The interview highlighted to me the selfish liberal left view of the world versus the rest of the world.
I think it showed Cameron up in a much better light than it would otherwise have done if S Flanders had responded to the points Cameron made rather ignoring these and pressing the its all about me and my rights liberal left agenda

David Cartright, Birmingham,

I'm no economist and I have a little time for Ms Flanders unfortunate personal comments on Wednesday Newsnight, which this article is based on, referring to Conservative proposals in the personal tense (I'm sure the point of her comment wasn't 'that ain't going to get me married and votin' for you!') but perhaps it does highlight a couple of interesting points about interviewing people about aspects of benefit and poverty (Ms Flanders also made reference to anyone having assets over £300,000 as being 'rich' and not helping the 'poor' with respect to Death duties -anyone with a house worth £300k?).

Wealth is relative. The UK has never had it so good but the gap between rich and poor is widening. Arguing if £20 a week or lets say £1040 a year (tax free!) is going to get you married isn't the point in the same way child allowance doesn't encourage people to have children. What it might do is perhaps keep a couple together a little longer and so help support the family unit.

John, London, England

It seems like whether we give them money or not, the single parent family is more likely to produce the feral hoodie anyway.
Stephanie - if your argument of propensity is correct, then with or without benefits, parents more likely to bring up a feral child will still do so. On the margin, if every compensating pound produces the same result and therefore the children are no better off, why should I, as a wealth generating tax payer, have to pay for what ultimately are YOUR bad choices? Much as you would like to dress it up, Stephanie, your question on Newsnight just proved how far to the left the BBC has lurched. Your question was not neutral - it was firmly in the camp which believed that the sums we are paying to single parent families are COMPENSATION and not REWARD. However, it is a sign of this growing sense of "entitlement" when an self-declared well-educated female like yourself suggests that we, the tax payer, has to "compensate" you for your selfish choices.

D Woodhouse, Oxford, UK

We are back in the days of Speenhamland Stephanie Flanders. You are employed by a public corporation funded by taxpayers and probably have flexible working; which is fine for a single mother. You think £20/week is paltry so obviously you have no experience of the State Pension, nor Unemployment Pay for the single; nor of any form of benefit. That is good. Single mothers in well-paid jobs can afford independent schools, nannies, and their own home without recourse to Housing Benefit.

On the other hand why should the taxpayer subsidise another man's child ?

If poverty became absolute rather than relative would life be less Pareto-optimal ? We means-test everything and ration medication, yet we spray money at child-rich families when children are the biggest single CAUSE of poverty and the more children you have the poorer you will be.

Only the rich investment banker and the benefit-annuitant can today afford large families - those in-between are too busy paying for the system

Cynical Voter, Halifax, England

It seems most of you missed the point.

"Statistics show that a child brought up under one parent only is more likely to cause disruptive behaviour at home and in the classroom and in adulthood more prone to getting into trouble. "

Correlation or causation.

Does staying together make you better parents, or does being a good parents make you more likely to stay together?

Dominic, Manchester, UK

As an economist, how can you not see that bringing a child up with two parents is better for them than one? Statistics show that a child brought up under one parent only is more likely to cause disruptive behaviour at home and in the classroom and in adulthood more prone to getting into trouble.

These problems bring an extra burden (and cost) to our public services. Children brought up with two parents are the more likely to live a worthier live and be less of a financial burden on the public services.

Please don't use your single parenthood as a badge of honour as you do yourself no favours.

T McCall, Argyll

T McCall, Argyll, Scotland

flanders completely misses the point. The idea of the proposed allowance is not to incentivise people to get married but to give those who have already decided to get married some help in staying married.

In other words, it's an attack on the divorce rate not an encouragement for the marriage rate.

flanders also misses the point that whereas £20 pw is of no interest to her, it is proportionately more helpful to couples on lower incomes.

gordon-bennett, DEAL, Kent

If I were Cameron I'd want you in my Shadow Cabinet.

John , London, UK

Newsflash Ms Flanders, for a couple on benefits or in low paid work £20 a week extra makes a huge difference. At the moment the system rewards parents for staying apart. Thus huge numbers of children are being brought into this world and then growing up in single parent families. However estimable, hard working and dedicated those single parents may be, they are still going to struggle to compensate for an absent parent. Economics Editors whether married or cohabiting and working for one of this country's more generous and forward looking employers are not the problem as I'm sure you know very well. Many parents do not have your advantages thus your questions to Cameron were based on a false premise.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

It’s interesting that it’s taken a Tory proposal for the BBC to wake up to the simple concept of deadweight losses. Strangely, the BBC has largely ignored deadweight losses for all Labour’s actual policies. For instance, the R&D tax credit has done little or nothing to increase research and development spending, but has offered a generous tax break to larger firms sophisticated enough to take advantage of it. Similarly, the child tax credit and working tax credit tend to be claimed by those that need them least – the middle class and literate – because the complicated forms put off those in real need.

David Boycott, London,

Poor old Stephanie - you may run rings around me with your economic prowess - but see if you can put these words in order ....wood the can't trees the see for ......

D Rich, Kettering/Northants, England

Well, Stephanie,

£ 20 a week may not seem very much to you - but it means quite a lot to people on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

And it's not £20 a week.

A couple that separate will receive £7,000 a year, or £130 a week, more in reduced tax and in benefits than if they stay together. If you don't believe me, ask Frank Field. If you do believe me, that's even more reason to talk to Frank Field.

You rightly mention the dilemma between compensating for disadvantage and rewarding bad choices.

But, when we reward bad behaviour, we are encouraging people into a life style which has no real loves and affections.

You, like me, will have passed many times by the woman in the supermarket who is shouting at and abusing her children. Both the woman and her children are the victims of our current social policies.

James Strachan, Cambridge, UK

SF has got it wrong!

The proposed allowance is not intended as an incentive to couples to marry, it is an incentive to couples already married to stay together. £20 pw may be of little consequence to flanders on her income but it will help to ease the financial pressure on lower income families.

Simply, it is an attack on the divorce rate and not a prop to the marriage rate.

gordon-bennett, Deal, Kent, UK

This article is merely an attempt at self-justification.

In the interview with David Cameron, you to turned this into an emotive and personal issue, and revealed your feminist bias against the Conservatives.

Simple as that, really.

Chris, Wokingham, England