Let's get the parent blaming thing out of the way first, because we're all experts on bringing up other people's children, right? Ms Griffin - the mother in question - doesn't appear to have led a life on the straight and narrow. Fine, but that doesn't mean she's not a suitable parent, nor does it justify reducing resources available to the household in order to force behavioural changes, in this case finding a full-time job. Let's think about what that would mean for the child. I confess I don't know a bunch about babies but I know that if they do not form attachments as infants it literally stunts the growth of their brains and impairs their emotional development. Reason enough to support a mother in her role as a parent, one would have thought.
|Working Mums providing cheap labour at the canning factory|
And this also begs the question of how the so-called investment approach to beneficiaries actually works. Here is a mum who needs housing assistance, who is transport-challenged and has a very young child, and her benefit has been cut? How is that an investment in improving this woman's life or that of her baby? It's not. Another F for Paula's department.