Social Housing, single mothers and failing the next generation - A co-operative answer

Abject failure, pure bloody abject failure. That is what Great Britain PLC is facing. That is what Barnet Council is facing. What am I talking about? Social housing. If you are sixteen (the age of my eldest daughter) what sort of a life faces you? If you have aspirations, you will go to University and end up with £20-30,000 worth of debt when you enter the workplace. And it in, say ten years time, you have worked hard at Uni, got a decent job paying say £45,000 per annum (which most people won't) and you've met someone you like what then? You want to buy somewhere to live? Mortgage lenders lend on 3 X salary. So you have £20 odd grand debt. You can borrow £135,000.Do you know of a place in Barnet going for that money. And that is for someone who has done well. The only way you could start to afford it, is if you have a rich mummy and daddy who can bale you out. Does that encourage self sufficiency?

And what about the other end of the social spectrum? What about the kids who leave school at 18 with no proper qualifications, with no wealthy mums or dads to help them. What about those kids who want to escape from home. There is only one easy solution. Have a child and get a council to accomodate you. Do I think this is wrong? Well I don't criticise people who are shafted by an unfair system, the human race is resilient and inventive. That is why we have prospered. I most certainly don't expect anyone to lie back and get punched in the face by the system, every day of their life for ever.

So you get a flat, you get your benefits and what then? You can't work, because you've got a child. You have no qualifications, so you won't get a decent job anyway. Would I stack cans in Tescos for the minimum wage (or nothing as the government seems to think you should), if I could get by on benefits? Do me a favour.

And what is even more perverse is the number of empty properties in nice areas, such as Barnet. The Council don't own these, private landlords do. For whatever reason, they are often quite happy to let the properties sit empty and rotting. Especially in these times of austerity, where no one will lend you money to do them up.

Morrissey & Band campaign against benefit scroungers at Santiago gig

And then what about the educational prospects for single mothers, on benefits with child? How can they ever learn? The Barnet Eye has been approached by a "social entrepreneur" who believes he has an answer. Does he? Well I don't know, but I do know that his ideas at the very least are worthy of discussion.

Consider this. If you have a block of flats or properties,  which could accomodate say 20-30 single mothers in decent accommodation, with children, but these properties are currently empty, who benefits? Councils spend a small fortune on "rental accomodation". This money is solves the immediate issue of housing, but nothing else. Just suppose that each of the single mothers was offered the opportunity to study, with a view to finding their way into the workplace as their child grows. But you may ask, what about the childcare. Well surely if there are 20-30 mothers in a similar situation, between them they could operate a co-operative creche service. If each mother gave 3 hours a week, then the children could be cared for, at virtually nil cost. The women could then get qualifications and part time jobs.

So what would the council need to do? Simply make funds available to support the finding of suitable locations for the creche and training and safeguarding. In the long term, the schemes could be self financing, but seed money is clearly needed to get the program working. By combining micro-financing (small scale loans from the co-operative to the women), people could be raised out of poverty and the cycle of despair broken. Where does the private element come in? Well with so much property, surely it is in the councils interests to get private landlords with empty buildings to participate. If the members of the scheme were signed up to fixed term contracts, then surely this would offer income and guarantees. The person who contacted me tells me that he already has schemes running and has a 97% success rate in helping break the cycle of despair. He has asked me to introduce him to the people I know at Barnet Council, with a view to running a pilot in the Borough.

But before I do (assuming they will listen to any suggestion the Barnet Eye makes), I'd like to hear the views of the people who read my blog? Is this good or bad? Does such schemes have a place in Barnet in 2012? I've heard one side of the story and it sounds good to me. Lets start a debate

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do !

Here's a couple of quotes from the comments on the Evening Standard website about the single mother who Councillor Brian Coleman insulted.

(Here's where you can see all of the comments -
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do )

"The father and mother are responsible for the housing, not the tax payer. Its about time this country realises that!"
- Mike, London, 19/10/2011 14:31

Here's another 

She needa a full time job not scrouging off benefits. Another sickening "I beat my chest" victim of a single mum. People are getting sick to death of this "I suffer more" rubbish!
- Colin from Colindale, Colindale - London, 19/10/2011 13:19

I've left the typos in.  These were not the only comments along these lines. The question is  this - are they fair?
Sharada Osman has a six year old child with special needs. She is a 39 year old single mum. Beyond that we know nothing of her. I am married and have three children, I know that bringing up children is not easy when there are two of you, in employment and your children don't have special needs. The first thing I ask myself about Sharada is this. Does society have a duty to help her? Not knowing the spectrum of problems her son has, it is hard to quantify how much help she needs, but yes. If like me, he's mildly special needs (I'm dyslexic) then I suppose that when he's in his mid to late teens he'll be fairly independent. If he has something more challenging he could require help permanently. Who is best placed to give him this help? The Council? A "home"? The Workhouse?  I'd say that his mum is the best person. Would the (presumably hard right wing) commentators say that a child with special needs which requires a more costly education has no right to a childhood and no right to life? Are they saying that if a child has the possibilty of such issues, they should be aborted? If that is the case, then I would most certainly have found myself in a hospital dustbin in early 1962. I'm dyslexic. I couldn't read or write when I was the age of Sharada's son. I now own a business and employ nine people. It seems that Brian Coleman is not the only one who "lacks empathy", his supporters are also shockingly afflicted. But taking the emotion away, I think there is actually a sensible economic argument for helping people who find themselves in a situation such as Sharada.

Sharada is doing a college course, to help her get a job. These commentators give her no credit for this. What would they prefer, that she gets qualified and gets a decent job in the long term or that she is forced to become a minimum wage slave now? Is it that hard to figure out that she has a sensible plan. As for the comments about the father helping. We know Sharada is single. We know nothing about the father of her child. She has made a decision that she is bringing up a child on her own, what right do we have to criticise her. When I was 18, I briefly went out with a single mum of my age, who had a three year old child (conceived at 14, born at 15), who lived on benefits in a squat and lead what you'd charitably call a chaotic lifestyle. She now has a PhD in psychology and is recognised as a leading expert in her field. We hadn't spoken since 1980, but she got in touch today as a direct result of seeing the story in the Standard website. She saw the blog and then realised who I was and felt the need to have a chat about the story.

So what happened? She cleaned up her lifestyle, got a job, started studying, got a PhD through the Open University and a job where she could help people. Because she is fiercely intelligent (my view) she has done well. She lived on benefits and in squats for 6 1/2 years. She had no help from her family from the age of 15, because of the shame she had brought on them (their opinion). As a result they've never seen their granddaughter (which I believe is quite sadly, their loss). She's happy, settled and like the rest of us she pays her taxes.

Unlike me she takes a completely different view of the type of people like Colin and Mike (who's comments I reproduced). Her view is that such comments are a sign of deep inadequacy. It's not that they have no sympathy for the situation of Sharada, they are scared to death of her. By making such comments, they seek to hide their own vulnerability. Much of this is misogynism. They cannot stand the fact that a woman may not feel the need to have a man in her life. They would rather Sharada was downtrodden and marginalised. This way they feel more secure, knowing that their own place in the "natural order" is preserved. The last thing they would want is someone like Sharada to get qualifications, become successful and prove that if you get a little help from society, you can pay that back many times over. The thing that scares them most is the fact that Sharada will not take these insults lying down. She's had the audacity to answer the big powerful man back and that scares the more inadequate members of male society. Imagine if more women started answering back in this manner? Not something I'd have spotted, but then I've not got the scars of soceity that my friend has.

I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know. I would have just put the comments down to pig ignorance and left it there. What I do know is this, Sharada has a young child and NO CIVILISED SOCEITY and NO CARING PERSON  would want a child to not have a secure home life. I wrote to Sharada yesteday and advised her not to get upset by the comments and not to respond. The trolls who leave them get a perverted satisfaction and sense of power out of upsetting people. It is interesting (and quite hilarious) to read some of the comments suggesting that Sharada has done this for publicity or "set Coleman up". How on earth could she have guessed how he'd respond? Someone even suggested that she'd had a professional photo shoot. Doesn't it occur to these morons that the Evening Standard employ photographers? I'd never heard of Sharada before she sent the email to the Barnet Eye mailbox. The reason the story has been picked up is because it is a very interesting and moving story. It is interesting to note that while half a dozen trolls have left an endless stream of messages, over 736 people recommended the story on Facebook and 366 tweeted it.

I think that gives a far truer view of the feelings of people towards Sharada (and Brian Coleman) than the trolls would want you to believe. As I finished my conversation with my friend earlier today, I asked her if she ever listens the the Anarcho-Punk band Crass, who at the time were our favourite. She was quite taken aback - she said "CRASS?????, Do they owe us a living?" She then said "I'd fogotten about that, it's funny how we've got a recession and things are going full circle. It almost seems quite relevant again".

Sadly, that is so true.