The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday featured a barrage of new policy announcements. 10,000 new green job placements; free childcare for a quarter of a million two-year-olds; scrapping compulsory ID cards; legislation on international aid in the budget; speedy diagnosis for cancer patients; free personal care for elderly people with the highest need; measures to allow constituencies to recall their MP where there is proven financial corruption; and a referendum on the Alternative Vote.
However, there is another policy that has caused widespread concern, as this analysis by Tweetminster show.
Brown announced that "From now on all 16- and 17-year-old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly."
I do understand why many are already expressing concern about it, from Rowenna Davis‘ criticism of Brown’s language, to Anne Perkins‘ accusations of Daily Mailism, to outright allegations of fascism on (where else) Twitter.
The language was indeed ambiguous, and that was unfortunate (although let us be very clear that Gordon Brown did not criticise single mothers in the slightest; any suggestion that he did may reflect more about the prejudices of some of those listening). When the Prime Minister spoke of a teenage mother being ‘given the keys to a council flat and…left on her own’ I do not believe he was accusing young parents of getting pregnant as a means to housing. As Anne Perkins pointed out, research has shown that this motivation is a myth. Instead, some young people try to create families in the hope of providing the love and comfort they never found with their own; and thus they may have children without the help and support of the wider family networks upon which so many parents rely.
This is what the Prime Minister wishes to address. He is not unhappy that teenage mothers are given the keys to a council flat. He is unhappy that they are not given any help once they are in it.
So what help is he proposing? The policy outline in the speech was, I agree, frustratingly vague, and I feel this has led to much of the opposition to it. But we did get some clues: he mentioned Dundee, where family intervention was used to great effect in the Dundee Families Project.
As the Prime Minister touched upon, the Dundee project helped vulnerable families by housing them in shared blocks. While they were there, they could access ‘a range of services through individual and couple counselling, family support and group work…support 24-hours a day all year…after-school and young persons’ group activities…groups for adults have covered cookery, parenting skills, anger management and tenancy issues.’
It sounds all right, doesn’t it?
For too long the role of the state when it comes to the family has seemed either to be removing children from households, or doing nothing at all. Families across the country are crying out for a middle way – for the help that will allow them to stay together and that will enable parents to be the very best they can be.
If Labour is to fight back effectively we must be clear about our message; and every Labour supporter should be clear about what the Prime Minister announced today. It’s not the Tories’ marriage incentives. It’s not the ban on divorce proposed by a Tory PPC last night at a conference fringe. It’s not the mandatory knee-length skirts suggested by the fruitcakes of the BNP. It’s not paternalism, it’s not Victorian, it’s not the workhouse. It is real support to be offered to those who really need it. And I believe that as they did with the rest of his inspiring speech today, the Party, and the country, should be applauding it loudly.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Your naivety is endearing. The notion that social housing discourages aspiration to home ownership is so bonkers as to be entertaining. My friend, millions of your fellow citizens will spend the whole of their lives working like dogs and never getting ahead. They will never have savings in the bank. They will never be able to mortgage a home because they will never be able to accumulate enough capital to be able to put down a deposit in today's risk adverse world. Without social housing such respectable and industrious citizens will fall into the hands of private landlords able to extort ridiculous market determined rents on run down properties, with insecure tenancies that can be terminated with the stroke of a pen potentially throwing families out onto the street.
The nation desperately needs a massive programme of social house building. It should have been begun before labour and land costs became massively inflated post 1997. If Blair had been an honest man who honoured his Party's manifesto pledges this would have been one of the first things he would have done as promised before his first electoral victory.
I think the idea of institutionalising some of the most helpless and vulnerable people in society, in what is virtually some kind of open prison, is entirely disgraceful and I find it hard to believe that any bona fide member of the Labour Party with a moral purpose and a compassionate heart could support or endorse such a brutal, unenlightened and unconscionable policy . As far as I know not even the Conservatives have suggested implementing something so draconian and unjust... yet. Even so I marvel at Gordon "man with a moral compass" Brown's ignorance, insensitivity and harshness.
The Labour Party, once so vibrant and once so alive, is no more.
Throw a handful of earth into its grave while you have the chance.
thanks for your post. To clarify, I don't see social housing as discouraging aspiration. Simply that it shouldn't be the extent of people's aspirations. Although I take your point that for some the reality can't be more due the wages they get- however for others maybe they could own a home if they made the necessary sacrafices. In these cases it is a matter of choice.
(Perhaps they have cable)
The fact remains, thanks to "flexible" workforce policies which NL have encouraged more and more people are on less secure "temporary" contract work. Blair just really continued Tory employment policies, and we all know his antipathy towards the unions. Due to the uncertainty that such work brings fewer people will risk trying to buy their own homes, which is just another reason for ensuring that we build social housing. If you can't afford to buy a home, the only other option is for private landlords, which is hardly secure tenancy.
I agree that social housing is important and we need more. However, some people could, I believe buy their own home ( thus freeing up a council house for others) if they made different choices re: their lifestyle.
My point re Sky and fags is that some people spend thousands on these 'luxury' extras rather than save for deposit, as such it is irrelevant if home owners have Sky etc as they aren't being subsidised by the tax payer. There is only so much money and housing to go around so those that can look after themselves should.
10,000 new green job placements; did you not just allow the only Company in the UK who make the blades for wind Turbines to go bust? this figure has been plucked from the air. Also what about all the jobs thet will be lost when replacing old technologies? normallt better Technology means less jobs?
free childcare for a quarter of a million two-year-olds; achieved by cutting the middle classes, if you earn £40K or more your bill will rise substantially.
scrapping compulsory ID cards; only if you never want to leave the Country, remember you can't get a passport without an I.D card, another disgusting con.
speedy diagnosis for cancer patients; we don't have the equipment or the Doctors/Nurses to do this, pie in the sky when you have no money left to pay for this.
free personal care for elderly people with the highest need; another uncosted lie, Gordon hates people who save money and will always look to screw them over.
measures to allow constituencies to recall their MP where there is proven financial corruption; this will only apply when someone is caught doing something truly horrific, if as we all know MPs continue to steal our money its all within the rules, so this won't apply!!
and a referendum on the Alternative Vote; ahh well we all know why you suddenly want to change the voting system as its the only way you will have any MPs left, you have had 12 years to bring this in.
Sorry but its all lies, the UK debt is increasing by £6000 a second, its time to stop spending, the only thing Labour can do, when will you realise there is no money left, its gone, all gone.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud your anti-fascist passion but IMHO it is misdirected on this occassion and it lessens the horrific meaning of the term when it is thrown about cheaply.
I would welcome more of this fresh policy thinking to solve the other social issues that we have been suffering in the UK (eg how do we deal with repeat offenders? How do we best help addicts get clean?)
With your own record of being removed from your post at York Uni after assaulting a fellow student while you were drunk, frankly we don't want lectures from you on how to improve parenting or the morality of 16 year old women.
Defies belief.
Lay off the coffee for a while maybe, it will help you see this as an innovative solution to a problem that is very real and needs to be addressed by a labour govt otherwise the Tories will do it when next they are in office.
They lied about it's purpose.
They lied about it's scope.
They lied about it's cost.
They lied about us being consulted.
Brown is a lying hoon and the sooner we're shot of him and his ilk the better.
“…that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures.”
Kraft durch Freude!
There are evidently NO depths which Brown will not plumb. The general election campaign is going to be truly evil- at least from Labour's side.
This revolting idea was no doubt dragged in to make a pathetic attempt to appeal to Daily Mail readers.
As for " And I believe that as they did with the rest of his inspiring speech today, the Party, and the country, should be applauding it loudly." well, Ms Grace Double-Barrell, I'd put it to you a lot of the applause for that leaden speech was really for sympathy (and it was probably cued by the cheerleaders anyway).
Change and Choice, change and choice, choice and change. Something for everybody and nothing for long - because lets be honest, in eight months time Brown won't be in a position to do anything.
By the way this great "new" idea was floated by Blair YEARS ago.......
Aylesbury Dad "
Perhaps not, but thanks to the "flexible" employment policies of both the last Tory and the 97-10 New labour government, with it's emphasis on short-term contract work, that is the most many people can hope for.
Unemployment continues to rise, and more and more people will be forced into low-security jobs THAT is why it is so disgraceful brown did not keep the promise to mount a massive programme of social house building which he promised in Jun 2007.
This right-wing codswallop, so enthusiastically embraced by grace Double-Barrell is, I am afraid, just another example of the tired, uninspired posturings of a clapped out government coming to the end of the road. Of course, the alternative is just as bad.
I'm glad we both agree on social housing - a necessary but non-aspirational part of the welfare state.
However, I'm concerned that you are pre-judging Grace's article because she has a double barrelled name. It implies certain prejudices that are first unsavoury (I.e an anti-middle class inverse snobbery) and may be wrongly directed (see Grace's blog where she deals with the origin of her name).
I assume we all want equality of opportunity for all UK citizens? In which case you can't exclude people on the basis of their name!
"Grace You really do need to think this through don't you.
With your own record of being removed from your post at York Uni after assaulting a fellow student while you were drunk, frankly we don't want lectures from you on how to improve parenting or the morality of 16 year old women. "
(This was discussed before on LL)
It is just another example of the arrogance and hypocrisy of New labour types. I suppose we ought to be grateful Mr David Blunkett didn't make a speech like Brown's, and that we ought to be grateful that the woman he so brazenly boasted about making pregnant was a mature woman, albeit, another man's wife, rather than a 17 year old, as she might have ended up in one of Brown's institutions.
I suppose we should also be greatful that former minister Patricia Hewitt didn't lecture us on the dangers of Heroin. This time, though she has done so in the past.
We cannot allow this right-wing knee-jerk type of policy on the hoof (filched from the Revd Blair a decade ago) to be propounded by a LABOUR (so-called PM) however desperate he is to ingratiate himself with the Daily Mail.
And, given Grace's less than spotless reputation, I don't think she should be making moral judgements, frankly.
To be brutally frank, given her past actions, Grace is in no position to lecture anybody.
P's. Agree re: comments on Blunkett
You can't have it both ways anymore, we have stopped believing the lies!
What Gordon Brown actually implied in his speech yesterday was that juvenile single parents MUST take up a place in one of his proposed "Foyers" (copied from the French) in order to continue receiving assistance from the tax payer. I infer from this that were any of these poor unfortunates to refuse such a residential placement they would be punished in some way for their defiance, probably by means of a Purnellian sanction or similar, i.e., have some (or all) of their social security cut off temporarily (or permanently).
This is a completely unworthy and disgraceful policy for the Labour Party to have embraced. I do not think that Party strategists realise how repugnant this idea actually is to the core Labour voter, most of whom have managed to retain their moral consciences in a manner the Labour leadership have failed to do.
This sorry spectacle is lamentable and unbelievably damaging.
Unbelievably awful even for the abysmal Gordon.
"There is NOTHING wrong with an offer of SOLIDARITY, of SUPPORT, of CARE."
My understanding of the proposal is that if implemented it will not be "offered" to juvenile parents on a voluntary basis but forced on them leaving them to face a penalty of absolute destitution and homelessness if they refuse to toe the line. (Very much along the lines of the simpering James Purnell's infamous welfare reform bill.) Brown's announcement implied that sixteen and seventeen year old girls who give birth to a child out of wedlock would be compelled into moving into a Foyer residentially or stripped of their right to welfare and benefits if they disobey.
It really is like something out of a Dickens novel. I wonder if the state will employ characters like the Child Catcher out of Roald Dahl's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to round up recalcitrant mothers and babes in arms and consign them to a Foyer. I wouldn't be surprised. There seems nothing too base for the Labour Party to embrace if they think there might be a few hysterical Daily Mail reader votes in it for them.
In Hamlet Act 3, scene 1, the principal character castigates the helpless Ophelia with the words:
:
"Get thee to a nunn'ry, why woulds't thou be a breeder of sinners?"
The Brownian paraphrase of the above might be:
"Send juvenile single parents to a Foyer, under threat of starvation if they answer back or get uppity, why should hard-working families pay taxes so that scum can become breeders of anti-social bastards?"
Utterly shameful and revolting.
How did a man so heartless, incompetent, cowardly and dishonest as Gordon Brown ever become leader of the Labour Party? The malignant cancerous leadership of the Party post-Blair has destroyed us. And yet eight months of agony remains ahead of us until the general election administers the coup de grâce and put us all out of our misery.
all this will change is how the state provides accomadation for young mums. If they choose not to take up the offer and to stay in the parental home or move in with their partner then that is their choice. If either of these options aren't open to them then the state will still house them, in addition they will get the support and advice that the family would once have provided.
This is the most enlighted bit of thinking seen in the UK for years!
P's. Bill, I googled "lebensborn" and to compare the two policies is stretching the point too far and frankly a bit insulting to the Polish children that were kidnapped as part of the Nazi's policy.
You will stigmatise not only the girl but the resulting child.
There has been FAR TOO MUCH "compulsion" in a lot of NL policy and their view of what is good for the masses.
This was just another bit of nonsense for the benefit for any Daily Express/Mail reader who might be taken in.
Brown sounded yesterday as if he were back somewhere in the 1950s when a sanctimonious sounding organisation called "The National Council For the Unmarried Mother And her Child" held sway with a lot of lady bountifuls. they, too, would like to think they offered - how did you put it? - "SOLIDARITY, of SUPPORT, of CARE". And make the poor girl feel like a criminal into the bargain. Do we really need any more compulsion and judgement from this shower of has-beens?.
And you're right, what about those lads and men who have got the girls pregnant in the first place?. What will happen to them?. Nothing.
“Starting now and right across the next parliament, every one of the 50,000 most chaotic families will be part of a family intervention project —with clear rules and clear punishments if they don’t stick to them.”
See good summary article at http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2009/09/30/newsstory13869657t0.asp
Properly done, these places could be a huge boost to a young mum's capability & confidence. All the better for their babies.
That you now have try and tell us what Gordon really meant is ridiculous. The policy was clearly a back of the fag packet attempt at populism.