Closed
Bringing up children in London
There are over 1.1 million families with children living in London. However, many families don’t have the support they need to thrive, and make the most of the opportunities London has to offer them.
What is your experience of being a parent or grandparent in London? What are the main challenges when bringing up children here? Do you think London is good place for a child to grow up? If not, why not?
33 Comments
The cost of bringing up children and in particular childcare and after school activities are far too high and stops some families from participating in leisure activities as they have to work long hours to afford to live and pay bills. Parents should be able to spend quality time with their children and attend school activities without the worry of jeopardising their jobs. This means that a more agile and flexible approach to working should be embraced by both small and larger organisations. I do not agree with mothers being forced to work so they can pay high costs for someone else to take care of their children it is a nonsense.
Sorry, but if parents cannot afford the cost of children, then they may consider not to have any. In England, there is an abundance of excess children that could be adopted, thus reduce the burden on society.
bring up children is hard enough, but schools are too full, there is no hope of many children getting accommodation in London of any sort. Everything costs too much. We do have some of the best parks in the country however, how many times can you take a child to a park for the day. Also teenagers have very little to do as again it costs too much. Even to travel on the underground for teenagers costs a lot of money. It use to cost me £180 a month to send my children to secondary School as it was out of our borough.
Sorry to say, but there are too many children in England, particularly the South-East. It is important to reign in the desire to have off-spring with the realities of austerity and "too much of the good".
Keela31 - are there too many children? And in the south-east? I am not against limiting the number of offspring to one per person, but it has to be carefully planned to ensure there are enough younger people in the working population to support the retired people. But I doubt that the current population would agree to reining-in their reproductive drive, and then there are the religions that don't permit birth control.
London is a good place for children to grow up: look at the world, what a mess. And here we take care of everyone, we love and hate each other, we breathe in the fumes from empty buses, and the unregulated numbers of black diesel cabs and construction vehicles, white vans and couriers ...and blame the pollution and congestion on the common motorist, but hey! I am pro London, we should be our own independent Republic. We have a MORE ADVANCED evolutionary sense of togetherness than the rest of the Kingdom outside of London. Not that we don't welcome people from outside who want to come here. WE DO! The main challenges when bringing up kids here are the same anywhere. Luckily, mostly, HERE we are more tolerant and intelligent than the rest of the Kingdom (who voted Conservative). The main challenges are to explain why there are so many exorbitant and gratuitously expensive office blocks being designed and built in the City, closing down public roads, strangulating the access and wayfaring of the Little People.
There are lots of positives about London: museums, parks, theatres, varied cultures. There are some key drawbacks compared with other cities: air pollution kills 10,000 a year, most roads aren't safe for children to cycle on, pretty much everything is much more expensive in London than elsewhere. And, when children are old enough to leave home, rented housing is exorbitant, and houses to buy beyond the reach even of the well-paid.
OK
but those "positives" don't put clothes on the backs of your kids and food in their tummies and that is more important than parks etc.
The working classes are not getting a fair deal, especially from the current government.
Austerity has forced some councils to close parks and adventure playgrounds or charge people to use them.
That's not fair and yet it is becoming the norm.
How long should we put up with this?
Until the debt is cleared?
Thank you for sharing your views.
Many parents use flexible working arrangements to balance their work and childcare commitments. Is this something Talk Londoners have considered in their work? If not, why not?
Flex working is fine as a part of a range of solutions, but the fundamental issue remains that schools are timed from 9am to 3pm. For working parents this is the worst time. Yes, flexi wedding can help some parents but not all given our working days are 9-5. Even for part-time workers, 9-3 straddles both the morning session and the afternoon session. Why not move London schools to a 8am to 2pm day?
It really depends on your employer whether it is possible or not
I agree London is a great place for bringing up children, but there are not opportunities for everybody to find accommodation or work.
Many parents struggle to cover the cost of childcare. A range of support is available to disadvantaged families to help them make ends meet, including Healthy Start food vouchers, 15 hours a week funded nursery places for 2 year olds from disadvantaged families, 15 hours a week of free childcare in term time for 3/4 year olds, free school meals and Local Assistance Funds. But many eligible families do not take up support.
What is your experience of childcare in the capital? How do you manage the high cost?
Talk London
My wife's average London wage just about covers nursery costs. Does this make sense-of course not. Why are costs so high? Surely demand has something to with it. As per school places, demand is the elephant in the room that no one seems ready to discuss. What causes higher demand? Increased population. What causes increased population? Higher birth rates, lower death rates, migration. We can pretend this is not fact if we want, but we'll never solve the equation if we dismiss these contributors to the issue. By the way, increased population also, inevitably, suppresses wages as employers have more supply of staff to keep recompense down.
London is far too full and i read the mayor wants more immigration ,which is utterly ridiculous .schools are full.no housing.nhs cant cope ,two weeks for doctors appointment.roads are chaos .air pollution is awful ,indigenous londoners are all but gone .london has suffered badly from unchecked immigration .whats the point people coming here nothing for them
@Johncruddas,
Well, you are right, London is by far too full. But this is not due to excessive immigration but due to excessive child birth rates.
In fact, it is a domestic problem, not an immigration problem: NHS offering IVF treatments is no longer a medical emergency need but a "designer choice". Too many children exist in South-East England. People have distanced themselves from natural selection (that includes death, including death of babies and children). Far too much emphasis is placed on selfish, individual "want" (not need!)!
Either people are prepared to live in multi-storey underground housing, with only basic household items and foods, we need to enlighten ourselves with the very real issue of INFINITY of natural resources and space.
Immigration is the problem particularly illegal .surely the lesson from grenfell must be learned.loads of illegals there in just one block .most of the birth growth you mention is because of immigrants having children for financial gain not for the right reasons our benefits system is ridiculous
Children's rights and needs are left out of so many transport, traffic, planning and economic decisions. For example, the Oxford, Regent and Bond Street Business Improvement District made many changes to Oxford Street, but refused point blank to consider the impact on affected residents' safe routes to schools and local services. The same is happening with the proposals to pedestrianise Oxford Street. The traffic will be rerouted through residential areas with complete disregard for the impact on children's health. Because the Mayor's Ultra Low Emissions Zone plans are so weak, TfL and the GLA will be lifting restrictions on all-night deliveries etc. This means local children will not only have late evening deliveries under their windows night after night as they do now, but also through the rest of the night. Children are very vulnerable to noise pollution and sleep disturbance, more so than adults. Everyone living in the deliveries areas will have their health affected by the all-night noise pollution. But the GLA, the Mayor, TfL, they do not care at all about this. The Mayor is unable or unwilling to stand up to the powerful road freight lobby on this issue. The air pollution in those areas will increase dramatically. Also, the areas the traffic will be rerouted through are routes used by residents on both sides of Oxford Street to walk to local schools and other essential community facilities. Currently there are far, far too few traffic lights on junctions in the areas north of Oxford Street, and walking your kids to school is a nightmare experience. There is no indication in the pedestrianisation proposals that residents' needs for safe walking routes have been considered at all. There is no mention of adding new traffic lights or of adding-in full pedestrian phases for traffic lights in those areas. People, and their children, need to get around those areas on foot. Or do they want more people to get into cars and drive around?
The new Mayor has hugely disappointed me, insofar he appears to continue Boris Johnson's line of approving business friendly "schemes" over and above the need of existing population.
I must admit I would not choose to bring children up in such a central area - so much pollution. It is pleasanter out in the 'burbs and still easy to get into town
I was thinking earlier today,
that despite all the talk from politicians about how they are on the side of the so called "jams" nothing much has changed since I was a kid in the 1970s.
I can still recall how my parents struggled to put food on the table and into their children's tummies.
It is the 21st century and people ( with jobs) are having to use food banks because after they have paid bills, they are lucky to be able to afford to buy a bag of chips for their kids let alone themselves.
It's hard to believe and yet it is true.
Whoever said that politicians only go into politics to better themselves was right!
As for the so called Prime Minister baring her soul last week and telling the media that she cried after she heard the election results...well I don't have any sympathy for her.
What she should be crying over is the failure of governments to address the long standing problem of the low wage economy
which more often than not affects the working classes despite the fact that they faithfully support the sham called democracy every five years.
Save your fake and selfish tears prime minister,
give the working classes a decent wage not tears.
Care must be taken to consider the impact (environmental, medicinal, housing, etc) of over-population.
Equally, consideration in Planning must be used to prevent multinational big companies or individuals using planning laws to their advantage (preventing locals from adequate housing options). Alongside, scrutiny should be exercised preventing individuals or companies using 'aliases' to buy properties and then forcing through planning to suit their needs.
Family & Property planning need to be considered VERY carefully: families want larger and larger properties, London is limited, or else it will get choked through corporate high rises and "socially cleansed" areas and more deprived, over-populated areas, creating a disparity.
It is not acceptable to have the "urban sprawl" destroy valuable green land areas, nor by corporate over-development. Planning Laws MUST change to reflect the explosion in population as well as the "over" representation of business.
Agree up to a point but population explosion is caused by massive influx of immigrants legal or otherwise this must be checked before anything else
It was great some time ago but now there are too many people, too many children, comparing to facilities like schools, NHS services, parks. Too many people come, too little investment is happening. Other countries are changing dramatically (for good) and we are way behind.
Apart from what many have mentioned i find that London is failing big time in allowing children in their boroughs to do anything such as sport. Each borough should be implementing sports facilities for the kids to get involved in instead of hanging around doing nothing or other things, including crime , drugs etc. Simple tennis, padel, five a side, basketball areas etc in parks or other areas could be setup to encourage this as i find unless they have money then thats the only way they can enjoy it and lets remember we have many poor families in London that just cant afford this and why should those children miss out. It will also encourage them to focus on something that they actually might be good at and discipline them to continue onto other things and stay out of trouble. Give the children something to do and start them working together from an early age in their communities , respecting each other , focusing on the positive and enjoying something they might like in sport. Boredom by many youngsters in London is one of the biggest problems in my opinion which leads onto the bad things as the government has stopped them doing anything so they are finding other things obviously. Many countries in Europe do this and Spain is one that many years ago backed by the government has done this and its increased health, brought communities together , disciplined and inspired those to go on further in sport but also reduced crime, loitering teenagers causing problems etc ....so in the long run its a positive thing!
Back in the day, there was a network of youth clubs throughout London, which were axed (I think in Thatcher's time), and many more schools had their own playing fields for sports (not so many in the very centre of London though). School playing fields have been sold off for development, to provide funds for LEAs to run the schools. Not long ago Royal Parks was trying to make groups playing sports, even amateur ones, groups of friends, etc pay for using the Hyde Park sports area. Government has abandoned the young.
Safety is the main issue which drives kids indoors where social media and gadgets of all kinds tend to absorb their attention and intellect. I think education shouldn't stop at the sound of the school bell. The schools and other council institutions like leisure centres, swimming baths should be made available for young people to engage with each other more particularly during holidays. Make stuff free. It wouldn't do any arm to have more police on the beat too.
In cities there is a real shortage of proper outdoors, woods, fields, trees to climb.
I posted this under "Mental Health", but I'll post it again here, in case it stimulates debate. I'm not a parent myself, but work with children.
When it comes to mental (and physical) health, prevention is better than cure. I work for a mental health charity based in a primary school, but we need focus our attention even further back than this.
There is a HUGE amount of scientific evidence for the importance of the first 1000 days of life, starting from conception. A good experience during this vital period allows an infant to develop emotional and physical resilience that will help him/her cope with any number of difficulties in later life. It is basically a sound investment to devote attention and resources to this period: failure to do so sets up a vicious circle, because people whose own early infancy was deficient will struggle to parent their own children adequately. The following book should be essential reading for policy makers:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Love-Matters-affection-shapes/dp/0415870534
Caring, whether for babies/children or the elderly/infirm, is accorded very low status in our society, although it is the most important thing we do. That needs to change. Scandi-style maternity/paternity leave anyone? Paying other people to care for our nearest and dearest may keep the economy healthy, but at a huge cost to human health and well-being. I'm not advocating women retreat to the home, but we need to sort out work/life balance for both genders and, with technology reshaping the world of work, maybe now's the time.
Responding to my own post, here!
Realised that properly paid parental/carers leave is, unfortunately, probably not within the remit of the London Mayor!
Other policies that might target the same crucial period (first 1000 days) are: education and dissemination of information about early infant emotional development/attachment theory and parents' vital role in this; support for new parents, especially those identified as vulnerable (isolated, history of poor mental health, very young, stress from poverty/deprivation/poor housing); affordable/secure housing (no-one can parent adequately without this security).
No doubt, many more......
Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions.
In the Great Weight Debate run by NHS England earlier this year, many Londoners said that making healthy food choices for young people is difficult, and that parks, local leisure facilities and clubs are important to keep young people active.
Many of you have mentioned this too.
Is it easy to access healthy food choices or exercise is your local area?
Talk London
My interest is in maternity care. One area where I think parts of London are really lacking is in breastfeeding support, when we know that supporting women who wish to breastfeed to do so successful leads to positive health outcomes for both mother and child. Despite this, some London boroughs have no publically funded breastfeeding support at all - the little that is available is run by charities and extremely stretched. As I understand it, this function should be funded by LAs, but coverage is patchy at best. This is a dire situation for families,especially those who may struggle to travel relatively long distances to charitable services, and also shortsighted in financial terms as it may save money now but will cost in the medium to long term in poorer maternal and child health outcomes. LAs should be required to provide services, and the Mayor's Office should be ensuring that LAs and Local Maternity Systems in London are working cohesively to deliver on this vital public health outcome.
In addition, revisions to NHS charging regulations are likely to cause huge problems for women accessing maternity care. It is already the case that many women avoid maternity care altogether because of fears of debt and referral to the Home Office. Some receive no antenatal, intro- or postpartum care at all, or minimal at best. Given that women in this situation are already likely to have some of the worst health outcomes this is both shockingly short-sighted and an inhumane policy. I realise that it is not a Mayoral policy but it is incompatible with the 'best start' outcomes described in the Health Inequalities Strategy and should be strongly challenged by this office.
Yes agree with you REB. This is an area where a small investment would save HUGE amounts of NHS money in the future, if it needs to be thought of in purely economic terms - obesity, type 2 diabetes rates and other disease rates (including asthma) to name but a few. Good health and diet must begin at birth and pre-natally.