Gordon Brown is set to pitch labour as the party of marriage and the family in an effort to win core tory votes. This is from the leader of a party which has openly discouraged marriage for more than a generation.
Labour have finally realised children fare better if their parents are together in a stable and committed relationship. A green paper, to be published in January, will outline new measures to shore up "stable parental relationships".
Since 1997 labour has directed resources at children rather than their parents, hearing voters would see attempts to promote the declining traditional family unit as discriminatory or judgmental.
One in four children now live in a single parent family, compared with one in fourteen in the early 70s. Almost half of children are born outside wedlock. Married couples became a minority in Britain this year for the first time since records began.
In compulsory sex and relationship lessons to be introduced from 2011, children from the age of seven will be taught about the “nature and importance of marriage and stable relationships for family life and bringing up children”.
The compulsory sex lessons for seven year olds is a subject for another post but let me get one thing straight - I have no desire whatsoever for illegitimacy to become the stigma it was when I was young. It had horrendous consequences for some children and many never quite managed to cope with it. But we now have thousands of children who are (usually) fatherless and the father's name isn't even entered on their birth certificates. Having thousands of children in that position rather than the hundreds 50+ years ago, doesn't make it right. By that I mean right for the children concerned. It creates insecurity, affects confidence and lessens self esteem.
There will be no softening of the government’s opposition to tax advantages for married couples. Ministers say this would discriminate against the 4m children brought up by non-married parents.
If labour are serious about this they would make tax advantages for married couples. By not promoting marriage in this way labour are discriminating against it. Many couples openly say they receive more benefit 'living apart' than together. That's not right and it never will be.
As well as having 4 million children brought up in one parent families, we have a generation of parents who don't understand what parenting is all about. That's not always their fault, it's the fault of this government who discourage them from learning about responsibility. We have an army of people who now do the parenting for many - teachers, social workers, charities - there's no need for any parent to learn parenting skills if they don't feel inclined.
I'm a firm believer that, if at all possible, children should be brought up in a solid and committed relationship. Marriage is the best solution we, as a society, have at present.
Posts
17 comments:
I think that one of the greatest destructive forces in our society today is the lack of respect that young mothers have to the balance of family upbringing that a male adult can bring to that family. I am not saying that all relationships should stay together for the sake of the child; that would be ridiculous. What is worrying is the lack of foresight that young mothers have when they think that their child can be brought up, in a balanced way, without the input of a father.
It may be that we are producing a generation of children who have no concept of what a stable relationship can bring to a family. I find this disheartening. It is difficult for young fathers to take an active part in the life of the child that they have fathered when the law of the land is loaded against them, if the mother does not wish the father to take part.
I accept that this is not an easy problem to solve but I am concerned about the lack of influence that men have on the upbringing of their children.
It's just about the height of hypocrisy for Labour to support marriages in word, but not support them by deed.
All they are doing is giving overworked teachers even more on their plate to teach rather than the basics. Compulsory sex and relationship lessons? Better off trying to get them to read, write and do basic maths before they leave school.
'win core tory votes'
Now come on Subrosa thats about as likely as you voting Labour..not remotely likely.
maybe? influencing some borderline Tory voters(those with a sense of decency and a conscience) but your 'core' never ever.
If you wish to reduce the number of Children outside of marriage(whatever form that takes) then the answer is as ever 'HANG' every male responsible for being the Father...
that i can assure you will both reduce unwanted children and increase the level of Marriages.
Rosie, how do you feel about two lesbians being allowed to have children?
'HANG' every male responsible for being the Father...
Or who vote Labour?
Dark Lochnagar
Two lesbians can look after me anyday..Oooer!
Whilst I agree with you Ged, fathers have to take more responsibility too.
Of course we don't want couples 'staying together for the sake of the children'. I was brought up in such an atmosphere and it was dreadful, yet worse was when my father left for a few years and I was just with my mother. She didn't like her children.
It's so sad the law is unbalanced towards mothers. The fact that mothers don't have to put the father's name on the birth certificate these days was the start of fathers losing their rights.
Entirely agree, so many households without a male in them and that doesn't make for a well balanced child unless the mother works extremely hard to ensure male figures are present. I don't mean from a boyfriend angle, I mean from a stability angle.
Labour aren't interested in a good society QM, they want people dependent on government. Just look at the fall in standards of our education system, yet you'll hear teachers saying they've never been higher.
Why, in that case, has Scotland slipped from near the top of well down the ratings in the past 30 years?
Merry Christmas Niko. There were plenty 'normal' tory voters who voted labour the last couple of times round and I think this is an effort to encourage them again.
I'd like to think it was seen for the nonsense it is.
Don't be daft Niko, it takes two or didn't yer Mum tell ye?
If the benefits didn't encourage couples to live apart that may be a start.
That's a difficult one DL. I've always stuck by following nature but that's old-fashioned these days I know and I have heard there can be problems because one of the women is the actual mother.
But everyone to their own. The women have to work hard to ensure there are males around for children to relate to though.
Afternoon OR, Niko always votes Labour.
It is the usual devious, scheming New Labour - just telling any lie and trusting that the stupid proles will believe it. Like you say, Subrosa, they want state dependency and that's why they've done everything they can to destroy families.
After nearly 13 years, they suddenly want to promote family life? Strange how compulsive liars always get faithful hearers, isn't it? What I don't understand is how folk can continue to vote for a party that treats them with such utter contempt. They must have no self worth.
The sadder matter is Stewart that the tories also stopped defending family life some years ago.
As you know I'm not a tory voter, but that did not only disappoint me, but showed there wasn't a fag paper between labour and conservatives.
So, New Labour have decided to a green paper on marriage guidance.
have they suddenly discovered that they have too many b@stards within their ranks?
We could have told them that years ago.
.
Dark Lochnagar, how do you feel about two Homos being allowed to have you?
Seriously though, "Labour have finally realised children fare better if their parents are together in a stable and committed relationship" Labour might have realised that this is a good electoral ploy ( like we are that stupid) but Hariet Harbinger will not be pleased. The minister for Equality & Diversity was saying only the other day that she would not allow the Government to "promote" marriage as superior to other relationships.
Subrosa - I am also disappointed in the Tories. It's not 'cool' enough to conserve what's good and right. Everyone wants to be 'progressive'. They obviously have no idea what the word means or is meant to imply.
Politicians use words like 'progressive,' 'change' and 'moving forward' because they mean nothing at all in effect. It gives the impression they want to make improvements, while giving them scope to do the opposite.
Sadly they are now 'contractually obliged' to promote all manner of vice thanks to our EU enslavement.
Hi SR
Wisnaeme has it right, in both senses.
Very little nulabour does at this stage will get into legislation and they know it.
But watch the 'attempts' so that they can proclaim loudly they were moving to fix the problem(to be specified, as required)but there was not enough parliamentary time !
Believe me, on their record, labour, nu OR old, will never be the answer to ANY problem.
It will take double the time that labour has been in power , with no further labour interference to attempt to sort out the mess they leave behind,so about another 25 years to get back to where we were 12 years ago. If we ever do !
Post a Comment