Not toilet-trained at 4 or 5

[Craig the cyclist]

You've either not read or not absorbed the full import of the NS article in the OP. That makes quite clear that Sure Start recognised all sorts of reasons why children might be falling behind. I'd bet a pound to a pinch of pig sh*t that there is more to the case highlighted then the, err lazy, trope of laziness.

My two were a few years to old for sure start but I'm pretty sure that whatever provision, like funded Nursery or Playgroup, there was available was advised to parents and if not followed up further inquiries would be made.

I get that, but you are missing one key bit. Sure Start was not compulsory. You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea, but right in the height of Sure Starts work, under a Labour government, we had Baby P.

These things only work if people go to them. I am suggesting that if your child isn't walking by 5 then you should notice, or have we got to a stage where there is no responsibility on the parents at all, anything that goes wrong is the governments fault?

 

[All uphill]

I get that, but you are missing one key bit. Sure Start was not compulsory. You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea, but right in the height of Sure Starts work, under a Labour government, we had Baby P.

These things only work if people go to them. I am suggesting that if your child isn't walking by 5 then you should notice, or have we got to a stage where there is no responsibility on the parents at all, anything that goes wrong is the governments fault?

You seem to be focusing on fault and blaming the parents. How does that help the children?

I worked in this area at the time of Sure Start and saw how grateful many parents were to get help with and for their children, and the difference that was made to their lives. In this county I saw the dramatic effect it had in reducing the numbers of children needing to be taken into the care of the local authority.

I believe that a generation of this kind of support would have helped reduce children in care, prison population and crime, but it seems to be a mindset here that we should punish the disadvantaged, not support their children out of that disadvantage.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea,

Where was that suggested?

It is part of the solution but not the panacea.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There will always be parents who won't cooperate or who will refuse help. You will never reach everybody. Sure Start did a pretty good job of reaching many parents though. Of course it doesn't work miracles and if a five year old child isn't able to use the toilet properly etc, yes, there's still largely parental responsibility for that. It does make a tangible difference though, for relatively small cost, and it's one of those things that you do because the kids need it, regardless of the competence/incompetence or deserving/undeserving parents.

"At every age in primary school, Sure Start reduced hospital admissions for injuries. At younger ages, injury-related hospitalisations fell by around 17% of their pre-Sure Start (1998) baseline; at ages 10 and 11 they fell by 30%."
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/...enefits-for-children-in-poorer-neighbourhoods

It saves money. It saves resources later because Sure Start families are likely to need less intervention later from school, social services, police, health services. Unfortunately it's an easy thing to cut because, like day centres and such, it's work is rather invisible unless you actually use it.

 

[icowden]

I get that, but you are missing one key bit. Sure Start was not compulsory. You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea, but right in the height of Sure Starts work, under a Labour government, we had Baby P.

You're right. We failed one child so the whole thing was pointless. You win.

Incidentally Sure Start did not just work with children, it also worked with parents, teaching parenting skills etc. Some of the information is decidedly odd given that children are checked at 8 weeks, 9 months and 2-2.5 years. Any children of concern, or not walking at that last check would be kept a close eye on by Health Visitors. There are ways of "avoiding" the checks, but these are very much going to be outliers.

 

[cookiemonster]

Sure Start, at no point, told anyone that they shouldn't put their children in front a tv for such long periods that they would become functionally disabled.

That's what Sure Start was set up to stop.

Didn't you read the article?

 

[cookiemonster]

I get that, but you are missing one key bit. Sure Start was not compulsory. You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea, but right in the height of Sure Starts work, under a Labour government, we had Baby P.

These things only work if people go to them. I am suggesting that if your child isn't walking by 5 then you should notice, or have we got to a stage where there is no responsibility on the parents at all, anything that goes wrong is the governments fault?

One tragic case is enough to support the closure of a scheme that was working beautifully? Really?

 

[mudsticks]

One tragic case is enough to support the closure of a scheme that was working beautifully? Really?

Yes a few utterly tragic 'outlier cases' prove the whole scheme is pointless

How many more like that there may have been, over that time, without sure start is anyone's guess

But basing judgement on whether a scheme or action is helpful or worthwhile, upon a few extreme cases seldom ends well .

I was lucky enough to have good support around for me and my family when they were little.

I didn't really feel we fell into the 'vulnerable' category, although on a low income, but I saw lots of other families benefitting from schemes like sure start.

It was good to feel there was a place and supportive community you could be part of, and get help advice and reassurance if needed.

I wish more emphasis was put on the value and importance of all sorts of care work, but of course it's often unpaid, taken for granted, and very much undervalued --- funnily enough it still seems mainly to fall to women. 🤔

 

[Bromptonaut]

I get that, but you are missing one key bit. Sure Start was not compulsory. You seem to be suggesting it was the panacea, but right in the height of Sure Starts work, under a Labour government, we had Baby P.

These things only work if people go to them. I am suggesting that if your child isn't walking by 5 then you should notice, or have we got to a stage where there is no responsibility on the parents at all, anything that goes wrong is the governments fault?

Others have dealt with the silly assertion about Baby P. Do we even know if he went to Sure Start? My big take way from that case was the shameful way in which the junior social worker involved was thrown to the press wolf pack.

Of course parents should take responsibility if a child's not walking by 4/5. Not walking at 2 might be thought to ring an alarm.
As the original OP article pointed out the reality is different There are dysfunctional homes where for all sorts of reasons the parents are not managing. That may be addictions, DV, mental health, failures of the benefit system whether practical or baked in for the benefit of right wing cheerleaders like the benefit cap and two child limit.

Where public policy is to blame and/or parents are not managing and the statutory services are not helping then that is absolutely at the door of government. And the Labour record for wilful cruelty in the benefits system, whilst not going as far as the Cap/ 2 child limit, is shameful.

 

[spen666]

..... And the Labour record for wilful cruelty in the benefits system, whilst not going as far as the Cap/ 2 child limit, is shameful.

Care to expand on this.

i'm not sure I understand what your criticism of Labour is based on?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Care to expand on this.

i'm not sure I understand what your criticism of Labour is based on?

Let's start with Employment Support Allowance and the Work Capability Assessment.

 

[AndyRM]

Care to expand on this.

i'm not sure I understand what your criticism of Labour is based on?

The benefits (or Universal Credit, as it is now known) system is utterly, utterly rigged and totally f*cked.

Regardless of who is in power, it's a demeaning, dehumanising process. And it's getting worse.

 

[mudsticks]

The benefits (or Universal Credit, as it is now known) system is utterly, utterly rigged and totally f*cked.

Regardless of who is in power, it's a demeaning, dehumanising process. And it's getting worse.

Yup it's horrible.

Combined with the deliberately making scarce the basic needs of our fellow humans, such as decent, housing, deliberately making it scarce and expensive, in the name of capitalism to enrich a few..

Im ashamed to say i keep forgetting about the 'no support (or is it less?) for a third child, unless you can prove it was the product of rape'

Unbelievable..

But still that policy is in existence, or was at one time.
.
Does anyone here have direct experience in of this.?
I think we have a benefit advisor or two on here ..

All while successive governments go on, all mealy mouthed about 'family values'

 

[newfhouse]

All while successive governments go on, all mealy mouthed about 'family values'

Not those families.

 

[spen666]

Let's start with Employment Support Allowance and the Work Capability Assessment.

What about them?


I can reel off lists of names of benefits, but what exactly is it you are criticising labour for? Surely its not the name of the benefits or schemes?


I'm curious as to what the criticism is