Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
2 February 2009
22:0114590how true bern.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2009
23:1414593See the IDS report on our broken society.
As identified by IDS I agree the decline of the family is at the root of our problem but the cause lays with the politically correct downgrading of the traditional family. Labour have done all they can to undermine the family and have made it financially better for people to split up.
You can try all you want to blame it on Mrs T but it just dont wash.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
2 February 2009
23:4614597Barry the penultimate sentence in your posting is absolute twaddle. Are you seriously suggesting that one of the causes of family breakdowns is simply because it is more financially beneficial. I am also not sure what you mean by 'the politically correct downgrading of the traditional family' perhaps you would care to explain that one in simple everyday language as I'm a bit thick.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 February 2009
23:5014598dave
you will have to wait for barry to consult the conservative website, before a reply is forthcoming.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
2 February 2009
23:5414600Yes Howard you're probably right. Thank god i've got a mind of my own and can express my own opinion, even though others may disagree with me.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2009
07:5814601Dave and Howard - lets be clear I do not consult the Conservative websites for answers, much as it may comfort you to think I do.
The traditional family has been downgraded by idiotic politically correct policies endorsed by Labour. There is a mass of evidence that children do better when brought up by a mother and father but official policy refuses to recognise that.
There is a 'couple penalty' in the benefits system that may not be the cause of break ups, but by its very existence demonstrates the low value placed on the traditional family structure.
Government policies on 'inclusivness' and equaitly/diversity' create a situation by which homosexual couples, single parents etc must be treated and regarded on an equal footing to the traditional family regardless of the evidence for what is best for children.
The recent adoption case where a homosexual couple have been favoured over the grandparents is an example.
Make no mistake this is a downgrading of the traditional family and is simply wrongheaded. Official policy must recognise in both social policies and the tax/benefit system the superiority of the mother/father, preferably married set up.
This is not to suggest that many single parents do a great job in difficult circumstances and indeed many couples do a bad job, but overall the evidence is repeatedly in favour of father/mother couples.
3 February 2009
11:5614616There are many alternative families who do a great job, and fair play to them. There have been some socially engineered financial attempts to acknowledge a new trend in alternative families. Social engineering is a part of the job of government, let's not be naive: Mrs T socially engineered the unions downfall, the increased stigma on single mothers, etc etc etc etc ad nauseum mainly through financial incentives and disincentives. That's what governments do. However, traditional, standard two parent families cannot be downgraded, despite efforts by the media to tell us otherwise, and the reason is simple: most people like them. While acknowledging the many alternatives to two-parent families, at bottom, the majority of people are drawn to the traditional model, attempt to create it, and are shattered if it fails. Even people in the alternative models use the traditional model as a basis - I have gay friends in two-parent relationships modelled exactly on traditional lines. If we are to move away from blaming successive governments for the failure of families, perhaps we would be better employed in seeking to support the families in existence and encouraging, not stigmatising, those who do the difficult and trivialised job of bringing up children. Rewarding jobs that are rooted in "care" for instance, rewarding families who pull together and raise children well in whatever manner succeeds for them.
Today, we are in the position of having to have 2 parents working because of the social engineering of the past which eroded social housing, caused poor family support by forcing people to move around after work (+ the bosses) rather than socially engineering work around communities (+ the workers), and ignored community and family need in favour of capitalist business need and dogma. Fact. we can try to mend that rip in the fabric of our society, but it won't happen by whinging or scoring points - it will happen by recognising the wound and treating it.