4 thoughts on “Single parenthood: the poverty industry’s kryptonite”

  1. Posted 06/03/2013 at 13:34 | Permalink

    A very interesting article, but I must challenge one assertion:

    ‘Unfortunately, the reasons for the UK’s high prevalence of single parenthood, combined with such an unfavourable skill profile among that group, are not well understood.’

    ‘Single parenthood’ is almost always used as a euphemism for single motherhood. Two keys to the phenomenon of single motherhood is the poor educational attainment you mention, and the state provision of housing and benefits for single mothers. Single mothers have daughters who go on to become single mothers themselves. It’s well known that the majority of single mothers are single by choice.

    I lead a newly-launched political party,Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them). We’re engaged in a public consultation exercise, and one of our proposal areas is the following:

    a) The government should set a date after which state support will not be provided for women having new babies which they are personally (or with the support of a partner and/or others) unable to care for financially.
    b) The money saved by the foregoing action will fund tax allowances for married couples.

    I invite people reading this comment to contribute to the consultation exercise:


    Mike Buchanan

    (and the women who love them)


  2. Posted 06/03/2013 at 14:39 | Permalink

    Mike, OK, the phenomenon is understood in that sense, but what is not well understood (as far as I know) is: Why is this problem worse here than in, say, Austria (87% of children in two-parent families; and among single parents, an employment rate of 80%)? I don’t know much about their benefit system, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t provide similar incentives. For some reason, they seem to respond less to bad incentives. Why is that? I haven’t come across a good explanation yet.

  3. Posted 06/03/2013 at 15:44 | Permalink

    Thanks Kris, but unfortunately I have no information on the issue in Austria. The British state has been supportive of single mothers over the past 30 years – not coincidentally, the point in time that a cohort of particularly misandrous militant feminists including Harriet Harman entered parliament. And over that time the state has become progressively less supportive of marriage and the nuclear family. Perhaps the rise in single motherhood in the UK is partly atttributable over this lengthy period to the ‘single mothers have daughters who often become single mothers themselves’ phenomenon. There’s only one thing that militant feminists hate more than men, and that’s the nuclear family, as I explained at length in ‘Feminism: the ugly truth’. You may or many not have noticed that Harriet Harman rarely criticises David Cameron personally, and in PMQs she generally smiles at him when he’s speaking, as a proud mother might. Why? Because he follows her agendas enthusiastically, as I explained in ‘David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman?’ and ‘The Glass Ceiling Delusion’. He’s long been a leading proponent of increasing the number of women in major corporate boardroom, as outlined in forensic detail by an organisation I started 12 months ago, Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com (I wrote a blog piece on the matter for this website, and gave a well-received talk to a capacity audience at the IEA). The government refuses to engage with the overwhelming evidence – a number of longitudinal studies covering three other major developed countries – which shows that driving up the number of women on corporate boards leads to declines in corporate financial performance. Our latest briefing paper is here: http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    Mike Buchanan
    [email protected]

  4. Posted 15/03/2013 at 22:29 | Permalink

    Mike, you should take heed of Angela Lansbury’s most recent comments.

Comments are closed.