Cameron targetting single mothers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


8:36am UK, Monday June 25, 2012

Peter Spencer, political correspondent

David Cameron will later suggest moves toward slashing benefits for families and young people as he warns the welfare system is causing deep social divisions.
The Prime Minister is to suggest stripping housing benefit from the under-25s and forcing them to live with their parents.

He will also float time-limited unemployment benefit, and hint at restricting handouts for those who have large numbers of children.

To his core supporters, Mr Cameron's welfare crackdown is a new solution to an old problem - how to make sure people do not do better out of work than in it.

But, to his detractors, it is a cruel shifting of the goalposts, with the Government ducking its responsibility to ensure the economy generates employment.

Undeterred, the Prime Minister will say: "We have, in some ways, created a welfare gap in this country - between those living long-term in the welfare system and those outside it.



The PM wants to see people doing more to find jobs

"Those within it grow up with a series of expectations - you can have a home of your own, the state will support you whatever decisions you make, you will always be able to take out no matter what you put in.

"This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing.

"It gave us millions of working-age people sitting at home on benefits even before the recession hit. It created a culture of entitlement.

"And it has led to huge resentment amongst those who pay into the system, because they feel that what they're having to work hard for, others are getting without having to put in the effort."

At this stage, Mr Cameron is not talking about Government policy, only the potential direction of travel.

But it is clear that he would like to see people having to make more effort to find jobs, or risk losing the dole.

Controversially, he favours the removal of housing benefit for most under-25s.

He will say: "I want to stress that a lot of these young people will genuinely need a roof over their head, like those leaving foster care, or those with a terrible, destructive home life - and we must always be there for them.


This is a hazy and half-baked plan when we need a serious back-to-work programme for young families.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne
"But there are many who will have a parental home and somewhere to stay - they just want more independence.

"The point is this: the system we inherited encourages them to grab that independence, rather than earn it. So we have to ask, 'Up to what age should we expect people to be living at home?'"

It is a radical posture, and one that cuts little ice with either the Labour opposition, or with campaigners for the homeless.

Shelter maintains that, as around half of under-25s on housing benefit have children, the changes envisaged would generate serious and widespread hardship.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said: "This is a hazy and half-baked plan when we need a serious back-to-work programme for young families.

"Many young families with their first foot on the career ladder will be knocked off if help with their rent is taken away.

"And young families that want to work won't be able to move where the jobs are."

It is also clear to the Conservative leadership that the ideas mooted will find little favour with its coalition partners - though that would appear to be part of the plan.

Most commentators believe it is designed to deflect attention from the party's internal difficulties that started with the rows over the Budget and are now focused on the Government's plans for Lords reforms - plans that Liberal Democrats love as much as many Tories hate.

In the longer term, the Prime Minister's pitch seems part of a strategy for the next election - staking out distinctive Tory territory.

His hope, naturally, is for his party to win outright.

The fear is that swathes of vulnerable people could turn out to be the losers.

For once Cameron is talking sense even though he may just be grandstanding.

I live in a City where there are far too many single Mothers who claim every benefit imaginable. There is one Housing Estate, comparatively new which
has been called "Single City" because it has so many single Mothers housed there. I do believe there are many young girls who have no fear of
becoming pregnant because they know the Governernment will look after them and pay for everything. There is no excuse for a young girl to become pregnant today, Clinics provide free contraception , even for the boys , a morning after pill , and today you don't even have to take a pill every night, you can get one to take every 3 months. If a teenager becomes pregnant all the Mother has to do is write a letter saying she will not be able to cope
and gives her daughter 28 days notice to leave. The Daughter is then placed in a facility for single mothers and housed with everything paid for by the
Taxpayer.

I know that like me Panda you will remember the days when it was considered absolutely dreadful to be unmarried and pregnant, even if you weren't a teenager. I can't think of anything legal today which is regarded like that. I certainly would not want to return to those times but the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.

I certainly would be happy if it was compulsary for unsupported mothers to remain the responsibility of their own families if at all possible.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I know that like me Panda you will remember the days when it was considered absolutely dreadful to be unmarried and pregnant, even if you weren't a teenager. I can't think of anything legal today which is regarded like that. I certainly would not want to return to those times but the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.

I certainly would be happy if it was compulsary for unsupported mothers to remain the responsibility of their own families if at all possible.

Morning NBY, it was regarded as bringing shame on yourself and your Parents if you were an unmarried Mother. Today, anything goes and because our
Welfare State is groaning at the weight, in these desperate times with the situation likely to last for Years something has to be done and rather than
reduce the care to the sick and elderly, target these young girls who cost the Country a fortune. These young Mothers wear the latest fashion, as
do their offspring , some have three children but no father can be found to pay maintenance and these young girls will never work. I have a friend who works, as does her Husband , yet when her Daughter became pregnant they were happy enough to sign the letter to evict her. They didn't fall out with
their daughter but just didn't want the responsibility and it was the only way their daughter would be housed quickly.

I think people will carry on having children and if benefits are cut, it's the children who will suffer. There is probably a lot more money lost to the country through Cameron's cronies who pay little or no UK income tax than is paid out in benefits to single parents.

AnnaEsse wrote:I think people will carry on having children and if benefits are cut, it's the children who will suffer. There is probably a lot more money lost to the country through Cameron's cronies who pay little or no UK income tax than is paid out in benefits to single parents.

It's education that is needed, to stop these youngsters who think they can have babies without a thought on how they will manage. I worked in the NHS , part-time and there would be boys blowing up their condoms outside like balloons, girls who were too lazy to take precautions but old enough to
realise the consequences if they did not.

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I think people will carry on having children and if benefits are cut, it's the children who will suffer. There is probably a lot more money lost to the country through Cameron's cronies who pay little or no UK income tax than is paid out in benefits to single parents.

It's education that is needed, to stop these youngsters who think they can have babies without a thought on how they will manage. I worked in the NHS , part-time and there would be boys blowing up their condoms outside like balloons, girls who were too lazy to take precautions but old enough to
realise the consequences if they did not.

Whatever we think about the reasons these young women get pregnant, the children don't ask to be born and imo should not suffer because of lack of support.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I think people will carry on having children and if benefits are cut, it's the children who will suffer. There is probably a lot more money lost to the country through Cameron's cronies who pay little or no UK income tax than is paid out in benefits to single parents.

It's education that is needed, to stop these youngsters who think they can have babies without a thought on how they will manage. I worked in the NHS , part-time and there would be boys blowing up their condoms outside like balloons, girls who were too lazy to take precautions but old enough to
realise the consequences if they did not.

Whatever we think about the reasons these young women get pregnant, the children don't ask to be born and imo should not suffer because of lack of support.

The children would not suffer, either the girls wake up and take precautions so they don't get pregnant once they realise the Taxpayer will not pay for their selfishness, or they will live with their Families until they can support themselves and the child or if there is evidence of neglect the children will be adopted and the Mother made sterile. It's a case of tough measures for tough situations and I think pregnancies would drop dramatically when the girls realise they will not get new homes, cheap loans to buy Washing Machines, Cookers etc. The public will be behind this when the elderly who have paid
their taxes , the unemployed through no fault of their own , the genuine claims for benefit are denied.