CSA charges: the ConDems punish women and children, and shield men (again)

The ConDem administration doesn’t just disregard women; it evidently wants to put them firmly back under the control, however odious, of men.

How else can we explain the intention as an element of the Welfare Reform Bill that single parents (read: women) should actually pay the Child Support Agency (CSA) to secure money owed by the absent partner (read: men) to feed and clothe their children?

Shamefully, government spokesman Lord de Mauley said the loss of charging would make the scheme unaffordable. Unaffordable, we ask,  for whom?

The principle that the wrong-doer should pay for his (or her) misdeed is fundamentally breached by the idea of charging single mums (or very occasionally dads) to make their errant partners pay up for Child Support.

How nasty can the Nasty Party get? And how much more complicit, their LibDem partners in this nastiness?

Even many ConDem Lords have refused to vote for this especially harmful and unfair proposal.   Charging desperate mums for trying to make uncaring dads pay up is not only unworkable (the mums by definition don’t have any money…) but it demonstrates a coldness and desire to protect irresponsible fathers which harks back to Victorian times.

It’s errant fathers who should be made to pay a fee (fine) to the CSA, not the impoverished mums.

Sexist double standards don’t get any more distasteful and distressing than when they harm vulnerable women and their dependent children.

Never, ever let so-called Tory feminists claim again that David Cameron ‘supports women’.  Those spineless Conservative and LibDem MPs, led by Cameron and Nick Clegg, who voted through the proposals in the previous reading deserve contempt, whatever the final outcome of the grim and ironically named Welfare Rights Bill.

Remind me again, for whom might the activities of the CSA be ‘unaffordable’?

This entry was posted in Viewpoint and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to CSA charges: the ConDems punish women and children, and shield men (again)

  1. Darren says:

    The changes aren’t there to shield men, they’re there to claw back more money from people and convince parents to make private arrangements, thus taking more strain off the CSA – saving the government money. However it won’t work because anyone has ever made a private arrangement is basically setting themselves up for the meddling CSA to reappear after however long it deems necessary and then demand arrears for unpaid maintenance.

    No matter how much has been paid in that time, or what proof exists, the CSA will automatically take arrears from NRPs.

    This of of course only applies to those NRPs who are PAYE and do not move around, basically the ones that already pay. NRPs who don’t pay will see no change, NRPs who do pay will be persecuted. PWCs won’t see a difference, as they won’t get their money anyway if their ex is self employed or changes jobs.

  2. Dan says:

    It is very simple in my opinion that after 9 hopeless years of dealing with the CSA and still having to deal with them for their mistakes 5 years after my ex emigrated to New Zealand. The New Zealand Government dealt with my ex swiftly and efficiently and he is now paying 5 times the amount for 1 child that the CSA assessed him for 3 children my older 2 now passed 18. They administer their CSA via the Inland Revenue works very well. If they dont pay they chase them swiftly. In Nick Cleggs manefesto and a personal letter to me his policy stated it would be their intention to administer through the Inland Revenue. It is then fair to all PAYE and self employed as it is directly linked to taxes and accounts. The tax payers would then not be paying for CSA staff that are incapable of processing simple applications it would all be administered via the Inland Revenue and Tax codes/Tax returns for self employed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.