With my kids I suffer no matter who is goverment, anyone want to buy two kids
Swap you for my two. We'll end up with the same school run but I bet I end up with more sleep.
Well I dont think you suffered that much under the Labour government, did you ?
If you dislike you children so much, why have them in the 1st place
I hadn't met them before they arrived.
Well, you made your bed, so lie in it
Y'know exfhpat, if Londondrz and IWereAbsolutelyFuming had just laid in their bed and doing nothing more, then they wouldn't be having to sell or swap children.
This will need to be moved to the Trading Post section obviously.
I don't think exfhpat gets your humour Londondrz - police going through bins to see if there is recycled waste in it springs to mind...
Yep that one was really funny cellar door, im cracking my sides
well both this thread and the other one were serious ones,not ones where al and sundry made silly jokes, there is a time and place
For gods sake dont upset him, otherwise we will get another dose of his rants
Um, who put exfhpat in charge?
"exfhpat" and "ForestHillier" now moderated for
sockpuppetry 
Londondrz keeps his head down
The title of this thread is wrong. The findings of the Fawcett Society are that lone mothers suffer most, not all people with children. Of course everybody suffers but according to their figures it is single mothers who are impacted most by the cuts and tax changes as a proportion of their incomes. To quote their findings directly:
Single women are hit harder than single men, couples and multifamily households by the current government’s tax and benefits changes.
Lone parents, the large majority of whom are women, are, on average, among the biggest losers as a result of the reforms.
There are some rather complicated or possibly confusing graphs in the Fawcett report which recognises that
'It is likely that the Treasury could produce more detailed and robust analysis on the impact of individual tax and benefit changes by gender than that which is outlined in this paper by utilising the larger samples of administrative data'
Four out of the five conclusions of the Fawcett Society report are relating to government analysis of data rather than finding a way that the 'disproportionate effect of fiscal policy is mitigated'. There is not one specific policy that they point to that makes such a difference for single mothers other than the switch from RPI to CPI for calculating increases to benefits.
The report is out to make a single point, that the budget was sexist, and the
courts ruled that the government did not have a case to answer on this point.
I should be clear that I am not saying that there is no issue to address in the impact of the cuts on many low-income households, but that the title is about as accurate as its spelling.
Well now I feel foolish, as I told everyone to lay off accusing ForestHillier of being ExFHPat when s/he first appeared.