London Housing applicants sent to coast

ukcarper

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes, sometimes the parent with children won't let the non-resident parent have access and there is extensive evidence to suggest non-resident parents often fail to maintain contact with their child or provide financial support.

I think there is also a significant tacit mutual agreement about having children without any need/intention to cohabitate or marry because there is now little stigma attached to lone parents and because since the 80s onwards, the state purse has replaced the non-resident parent as the main source of income for children.

Is it fair to say that part of the increase in HB that the state is struggling to pay for is because lone parents are typically a group that is highly benefit dependent and their numbers have soared exponentially over the last few decades?

Lone parents being shipped out to cheaper areas is perhaps partly due to their high numbers and the growing public expense to support them?

Currently, there are nearly 2 million households headed by a lone parent, up from 1.6 million in 1996 so perhaps this trend means that every 5 years, they could increase by nearly 25%? Perhaps in 2018, there will be 2.4 million lone parents, perhaps in 2023, there might be 3 million?

I've corrected that for you source ONS and of course that figure on it's own is meaningless as you know the make up of those loan parents.

BigAunty

ukcarper wrote: »

I've corrected that for you source ONS and of course that figure on it's own is meaningless as you know the make up of those loan parents.

Thanks for the correction. Here's a bit of context to those figures to stop them being meaningless. It looks like lone parent rates have the capacity to double every 20 years based on the stat below. The employment rate of lone parents has increased in recent years but my assumption is that there is no overall reduction in benefit dependency because of the growth in their overall numbers.

"the employment rates of lone mothers were lower in the early 1990s than they had been in the late 1970s, and, at just 42 percent in 1995, were 24-percentage points lower than the employment rates of married mothers.

The UK is almost alone among OECD countries in having employment rates for lone mothers so far below those of other mothers
and in some countries, such as Spain, employment is higher among single mothers than married mothers. These very low employment rates contributed towards the UK having the highest proportion of children living in jobless households in OECD countries in 1996, and
one of the highest incidences of children in relative income poverty....

The incidence of single parenthood has increased steadily over the last 25 years. The proportion of women with dependent aged children who were lone parents doubled from 8 to 16 percent between 1977/79 and 1998/2000...

as the employment rate rises and those lone parents with the most favourable employment characteristics enter work we may find that the remaining pool of non-employed face greater barriers to employment, as has been the case in the US were the rapid decline in welfare caseloads has meant that the remaining stock of welfare recipients are now harder to reach......

Lone parents are now bringing up 1 in 4 children"

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2007/wp182.pdf

ukcarper

The reason why people are lone parents are many and according to gingerbread less than 2% of lone parents are teenagers and only 6.5% of births are register alone with a further 10% registered by 2 parents living apart. The number of lone parents in work has increased since 1997.

　

John_Pierpoint

To reintroduce a bit of balance, am I not right in thinking that over 50% of children are born to unmarried mothers.
It is when the "couple" bring "home" the 20+ years commitment and £100,000+++ investment project that reality tends to set in.
Never mind "the state" is there to pick up the pieces.

I have an old cynic in my family, at two weddings he has muttered to me "Its not going to work". His score so far is 50%. I think this is in line with the national statistics? So far the "successful" marriage has yet to produce a child.

Generali

Maybe this is in some way controversial but surely if you're expecting someone else to pay for your housing you get what you're given.

It's a bit much to get a free house and then moan that you don't like the town that it's in!

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

Maybe this is in some way controversial but surely if you're expecting someone else to pay for your housing you get what you're given.

It's a bit much to get a free house and then moan that you don't like the town that it's in!

In modern Britain views like that are apt to have you branded as a right wing nutter.

Lots of hand wringing about other countries outperforming the UK in education at the moment. Nanny's blaming other politicians, schools, teachers (nothing to do with parents of course). These things matter but as we've eliminated failure where's the incentive?

In Thailand I have a (middle class) friend who lives in a nice place. However just outside his gate is a massive road bridge which is home to a number of unfortunates. He has no problem motivating his kids to perform at school - they're scared to death of having to go and live under the bridge.

In the UK you're more likely to get a free house with a sea view.

ukcarper

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

To reintroduce a bit of balance, am I not right in thinking that over 50% of children are born to unmarried mothers.
It is when the "couple" bring "home" the 20+ years commitment and £100,000+++ investment project that reality tends to set in.
Never mind "the state" is there to pick up the pieces.

I have an old cynic in my family, at two weddings he has muttered to me "Its not going to work". His score so far is 50%. I think this is in line with the national statistics? So far the "successful" marriage has yet to produce a child.

According to gingerbread less that 20% of children are registered by either a lone parent or parents living apart. Perhaps more effort should be put into helping couples stay together.

I'm not saying every woman who becomes pregnant without the means to support the baby should be given a house but sending them all to the coast is not the answer.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

According to gingerbread less that 20% of children are registered by either a lone parent or parents living apart. Perhaps more effort should be put into helping couples stay together.

I'm not saying every woman who becomes pregnant without the means to support the baby should be given a house but sending them all to the coast is not the answer.

The use of the word 'send' just shows how rich we are and how the dependency culture has taken hold.

No-one is 'sent' anywhere: in exchange for 'free' money they are offered a free (or heavily subsidised) property in a sea side town.

They can stay near their friends and relatives if they wish to make alternative arrangements (and still receive lots of free money from tax payers).

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

The use of the word 'send' just shows how rich we are and how the dependency culture has taken hold.

No-one is 'sent' anywhere: in exchange for 'free' money they are offered a free (or heavily subsidised) property in a sea side town.

They can stay near their friends and relatives if they wish to make alternative arrangements (and still receive lots of free money from tax payers).

So you think it is OK to create ghettos for the unemployed is a good solution I wonder if you would feel the same if it was your area being chosen for that ghetto.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think it is OK to create ghettos for the unemployed is a good solution I wonder if you would feel the same if it was your area being chosen for that ghetto.

I realise you weren't answering my point but if you're not paying for a house yourself and are relying on the rest of society (yeah Thatcher eh) to pay for you instead, how much say should you have in where you live?

I can feel a poll coming on. I've not done one for a bit.