claim the cash, a woman must be under the care of a midwife or health worker.

 

Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said he warmly welcomed the grant, particularly as it was to be universally available: "It is important for it to be non-means tested and available to all pregnant women, as their continued health during pregnancy is important for themselves, their baby and their family."

 

The nature of the grant has changed since it was first announced in the pre-Budget report of 2006. Back then it was proposed that child benefit would be paid to all women from week 29 of their pregnancy. However, the Government has now decided that a one-off payment at week 25 would be easier to administer. Ministers hope that the grant will help women to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle as they enter the final few weeks of their pregnancy, by which time most of them will have stopped working.

 

 

Am I missing something here?! Why is this necessary?

It's to get underclass pregnant women to engage with the state. Many kids are born without the mum having any pre-natal care whatsoever often leading to all kinds of health issues for the kid before they're even born and then sliding off into delinquency afterwards. Once a mum and baby is in the system, more support for the child can then happen - health visitor, access to Sure Start centres, etc. The idea is to ensure the child has a great start by maximising support.

 

For example, Sure Start centres will actually teach mums how to be a parent - stuff like talking to their baby, what to feed it, how to set boundaries. Many, many kids in areas of significant deprivation have shit diets and lifestyles from clueless parents that ultimately make them a drain on the state. This is an attempt to stop them slipping through the net.

 

No doubt some people will think it's ridiculous nanny state nonsense. I don't see a better way of addressing the underclass problem, short of chemical castration/sterilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's to get underclass pregnant women to engage with the state. Many kids are born without the mum having any pre-natal care whatsoever often leading to all kinds of health issues for the kid before they're even born and then sliding off into delinquency afterwards. Once a mum and baby is in the system, more support for the child can then happen - health visitor, access to Sure Start centres, etc. The idea is to ensure the child has a great start by maximising support.

 

For example, Sure Start centres will actually teach mums how to be a parent - stuff like talking to their baby, what to feed it, how to set boundaries. Many, many kids in areas of significant deprivation have shit diets and lifestyles from clueless parents that ultimately make them a drain on the state. This is an attempt to stop them slipping through the net.

 

No doubt some people will think it's ridiculous nanny state nonsense. I don't see a better way of addressing the underclass problem, short of chemical castration/sterilisation.

 

 

Agreed.

 

The state is having to interviene more and more because the self-regulating systems such as family and community have been destroyed - actively - by economic policy.

 

I was watching The Secret Millionare a while back and there was a woman from Nigeria, she was going around meeting young mums in Toxteth, and she told the camera "It's poorer in Nigeria but we're richer in so many more ways, when I had my baby I had sisters and cousins to help out, these women have no one".

 

Sums it up really, and goes for everything. If people weren't eating and drinking themselves to death, the Government wouldn't have to put its jackboots down on fast food - but it simply has to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's to get underclass pregnant women to engage with the state. Many kids are born without the mum having any pre-natal care whatsoever often leading to all kinds of health issues for the kid before they're even born and then sliding off into delinquency afterwards. Once a mum and baby is in the system, more support for the child can then happen - health visitor, access to Sure Start centres, etc. The idea is to ensure the child has a great start by maximising support.

 

For example, Sure Start centres will actually teach mums how to be a parent - stuff like talking to their baby, what to feed it, how to set boundaries. Many, many kids in areas of significant deprivation have shit diets and lifestyles from clueless parents that ultimately make them a drain on the state. This is an attempt to stop them slipping through the net.

 

No doubt some people will think it's ridiculous nanny state nonsense. I don't see a better way of addressing the underclass problem, short of chemical castration/sterilisation.

 

Hmmm chemical castration you say?

 

I don't see how it will help these women engage with the state. They are generally already engaged with the state via the benefit system. It hadn't crossed my mind that that was the reason to be honest, and when you look at it like that it does seem to have some substance.

 

I had no idea that there are many women who have no pre-natal care. I thought everyone used midwives. If not, why? It's free, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too fussed about this one, it's non means tested so it doesn't create perverse incentives.

 

Agree about the fact that the old institutions have been broken. Don't agree that necessarily means the state should step in - the more they do, the more they fuck things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an insignificant amount of money though is it? I mean how many people give birth every year?! Those that don't need it can claim it anyway which is fair enough in my opinion, but it will cost a fortune.

 

Call me psychic, but I reckon taxes might be on their way up. Leave that for the Tories to implement though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's to get underclass pregnant women to engage with the state. Many kids are born without the mum having any pre-natal care whatsoever often leading to all kinds of health issues for the kid before they're even born and then sliding off into delinquency afterwards. Once a mum and baby is in the system, more support for the child can then happen - health visitor, access to Sure Start centres, etc. The idea is to ensure the child has a great start by maximising support.

 

For example, Sure Start centres will actually teach mums how to be a parent - stuff like talking to their baby, what to feed it, how to set boundaries. Many, many kids in areas of significant deprivation have shit diets and lifestyles from clueless parents that ultimately make them a drain on the state. This is an attempt to stop them slipping through the net.

 

No doubt some people will think it's ridiculous nanny state nonsense. I don't see a better way of addressing the underclass problem, short of chemical castration/sterilisation.

 

 

Reminds me of a funny story Mrs ROD told me. She was recently chatting to this bloke she knows who's a doctor, and he was telling her about this 'underclass' woman who he saw who had just had a baby and it was getting to the point where it could begin to eat solids. He advised her to just puree whatever the rest of the family were eating - obviously meaning a bit of carrot, bananas and so on. Not long after said woman turns up with baby who isn't really getting on with eating solids. "What have you been feeding her?" asks the doc. "Oh, like you said, just pureed what we eat... mostly McDonald's..."

 

!

 

Er, hello? Is that Social Services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm chemical castration you say?

 

I don't see how it will help these women engage with the state. They are generally already engaged with the state via the benefit system. It hadn't crossed my mind that that was the reason to be honest, and when you look at it like that it does seem to have some substance.

 

I had no idea that there are many women who have no prenatal care. I thought everyone used midwives. If not, why? It's free, right?

You only get a midwife if you go to the doctor and actually tell someone you're pregnant. Many women don't for various reasons. Some are scared of authority, fearing social services after endemic family mayhem and so avoid the state system like the plague as they assume any connection will lead to them losing their child. However, unbelievably some women don't even know they're supposed to see the doctor. However the carrot of two hundred notes will overcome most of these barriers in the women being targeted as they'll see the money as a very significant amount.

 

The reason it's not means tested is because the process of application is intimidating/unpalatable for many of the women being targeted. This has to seem as simple as "Turn up here, get the doctor to agree you're pregnant and get your two hundred quid". Then they're in the system and support for the child can begin even before it's born,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never underestimate the ability of the ability of the state & all those who rely on it's patronage to continually extend its power & influence at the expense of individual freedom & economic efficiency.

 

We all see how the law & order branch continually exaggerate threats (even in Sep '01 more people in the US dies in car accidents than because of terrorism) to increase their powers & budgets.

 

Well this is just a similar example from the Social side of our government.

Most parents pay more than £190 per year in tax & then receive a piece of it back thru this scheme so for them it is just a beurocratic wash but it creates forms to be filled in & monitored which the government always likes.

For those that don't this locks them into the benefit cycle which does as much as anything to cause the underclass problem in the 1st place.

They become addicted to handouts rather than personal responsibility; the state & its vast army of workers can then hand out benefits/meddle etc all at great expense to everybody else & not co-incidently keeping them all in personal employment.

 

And if any members of that underclass do dare to try & improve their own lot they are smacked with disgracefully hi income tax on the lower paid to discourage that effort.

 

If we really wanted to help them then income tax would start at much higher pay levels to give incentives to actually work.

That however would not require billions of government spending,employment & control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister is a health visitor & some of the experiences she encounters are hard to believe in a modern society.

 

As Paul suggests earlier in the thread , if it gets a few mums into the sphere of influence of the likes of my sister & her colleagues then it must be a good thing.

 

It's only £190 as well , lets be honest it wouldn't cover the cost of the pram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously hadn't even considered that angle. I figured that all pregnant people sought medical advice because every person I know who's ever been pregnant has used midwives and all that shebang.

 

£190 seems a bit much though. If it were a bottle of white lightning I'm sure you'd get the same response from the same people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reminds me of a funny story Mrs ROD told me. She was recently chatting to this bloke she knows who's a doctor, and he was telling her about this 'underclass' woman who he saw who had just had a baby and it was getting to the point where it could begin to eat solids. He advised her to just puree whatever the rest of the family were eating - obviously meaning a bit of carrot, bananas and so on. Not long after said woman turns up with baby who isn't really getting on with eating solids. "What have you been feeding her?" asks the doc. "Oh, like you said, just pureed what we eat... mostly McDonald's..."

 

!

 

Er, hello? Is that Social Services?

 

Unbelievable.

 

Where's that chemical castration kit Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never underestimate the ability of the ability of the state & all those who rely on it's patronage to continually extend its power & influence at the expense of individual freedom & economic efficiency.

 

We all see how the law & order branch continually exaggerate threats (even in Sep '01 more people in the US dies in car accidents than because of terrorism) to increase their powers & budgets.

 

Well this is just a similar example from the Social side of our government.

Most parents pay more than £190 per year in tax & then receive a piece of it back thru this scheme so for them it is just a beurocratic wash but it creates forms to be filled in & monitored which the government always likes.

For those that don't this locks them into the benefit cycle which does as much as anything to cause the underclass problem in the 1st place.

They become addicted to handouts rather than personal responsibility; the state & its vast army of workers can then hand out benefits/meddle etc all at great expense to everybody else & not co-incidently keeping them all in personal employment.

 

And if any members of that underclass do dare to try & improve their own lot they are smacked with disgracefully hi income tax on the lower paid to discourage that effort.

 

If we really wanted to help them then income tax would start at much higher pay levels to give incentives to actually work.

That however would not require billions of government spending,employment & control.

 

Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul's absolutely right here. He put me onto a lot of matters regarding issues like this last year when I was researching my thesis project (which ended up in a slightly different direction) and there's some really interesting initiatives and incentives about. I don't understand even a small fraction of it properly as I never got round to reading a lot of it.

 

Section's also right about the loss of community (which is more what my thesis is about) and that was one of the biggest things that struck me when watching that programme about fish in Japan the other night; how close knit community can be and how far away from it a lot of this country seems to be.

 

The Sure Start programme is brilliant, plus they encourage good architecture, which is always a bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul's absolutely right here. He put me onto a lot of matters regarding issues like this last year when I was researching my thesis project (which ended up in a slightly different direction) and there's some really interesting initiatives and incentives about. I don't understand even a small fraction of it properly as I never got round to reading a lot of it.

 

Section's also right about the loss of community (which is more what my thesis is about) and that was one of the biggest things that struck me when watching that programme about fish in Japan the other night; how close knit community can be and how far away from it a lot of this country seems to be.

 

The Sure Start programme is brilliant, plus they encourage good architecture, which is always a bonus!

 

 

Japan has a very limited welfare system: dole payments are harshly monitored & it almost never spends anymoney at all on schemes like this.

Because of & linked to this income tax/NI doesn't kick in until much much higher (£12k+ pa from memory)

So it is always better to get a very poorly paid job than not get one, which keeps people in the community & allows them to improve their skills & prospects.

 

The UK state benefit system is a major cause of the problem which it then has to spend extra money to alleviate.

The cycle is never broken nor will it as the state actively prefers the power to interfere it brings, but it doesnt net help the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grant is actually £400 now.

 

The article linked from first post seems to be dated November 2007.

 

Mrs Wood is due soon, and we were told it was to help towards 'healthy eating' costs, though I think it would be better put towards my season ticket next year, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The grant is actually £400 now.

 

The article linked from first post seems to be dated November 2007.

 

Mrs Wood is due soon, and we were told it was to help towards 'healthy eating' costs, though I think it would be better put towards my season ticket next year, obviously.

 

Even better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The grant is actually £400 now.

 

The article linked from first post seems to be dated November 2007.

 

Mrs Wood is due soon, and we were told it was to help towards 'healthy eating' costs, though I think it would be better put towards my season ticket next year, obviously.

 

Sorry for the link... just googled it as I saw it in the paper this morning.

 

The official line...

 

Direct.gov.uk

 

Doesn't say £400 here. I can't believe it would be that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never underestimate the ability of the ability of the state & all those who rely on it's patronage to continually extend its power & influence at the expense of individual freedom & economic efficiency.

 

We all see how the law & order branch continually exaggerate threats (even in Sep '01 more people in the US dies in car accidents than because of terrorism) to increase their powers & budgets.

 

Well this is just a similar example from the Social side of our government.

Most parents pay more than £190 per year in tax & then receive a piece of it back thru this scheme so for them it is just a beurocratic wash but it creates forms to be filled in & monitored which the government always likes.

For those that don't this locks them into the benefit cycle which does as much as anything to cause the underclass problem in the 1st place.

They become addicted to handouts rather than personal responsibility; the state & its vast army of workers can then hand out benefits/meddle etc all at great expense to everybody else & not co-incidently keeping them all in personal employment.

 

And if any members of that underclass do dare to try & improve their own lot they are smacked with disgracefully hi income tax on the lower paid to discourage that effort.

 

If we really wanted to help them then income tax would start at much higher pay levels to give incentives to actually work.

That however would not require billions of government spending,employment & control.

 

 

The 'underclass' don't pay taxes though do they Catch? So this is going to be money in their pocket.

 

I'm not sure how these people would go about pursuing 'economic self-sufficiency' either, since there's very often nowhere for them to work.

 

I've said in the past that I think the underclass is the detritus of the working class which was decimated in the 80s and 90s, and which no longer has any work to do. You can't close a car plant or a shipyard without there being far reaching and devestating consequences.

 

And what do those people and their children do then? Retrain as call centre agents on temp contracts and wait for their jobs to be off-shored? Because that's how it works - I've seen it, I've been a part of it.

 

I come from a working class family, my entire extended family are benefit fraudsters - I have nothing to do with them - but I am nowhere near being economically self-sufficient. I've been to uni, have two post grabs and a reasonable job, yet I'm on less money (in real terms) than my grandad was on when he worked on the railway in the 80s. Unlike him, I'm also unable to afford a house and don't have a pension (certainly not a final salary one).

 

If anything, our benefit system is too generous (and by that, I mean it stops people from starving like most people probably would in other countries) maybe community and extended family comes about through desperation in some cases, maybe you NEED to take care of your elders because the state won't, and you NEED to look after each others kids because the state won't.

 

I think our state is fair, but employment conditions are also very poor, and a combination of those two factors have led to benefits dependency and the breakdown of family and community.

 

For instance, why would a man with children leave the benefit system to take on a minimum wage job? Considering he'd lose his housing and council tax benfiets, have to pay for his own prescriptions etc. But does that make the state shit for not letting him starve and freeze? Or the job's fault for not paying him a humane wage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catch, I think there is some merit in your argument, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the underclass. You talk about things such as incentives to work, ambition and improving their lot as if these people had any concept of such notions. I honestly can't overstate how uttely far removed from the ability to even conceive of such ideas these people are.

 

I think your points have more relevance when applied to the working poor (although I wouldn't neccessarily agree with them all), but the underclass is another world entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for the link... just googled it as I saw it in the paper this morning.

 

The official line...

 

[/url]

 

Doesn't say £400 here. I can't believe it would be that much.

 

 

Oo-er, looks like you're right. Sorry. I was sure the midwife told us £400...:ermm:

 

For that, I hope the baby pops out and slaps her, for misleading us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×