This is an appalling, shocking and tragic story and now NL seizes the ’Fiona Pilkington’s case’ to go on an anti-social frenzied bender. But Brown nor Johnson will concentrate on the underlying reasons why this kind of behaviour exists. Instead it will be about tagging, curfews and ASBOs… which will mean further criminalisation.
And NL will never take responsiblity or accountability for creating the very conditions for ‘anti-social’ behaviour to happen. The politics of neoliberalism further oppresses, atomises and alienates people, pushes people into a corner, how to deal with this powerlessness is to bully and victimise people in a worse situation than yourself and are less powerful than yourself.
NL has generally pitted working class people against each other, divided people and isolated them. That’s central to the ideology of neoliberalism. And the society NL has created reflects this. Neoliberalism is not about transforming society into an equitable and positive one, where people have self-worth and self-confidence. It is, instead, about divide and rule, dog-eat-dog mentality. So what kind of values are instilled in people?
Furthermore, Gordon Brown’s speech today contains more ways of stigmatising young people,especially young women and that’s supervised homes for pregnant teenagers. What message does that highlight? The emphasis being on ‘responsibility’ again, the usual favourite loose language of NL.. There is nothing intrinsically progressive about this rather Victorian retrograde step of shoving young women into ‘supervised homes’…(it also comes across as punishing the young woman for getting pregnant in the first place).
And central to this is will the woman be able to choose or will the ‘choice’ be forced upon her with the threat of benefit sanctions..? Again, I am only guessing but knowing NL’s track record, well, I wouldn’t put it past them.
And what has been noted is where are the resources to do this, including the money, what will it entail? All there is at the moment is half-baked policies to appeal to whom?
It is well worth reading Kevin’s post on this issue regarding anti-social behaviour. Thought provoking.
Paul and I each have our reactions to the speech on our site and the objections being noted are much the same as yours.
I would say, though, that an archipelago of state funded ‘refuge’-like communal homes for single teenage mothers (couples?) – appropriately supervised by welfare professionals as well as, circumstances allowing, the girl’s parents, would be a good idea. It at least allows choices for young people in difficult living situations.
The solution is simple for single pregnant teenage women…..more social housing. Dead simple. No patronising workhouse style institutions because that’s what this proposal smacks of. Utterly offensive.
And if young people want to live in a communal home, simple solution….social housing where they will have the freedom to choose who they want around, not the decisions being made by and supervised by professionals.
Surely it is up to the pregnant young woman to make those decisions? Esp. as the proposals are so moralistic.
More social housing!!
Absolutely – more social housing. Choice and flexibility in such matters is important, and it won’t exist without a massive building programme. Which, unsurprisingly, was absent.
And another absolutely. That’s the challenge – to make decent policy out of an odious speech. It can be done.
Thanks for the link – and a good post too, with all the politics I would have added if I hadn’t been banging on about my own experiences.
It has long been the case that NL are ‘tough on crime, shite on the causes of crime’, but they are not alone: I’ve had plenty of occasion to argue with what the government likes to call ‘Hampstead liberals’ that boredom (requiring more youth clubs, the sort of places I avoided when I was a youth) or poverty, or powerlessness, are ‘reasons’ why crime occurs, but never excuses. Causes, however, are something quite different, as you’ve highlighted: an atomised, individualistic capitalist society where solidarity and shared values are undermined, where ‘respect’ is a personal matter rather than something you give to the people around you.
The problem I have with ASBOs is the extraordinary breadth of what constitutes criminal anti-social behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. The problem I have with the police is that they don’t need ASBOs, as they already have sufficient powers to arrest people for crime (and antisocial behaviour nearly always involves actual crime), but can only be bothered to use them in nice, ‘respectable’ middle class areas where they know people are confident enough to complain if they don’t.
It’s not that individuals who terrorise communities shouldn’t face the consequences of potential arrest and prosecution. It’s that the government assumes everyone who is young, or black, or working class, is probably a criminal and makes laws based on these stereotypes. And it’s also that the police are never on our side, but have an innate conservatism that they share with the prejudices of legislators (and often help to reinforce).
Agree with you Kevin, and i think it is useful to include your personal experiences.
ASBOs do have far reaching consequences because the definition is so broad that it includes, for example, anti-war protesters etc. And that’s one of the many many problems with NL’s ‘tough on crime’ rubbish is that the language is ambiguous and loose, and that’s one of the dangers.
Indeed why does the state need ASBOs when the police have enough powers of arrest etc. And NL likes right-wing populism…’hey look at us we are tough tough tough on crime…give ‘em the short, sharp, shock’!
And just look at the over population in the prison system so many people are banged up many have mental health problems, many are vulnerable etc. yet they are still banged up.
One thing they could do is to de-criminalise the drugs industry that would empty the prisons.
I agree with you about drugs
You ask where are the resources coming from to pay for the (optional) supervised homes for young mothers. The answer is twofold:
– the coffers are empty following Brown’s disastrous macroeconomic leadership “we have beaten boom-and-bust” etc.
– in the good times, when we should have been running a public surplus, we spanked it all on public-sector pay for no productivity improvement
So who is going to pay for the “social housing” you call for? “Society” doesn’t get these teenage girls pregnant – if they avoided getting pregnant (a responsibility that they share with the boys concerned), they’d be better able to look after themselves.
The way to a flat of your own and a steady weekly income is (in theory) to get educated and get a job – sadly, in your world, there’s an easier nine-month solution.
Richard. Would you consider that rubbish sex education and rubbish access to contraceptives also contribute to teenage girls becoming pregnant?
Where did you get the ‘optional’ from. Brown said if a teenage mother claims welfare benefit then she will have to move into a home for fallen women. Where is the optional there? Perhaps you mean the option is there for her to get a minimum paid, shift patterned job which would leave her unable to actually parent her child in any adequate way.
And I bet that the money spent on the willy waving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be more than enough to ensure provision of affordable housing to all that need it.
To your first question: yes, if indeed that’s the status quo. But
– do girls really have sex without knowing they can get pregnant? I doubt this is the case – but if it is, then better education gets my vote.
– access to contraceptives – condoms and the morning-after pill are dished out free at family planning clinics.
Brown’s policy is, typically, incomplete and unclear. I agree that his original wording sounds like compulsion – but I think even the illiberal Labour party wouldn’t go this far.
The wars have cost around £8bn over the last 8 years. ~£1bn a year – or between 15-20% of the annual increase in the NHS budget. This money could certainly have been used to support social housing. Or to reduce the public sector deficit. Or to do anything else you like to mention. Support or opposition for the wars has minimal bearing on whether the taxpayer should pay for more free housing for young mothers.
Oddly, Gordon Brown has not yet thought of attaching a laundry to the compulsory supervised homes…
Richard.
In my town, the FPC is open every Friday afternoon (during school hours) and every first Tuesday of the month (during school hours). FPC’s are great, but not really the first point of contact for teenagers. Sex education should be more than if a woman has unprotected sex they probably will become pregnant. There are many factors in play with sex and condoms, as you probably know, and sex education in schools is not fit for purpose.
Tbh, after 12 years of NL, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if homes for fallen women are compulsory for teenage mums.
Minimal bearing? I would not choose to have had a penny of my taxes spent on waging wars. I would have been quite happy if it were to be spent on social housing. Not so minimal to me.