Gordon Browns plans for 16 & 17 year old mums?

[BrokenBananaTantrum]

I am watching Gordons speech and he has just said that 16 and 17 year old mums will now not be given council houses and left on there own but will need to go and live in supervised houses.

What do we think about this??

if it was done right it would cost a fortune. I have worked in an organisation that had one of these set ups 16 yrs ago and the costs then were about £300 week.

I would not argue that it made for a more supportive environment - lots of arguments over boys and who was doing what. Not to mention that those who were initially doing ok could be dragged down by the bad elements.

Then there also seemed to be the threat of social workers looming with the possibility of children being taken into care.

I think more support for young mothers is to be welcomed but I'm not sure this would be support - more a vote catcher for the dm reading classes.

Pixel - I'm guessing that was some time ago - as I have a friend who had to write a letter to say that her DD could no longer live at home, and lots of questions were asked about why as well, before she was put into the local temporary accommodation (drugs haven) for about 6 months with her tiny baby and was then given a pretty rank 2 bedroom house on probably the worst street to live on in the entire town.

Great post Wannabe.

The sad fact is many teenagers do see pregnancy as a way of gaining a house and never having to work whilst still being provided with money each week despite never having made any contributions into the "pot" at all.

Unless they were self supporting many may think twice knowing they will no longer get a house/flat.

Done properly this could be a good scheme and may actually lower our teen pregnancy rate which is very high compared to other countries.

but would not having any chance of getting housing actually stop them. The USA has (I believe) the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world - yet it doesn't have a welfare state like we do.

and surely you have to ask what has caused these 16 and 17yr olds to want to live on £100 a week (presuming they only have one child)?

I know someone who was 16 (2 months short of 17) when she had her (planned) baby. Before she started TTC a couple of weeks before her GCSEs started she was planning to go to college but her school had sort of pressured her into picking any old course cos she wasn't 100% sure what she wanted to do. She then decided to put college on hold until she had a better idea. She moved in with her boyfriend and was working whilst she was pregnant but then became ill so had to stop and they moved into a council house. He still worked but they couldn't afford the private rent without the extra wage. When her DD was 2 and able to go to playgroup she went back to college.

In that situation do people really think they should have been denied a council house?

Also I don't think getting pregnant at any age is something to be proud of. The actual getting pregnant is not really rocket science or an achievement it's just sort of the luck of the drawer isn't it?

I don't see why teenagers who have finished school should be ashamed of having a baby. The legal age to have sex is 16, so why are people saying 16 and younger should be unacceptable? Younger than 16 yes, 16 and over no, not if that's what they want, they are in a stable relationship and at least one of them is working.

TheMightyToosh Tue 29-Sep-09 17:27:47 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster
"
"Gordon... has just said that 16 and 17 year old mums will now not be given council houses"

Ergo, they were being given houses before, but won't be anymore.

So yes, I think that proves my point, that this does happen."

Nope, it proves that Gordon thinks this is what happens. Or perhaps simply that this is what Gordon thinks the voters think. Politics is about keeping the electorate happy. And no easier way of doing it than by shooting down straw men.

someone asked what happens in Holland. I don't know, but I have some experience of Sweden which also has low teenage pregnancy rates but a tolerant attitude towards teenage sex (and a complete lack of understanding of the concept of chastity belts

basically, teenagers ime would be more careful in the first place, and more likely to have an abortion if they did get pregnant

in Sweden the teens and early twenties are commonly seen as a time for having fun - so very few people would risk that

this may be about to change: pockets of social deprivation are developing and a consequently negative outlook on life among young people (there have been riots this summer)

but on the whole, most teens ime would think you were mad if you suggested that getting stuck in a council flat with a baby would be the best solution for getting through your late teens

Cory - take a look back up the thread to see several posters say they know people who have done this. It's not a straw man, unfortunately.

I was in the hairdressers last week and the girl cutting my hair was FUMING that all the new social housing flats built by her had all been allocated to teenage mothers. She said she and her boyfriend were paying through the nose for private rented accommodation, saving to get married, but now she thought they'd got it all wrong.

Frankly I don't blame these girls. They're making a simple economic decision. Maybe they don't think through it as coldly as that, but nonetheless they see many of their peers doing all right, or anyway are certainly not put off at all.

fircone - don't you wonder though why these girls see it as a good economic decision to live on £100 a week??

I would like to know how long ago these massess of 16/17yr olds got given nice council houses so quickly/easily. Because, maybe in some parts of the country its different, but in most places it's extremely difficult for anyone to get council housing, let alone a 16yr old girl who has parents who could let her live there.

I once knew of a teenage girl who was given a council flat after having a baby but she never actually went to live in it. She stayed at home with her parents. The flat remained empty and this was always her intention

The thing is, it's not just £100 a week. It's all the other benefits too - council tax, housing benefit, free prescriptions, concessions, tax credits, etc, etc.

I work hard, earn good money, so does my DH, but by the time we've paid out for all our bills, mortgage and childcare, we're lucky if we have £100 a week spending money left! And these girls get it all for doing nothing!

It is a culture among some parts of society, unfortunatley, and some people know how to play the system so that they get incomes to rival mine, off benefits alone. If the girl comes from a family where living off benefits is the norm, they know how to do it and they don't think it is unusual.

That's why the chain needs to be broken, so that it stops being a normal way of life and starts becoming a safety net only for those who genuinely need it.

[Disclaimer: I am only talking about the minority of girls who chose to get pregnant and live this way of life by choice, and have no intention of working to pay their own way. If you are a young mother reading this who works or is genuinely in need of benefits through no fault of your own, I am not talking about you, so please don't start the whole 'tarring every young mother with the same brush' argument again. Thank you] Phew

On the question of how do these girls get the houses, one case I know of, the mother (reluctantly, at the request of her DD] wrote a letter to the council stating that if they didn't house her, she and the baby would be homeless as she was not welcome or there was no room for her (not sure which) at her parents' house.

That is how she managed to get a brand new council house.

Of course, the mother was mortified by this situation, absolutely devastated to have to do such a thing. Please don't come back with 'why did she do that, why couldn't the DD stay at home... etc etc' as I don't know the ins and outs and it isn't really the point anyway - I just wanted to illustrate that there are ways and means for these girls to get the houses, and they do do it.

what about when the girls get older??? if, by the time they are 18 they are still not working and earning money, won't they automatically get a council / housing association house anyway??

no it's £100 a week to live on - that's including the tax credits and child benefit for one child. Being on benefits doesn't get you reduced food, or electricity, or gas, or water, or bus fares into town, or money to replace the iron when it dies. I'm not talking about £100 "spare" I'm talking about £100 a week to pay all the bills except for council tax and housing and feed yourselves, clothe your children. I couldn't imagine being in a position where I thought that £400 a month (excluding housing/council tax) was a good economic place to be.

IME the case you know of is lucky, there are usually many questions asked when they are living with parents when they apply for housing, and even if they are lucky and get put on the list it's almost always into temporary accommodation (B&B, hostels etc) until a house becomes available.

mummee - they're not more likely to "automatically" get a council house when they hit 18. Just like I wouldn't automatically get a council house if I were to be forced out of my home - they go on the list as does everyone else. There's no "extra point" for being a single 18yr old mum as opposed to being a 38yr old single mum.

WARNING - CONTROVERSIAL POST COMING UP.

If the children having children and the associated benefits and resources needed to support this plus the potential outcome of the children brought up in such an environment of benefit dependency worries the taxpaying public and its government isn't we all started to think the unthinkable.

I'm talking about offering incentives not to get pregnant at an early age and be totally dependant on the state.

The savings from providing for those who are identified as at risk of going down this route could be recycled into some form of incentive scheme not to get pregnant. Contraception is free, birth control advice is free and it's not rocket science, there any many different methods of birth control. Why not reward those identified at risk for sticking with birth control ?

Scrap child trust funds totally and child benefit for those earning in excess of maybe £60,000 by all means BUT use the money to prevent teenage pregnancy rather than to fund the consequences thereof.

OOPS should have proof-read that

it should read...

"isn't it time we all started to think the unthinkable"

Always - I see what you mean. I guess I'm looking at it from the point of view that they are also "saving" (for want of a better word) the say £500-700 a month on rent/mortgage, maybe £400+ a month on childcare in order to be able to work, £however much on council tax, etc that the rest of us have to work hard in order to pay. And they are getting all that for doing nothing. Plus there are means-tested benefits such as Sure Start grants for pregnant women, which I don't qualify for, etc. So Ok the £100 has to pay food and bills, granted, but there is a lot more in the way of 'hidden' benefits that add up to an annual income that isn't bad for doing bugger all.

I agree, though, I would hate to be in the position where £400 a month to live on is seen as a good lifestyle choice, but if they come from that culture, and from a background where they are used to living off very little, they won't see that it is a probelm until they try to live on it and find they can't, and that's when you get credit card and store credit debts etc building up because what seemed like a good idea at the time is now showing itself to be a bit more difficult. Plus, 16-17 yr olds generally don;t have a good idea of the value of money or cost of living. You don't get that until you've had to run your own house and finances, and by the time they've decided to have a baby, it is too late.

sitdown (good name) - could work. In a way, at the moment, the promise of benefits is almost an incentive to get pregnant in some cases, rather than to deter them. [Disclaimer: I said in some cases]

I haven't read the whole post but I had DS when I was 17 and went to look at one of those 'supported housing' places. It was horrible. One big children's home, where both babies and mothers are baby sat all day and the mothers are routinely patronised.

I was living in hell with my parents and had no where else to go. landlords in my area flatly refuse tenants on housing benefits. DP and I were both studying full time and DP worked all week-end. We could not get a council flat. The waiting list down here has thousands of families all wanting to move because they live somewhere innapropriate (both poeple who need it genuinelly and those who abuse the system).

So I stayed with my mum, then moved to my dads, got kicked out and lived with DP's parents. Now I am qualified and provide a home for myself.

I would never live in supported housing. EVER. What about providing housing for those who can't afford it but don't need baby sitting themselves all day? What if there was an incentive such as, if you are studing (and actually acheiving ok on your course), then we will provide housing?

IMO supported housing is just an excuse to sit in a newly built flat while someone else cooks, cleans, looks after your kids and pays the bills.

It's appropriate for girls who get pregnant at 13/14/15 but at 17 you should know how to cook and use and a washing machine and I get mighty pissed of everytime someone suggests I need help with it.

The thing that really gets me is that at 17, I was ready to be a mum and I've done well. I was capable of doing my job well, the only question was qualifications. I could've done my NVQ instead of GCSE's, I would have been actually qualified and able to work when I left school and therefore be working before I got pregnant, so I would never have a been on benefits.

Imagine a world where the education system actually prepared you for the real world...wouldn't that be nice? Instead you leave with 10 GCSE's that in no way teach you how to do a job. Why can't we learn a trade younger? It's not sex education they need, it's life education. Young people can't provide for themselves when they leave school so how will they provide for their kids?

We got the Sure Start grant when we were both working .

I tell you what from experience (admittedly much older than 16/17 (so got the highest rate of IS) and with 3 children so more tax credits, child benefits) it might sound like an easy life, and all that - but it's not quite the barrel of laughs it's made out to be. While I appreciated the "saving" on housing costs (I had to top up £70 a month as the house I found that would accept HB was more than the amount I was entitled to) and council tax - it certainly didn't feel like much of a saving.

Interesting point you made about credit - don't you have to be 18 to get credit from most places? So they wouldn't be able to do that. I was "lucky" that Littlewoods Direct gave me a credit account when I was single, which I rarely used (only used it to pay stuff off within the interest free period) - which meant that I had the securty of knowing that if my washing machine broke down, or my fridge stopped working I could if absolutely necesary buy it on credit.

I've been getting letters offering me loans from my bank for years and I'm only 20 so maybe they can give them to under 18s? I always say no.

And living on benefits is no barrel of laughs. The goverment is nothing but a bully. Every letter I ever got stared with a threat to cut my benefits if I did not do what they asked and it's so unnessacery. I always told the truth, I filled out every bloody form and was never late in returning them. I attended every 'lone-parent' meeting I had to go (despite being in a long term relastionship, with DS's father, I was still put in the 'lone-parent' box). Why do they think it's ok to threaten young girls?

I don't know - I stand to be corrected on that age thing for credit

Parenting skills for young underclass mums are known to be very bad, and this perpetuates the cycle of underprivledge. I think the idea of supportive accomodation is a good one.

We have come a long way from the pre-60s.