Family splits cause social problems - Tory report. [Archive]

Ballerina

11-12-2006, 07:28 PM

But maybe it is the governments business to lower crime, and reduce the number of people relying on the welfare state, and to reduce the number of people living in poverty, and to reduce the number of people who fail to reach a minimum standard of literacy and numeracy.

All of these things are linked to broken homes, so maybe, just maybe looking at supporting/encouraging family life would be one way to work on the cause rather than the result.
true, but not all broken homes = poverty and crime

however, poorer people are more likely to have more kids and divorce - and when you're born at the bottom, it's hard to work your way up to the top. People still need to take more responsibility for their kids though, they learn from you afterall.

Scary Monster

11-12-2006, 07:35 PM

true, but not all broken homes = poverty and crime

Indeed they don't, but a higher proportion do than homes that have the same 2 parents for the entire of the childs upbringing. I think you're right, it's about encouraging people to take responsibilty for their children.

I'm With Stupid

11-12-2006, 07:36 PM

The kids of two good parents who break up for the right reasons, would be much less likely to cause social problems than the kids of two crap parents who fight all the time, and stay together for the sake of the kids. Helping parents do the best job they can is far more important than making sure they stay together no matter the cost. It's such a simplistic way of looking at things.

Scary Monster

11-12-2006, 07:39 PM

It's also a simplistic summary of the report. Part of it also points towards encouraging people to ensure that there is a stable home for a child before they are brought in to the world wherever possible.

Ballerina

11-12-2006, 08:11 PM

Staying together 'for the sake of the kids' usually does more bad than good. And it's usually not for the sake of the kids anyway. I think there should be more relationship councelling/help available.

Man Of Kent

11-12-2006, 11:54 PM

The irony being that this report come from the party who promoted the "me first" culture

VinylVicky

12-12-2006, 09:04 AM

It's not the break up as such but the parenting, in my opinion.

Fiend_85

12-12-2006, 09:11 AM

Well, it would imply that if one parent is absent because of the relationship breaking up then the parenting will suffer and so will the child.

While I agree that it's not impossible to raise a "good" child on your own, when you're attempting to recover from the emotional damage yourself you can't always keep all the plates spinning, and more often than not it's the child's stability that suffers.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 09:29 AM

Interestingly for all those who are completely against the tradition of marriage, it has been found that one in two co-habiting couples will split before their child is five. So much for it not making any difference...

Oddly enough, New Labour are systematically destroying the tradition of marriage (removal of MIRAS, all other tax breaks, and now allowing non-married couples to have all the same rights without any of the commitment) at the same time that crime, poverty and anti-social behaviour levels are all shooting through the roof. Anyone would think that it was a coincidence.

I think anyone who discounts it simply because of who published it is being a moron, tbh.

katchika

12-12-2006, 09:32 AM

Of course in an ideal world happy families would all stay together and eat Sunday lunch together and play scrabble laughing with glee.

But I saw this on the news last night and one of the Tories was saying that parents should stay together even if they are unhappy and arguing just for the sake of their children.

I grew up in an unhappy home where my parents stayed together but constantly argued, fought, and it was a horrible atmosphere. I think it may have been far more healthy for my parents to divorce and in fact since I have left home they have said that they are going to. I agree with making an effort to stay together, not just splitting up at the first row, but it's not healthy for children to grow up watching a bad relationship and being stuck in the middle.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 09:47 AM

But I saw this on the news last night and one of the Tories was saying that parents should stay together even if they are unhappy and arguing just for the sake of their children.

Whoever said that is a numpty too, but I think there's a growing problem with people not committing properly to each other and tossing away the relationship at the first sign of trouble. I don't believe in "staying together for the kids", though, as you've said.

I honestly think that the growing trend towards split families goes hand-in-hand with people becoming less likely to marry, and believing that co-habiting is the same thing. People shouldn't stay in dead relationships, but people seem far more likely to leave at the first sign of trouble rather than having the dedication to work through problems, because they've never committed to their partner in the same way.

briggi

12-12-2006, 09:51 AM

I think anyone who discounts it simply because of who published it is being a moron, tbh.

Not really.

The Tories continue to be so out of touch with average problems and viable solutions it is quite unbelievable. This is not to even mention the fact that the few valid points raised by IDS are theories and issues that have been being discussed - and at length - for years now. Groundbreaking stuff, really. Of course it is far from ideal to have more parents splitting than staying together; and to also witness a steep incline in behavioural and social intergration problems possibly [and even then only in part] caused by familial turmoil. But to suggest that the solution lies in somehow forcing (or I guess we should say "encouraging") couples to stick together when they are unhappy or making it more difficult to get married and/or divorced is barbaric and basically pretty stupid imo. Oh, won't somebody think of the children! :rolleyes: I'm not sure myself what the solution is, but I know it isn't plying guilt and pressure on people to be the "nuclear family" when they aren't. Round pegs, square holes and all that.

I won't go on (here) to say what I really think about Labour's moves to lessen the importance placed on the legal status of marriage and related tradition as opposed to co-habitation etc, but suffice to say I don't personally think it's a particularly bad thing.

Flashman's Ghost

12-12-2006, 09:54 AM

The irony being that this report come from the party who promoted the "me first" culture

That would be socialism, wouldn't it? Rights without responsibilities has always been more of the doctrine of left-wing liberalism hasn't it?

Kermit

12-12-2006, 10:06 AM

I have a feeling that you haven;t actually read the article...

He insisted that the focus of the report was not to "lecture" people to get married, but to help couples, both married and co-habiting, to stabilise their relationships.

"We can't have a stable workforce and a productive economy if a growing number of people at the bottom end of society are workless, and without hope," he said.

Mr Duncan Smith said he was not making a moral judgement about marriage.

and

But he insisted governments could no longer rely on the "small ships being lifted on the rising tide" theory, which suggests the poorest in society have their situation improved by increases in overall wealth.

There's nothing to argue about there, really.

I believe that the rising divorce rates, and the fact that half of all co-habiting parents split before their child gets to school, is as a direct result of New Labour policy destroying marriage and destroying any financial benefit of staying together. New Labour policy has also destroyed the extended family networks with their policies that have sent house prices through the roof- up and down the country young families can no longer afford to live anywhere near their parents and grandparents.

To put it into context, I know that me and GWST would be better off after having children if we get divorced and live next-door to each other. I can't believe that anyone thinks that's condusive to stable family relationships.

katchika

12-12-2006, 10:14 AM

To put it into context, I know that me and GWST would be better off after having children if we get divorced and live next-door to each other. I can't believe that anyone thinks that's condusive to stable family relationships.

Is that anything to do with being married though, or would the situation be exactly the same if you were simply cohabiting?

Kermit

12-12-2006, 10:18 AM

Is that anything to do with being married though, or would the situation be exactly the same if you were simply cohabiting?

It would probably be the same if we were co-habiting too, to be honest, but either way, it hardly makes people stay together.

It has been proven time and time again that the stablest way to raise children is in marriage, and I honestly think that the tax structure should reflect that. At the very least it should the geared to encourage people to live together rather than split up.

Teagan

12-12-2006, 10:20 AM

I agree with Kermit on this one ...

Whatever one feels about IDS, the source of the figures he produced need to be poo-pooed if they are incorrect rather than just dismissing them only because IDS is a 'tosser'.

I know that when I was growing up, troublesome teenagers almost always came from broken/single parent homes. It's not a comfortable viewpoint because it is not politically correct, but in my experience, it has been usually true ...

katchika

12-12-2006, 10:23 AM

It would probably be the same if we were co-habiting too, to be honest, but either way, it hardly makes people stay together.

It has been proven time and time again that the stablest way to raise children is in marriage, and I honestly think that the tax structure should reflect that. At the very least it should the geared to encourage people to live together rather than split up.

I get what you mean, but I very much doubt any couple would purposefully split up just for a bit of extra money. In any case, it's more expensive to live in a house with fewer people. You can't financially punish people for getting divorced or splitting up with a live in partner.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 10:29 AM

I'm not saying that people who live alone should be financially punished, but until very recently married couples got a number of tax benefits and tax breaks with have all gone. I don't think its a coincidence that the divorce rate has gone up, and the number of people getting married has gone down, since these have all been abolished. And I don't think its a coincidence that violent crime and anti-social behaviour rates have gone up since the family unit was undermined so spectacularly by New Labour.

I personally believe that these tax breaks should only be for married people, because marriage is proven to be far more secure and a far more stable way of raising children, but if they were re-introduced for all co-habiting parents I wouldn't complain.

There is a certain amount of stating the obvious in this report, but why the vitriol against the "tosser" if that's the case? If he's stating the obvious then he's right, after all.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 10:40 AM

I liked IDS better when he was simply a characterless buffoon.

Now he appears to be the voice of the ugliest (and I had hoped defunct) side of Conservatism.

Gays apparently "don't even measure in the Ritcher scale" when it comes to raising children. Unmarried couples are not much better. Single mothers should beware: the ghost of Margaret Thatcher's hate campaign against them will being raised again next.

So much for the new, modern, caring Tories eh?

Teagan

12-12-2006, 10:59 AM

Gays apparently "don't even measure in the Ritcher scale" when it comes to raising children. Unmarried couples are not much better. Single mothers should beware: the ghost of Margaret Thatcher's hate campaign against them will being raised again next.

So much for the new, modern, caring Tories eh?

Is that really an accurate viewpoint from you though, Aladdin? My understanding of IDS's statement on gays was that so few are actually parents that any figures gleaned about them would make no difference to the overall report he is putting forward ...

It's a bit like what New Labour says about Scottish MPs allowed to vote on English issues ... there are too few of them to make any difference to the English vote. Yeah, right.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 11:14 AM

Don't worry, Aladdin has trouble reading simple English.

Gays weren't stuided because so few gay people are parents that the statistics would be meaningless. Which is fair enough, and shows good research skills.

As for the rest of the drivel, Aladdin must have been reading a different report to the rest of us. IDS' comments on small ships not rising with the tide seem pretty much the antithesis of Thatcherism to me.

I note Aladdin doesn't comment on the research that shows half of all unmarried parents split before their child is even in school. I wonder if that's because it blows a huge hole in his argument that co-habiting is better than marriage?

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 11:32 AM

Don't worry, Aladdin has trouble reading simple English.

Gays weren't stuided because so few gay people are parents that the statistics would be meaningless. Which is fair enough, and shows good research skills. If you believe the backpedalling by IDS when his comments reached public domain...

As for the rest of the drivel, Aladdin must have been reading a different report to the rest of us. IDS' comments on small ships not rising with the tide seem pretty much the antithesis of Thatcherism to me. The persecution, once again, of anything other than the straight, married 2.4 nuclear family and blaming all of society's ills on those evil unmarried couples and single parents is the dictionary definition of Thatcherism. Don't you think?

I note Aladdin doesn't comment on the research that shows half of all unmarried parents split before their child is even in school. I wonder if that's because it blows a huge hole in his argument that co-habiting is better than marriage? If you think a child is better off locked in a loveless, unhappy marriage than in a happy and positive one parent family you need to think things very carefully.

I put it to you, and to anyone else who cares to listen, that if a couple has irreversable differences is better for the child in most cases to live in a happy one parent household than with two unhappy parents just sticking together "for the sake fo the children".

Scary Monster

12-12-2006, 12:09 PM

If you think a child is better off locked in a loveless, unhappy marriage than in a happy and positive one parent family you need to think things very carefully.

I put it to you, and to anyone else who cares to listen, that if a couple has irreversable differences is better for the child in most cases to live in a happy one parent household than with two unhappy parents just sticking together "for the sake fo the children".

I don't think that a child is better off in a loveless unhappy two parent home than in a happy positive one parent home.

However, children do better with continuity, and the single parent homes that tend to lead to problematic children often lack that continuity. There's the one parent that stays and there's the current boyfriend who comes and goes, dumps/gets dumped and may or may not have any interest in the children.

Ruling something out as nonsense because of the person who published it is utterly daft, read the report, analyse it and then say it's nonsense fine, but think before you judge.

Looking at gay parents would have been a futile exercise because the number is statistically insignificant and would have had no effect.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 12:12 PM

If you believe the backpedalling by IDS when his comments reached public domain...

Given that the comments I quoted were spoken ten days ago, I do.

The persecution, once again, of anything other than the straight, married 2.4 nuclear family and blaming all of society's ills on those evil unmarried couples and single parents is the dictionary definition of Thatcherism. Don't you think?

Not really, I think its a case of bears shitting in the woods.

Unless you disagree with the idea that the children of single-parent families are more likely to undertake criminal and anti-social behaviour and that the children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer mental health troubles as a result of the trauma of divorce.

If you think a child is better off locked in a loveless, unhappy marriage than in a happy and positive one parent family you need to think things very carefully.

I don't, but I happen to think that if the child's parents are committed enough to marry each other then there is a much better chance of the child being in a happy and positive two-parent family. The statistics speak for themselves- half of co-habiting parents split before their child is in school. To contrast, about a quarter of married parents will split, and there are more co-habiting parents than married parents.

Do you agree, or not, that a child should ideally be raised in a happy and loving two-parent family?

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 12:18 PM

I don't, but I happen to think that if the child's parents are committed enough to marry each other then there is a much better chance of the child being in a happy and positive two-parent family. The statistics speak for themselves- half of co-habiting parents split before their child is in school. To contrast, about a quarter of married parents will split, and there are more co-habiting parents than married parents.
Yes but how many of those kids were unplanned? It is often the case that a boyfriend and girlfriend fall pregnant, then do try and stick together for the sake of the baby. And if the relationship was destined not to last, then it's not going to last, or it will end up as a pretty shitty situation. Married couples will generally already have made the decision that they want to raise a family together. So is it a case that kids of married parents tend to do better, or just that kids that have been planned as a considered decision by somewhat prepared parents are more likely to do better?

Kermit

12-12-2006, 12:23 PM

I think you have a point there, and that does skew the statistics.

I don't attach blame to single parents, and I don't attach blame to parents who split from their partners, but I don't think its rabid conservatism to say that single parents and broken families cause a lot of damage and that it would be a good thing to try and minimise the amount of broken families and single parents.

Single parents try as hard as they can, for the most part, but it isn't a coincidence that the children of single parent and broken families tend to be more likely to commit crime and anti-social behaviour, tend to perform worse in school, and tend to have their own single-parent families at a young age.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 12:34 PM

Unless you disagree with the idea that the children of single-parent families are more likely to undertake criminal and anti-social behaviour and that the children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer mental health troubles as a result of the trauma of divorce. Such is life.

I don't, but I happen to think that if the child's parents are committed enough to marry each other then there is a much better chance of the child being in a happy and positive two-parent family. The statistics speak for themselves- half of co-habiting parents split before their child is in school. To contrast, about a quarter of married parents will split, and there are more co-habiting parents than married parents. Again, such is life.

Don't get me wrong. The more secure and stable the environment a child grows in, the better. If the Tories want to 'promote' marriage, that's fine by me. So long as it is not done at the detriment of unmarried couples and single parents, or their persecution. Which is exactly what happened the last time the Tories were in power and got talking about this subject.

Do you agree, or not, that a child should ideally be raised in a happy and loving two-parent family? No. A child should be raised in a happy and loving family.

Ideally you could not only say that there should be two parents, but that they should be rich. Because at the end of the day, only rich parents can provide the best care and education for their kids. So perhaps we should discourage those whose combined income is less than, say, 100k a year from having children in the first place...

We should not be idealists. We should be realists. Shit happens. Couples separate. Instead of persecuting those that do we should try to make things better for all concerned.

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 12:40 PM

In that case though, I think the main focus should be on cutting the number of unwanted pregnancies (obviously you need to support the ones that do occur at the same time with things like free councilling or parenting classes or what have you). But having a child, even just financially, is the biggest commitment you can ever make. Imagine if you could somehow accidentally buy a house. I would be interested to see the conservative governments position on things like birth control and sex education in classes, because from what I'm aware (and I could be wrong, since I haven't actually researched it properly) they are not particularly progressive in these areas.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 12:43 PM

Scary Monster

12-12-2006, 12:50 PM

Such is life

That has to be the most defeatest attitude I have heard for a while, just because something happens doesn't mean it's a good thing and doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to change it.

Crime happens, such is life, should we just put up with it? I don't think so, I think we should look to the causes of it and try and treat them.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 01:05 PM

Who's mentioned persecution? The Tories didn't even mention it last time, it was New Labour who put the words in their mouth, and look at New Labour's record on social inclusion and respect for the family. New Labour have systematically undermined and destroyed the family with their policy- as I said, if I were to split from GWST and have a single-parent family we would both be better off.

The Mail is always on its soap-box about single mothers, which doesn't do any good, and its a shame that this intelligent report has been tarnished with their hate-filled brush.

I think that there should be more tax advantages for getting married, I'd start by bringing back MIRAS and the tax allowances for married people. Families not started in marriage seem to have very weak foundations, and rather than promoting co-habitation as an "equal" (because it blatantly isn't) more time should be spent promoting marriage as the best setting to have children. I actually don't have a problem with married couples getting extra tax advantages. So long as unmarried couples are not penalised and are guaranteed certain vital rights and safety nets. It wasn't that long ago that some of you here were spitting blood at the outrageous concept that co-habitating couples might be given some rights.

And by the way, the Thatcher government did have it in for single mothers. It said some of the most hateful and wrong things a government can say about some of their citizens and wasn't exactly jumping to help single mothers in trouble.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 01:06 PM

That has to be the most defeatest attitude I have heard for a while, just because something happens doesn't mean it's a good thing and doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to change it.

Crime happens, such is life, should we just put up with it? I don't think so, I think we should look to the causes of it and try and treat them. Only the concept of crime is wrong, but the concept of single parents or cohabitating couples is not.

budda

12-12-2006, 02:10 PM

Given that counselling is available on the NHS, couldnt couples counselling be available as well? Even if the couple then split it would make it less likely that it would be nasty.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 02:12 PM

It wasn't that long ago that some of you here were spitting blood at the outrageous concept that co-habitating couples might be given some rights.

No, I was saying that rights over someone else's property should be opt-in, not opt-out, and that the proposed changes are utterly ridiculous.

And I still haven't heard a decent reason why someone should lose rights over their own property unless they opt-out of it. The rights that co-habiting couples want already exist, and if they make a conscious decision not to take out those rights then its their decision and their problem if it all goes wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how co-habiting couples are denied access to the rights that married couples enjoy.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 02:43 PM

I thought I explained it very clearly the last time.

Cohabitating couples presently are left in limbo if one of them leaves them or dies.

That is simply not good enough.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 03:12 PM

Cohabitating couples presently are left in limbo if one of them leaves them or dies.

Their choice, isn't it?

If they don't want to sign up to the rights (it takes half an hour and costs £100) then them's the risks they take.

Not that I want to distract the thread, but it isn't for the Government to change the law because people are too lazy/"principled" to take advantage of what is already there.

Unless you can show that co-habitees are denied access to the rights (and they aren't, they just choose not to exercise them) then any change in the law isterminally flawed. It isn't for the Government to save the lazy and the misguided from themselves.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 03:16 PM

No will can protect from a partner leaving you, as you will know.

Therefore thousands of couples are at risk if that happens.

Now, I know you appear to have trouble understanding that some people do not want to get married because they don't believe in such institution. It has nothing to do with laziness. And laws should serve the people and reflect life and society as they are.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 03:38 PM

No will can protect from a partner leaving you, as you will know.

Therefore thousands of couples are at risk if that happens.

They choose to be at that risk. They weigh up the pros and cons and choose not to get married.

If someone cares more about not getting married than they do about their partner's rights then that is their decision, and their lookout. If principles are worth more than their partner's security then that's a real shame, but I don't see why the Government should then go and interfere with everyone else's property rights to humour their choice.

Homosexual people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people, and now they do, but rights should not be imposed on either straight or gay people. If people don't want to get their estate in order then that's tough cheese.

If I wanted my partner to have rights on my house then she would be on the title deeds and in the will. If I don't want her to have those rights then she won't (you'd be amazed how many married people don't have their spouse on the title deeds, and so they have little rights on the property).

Why should someone get rights over my property without my express consent? It's my house unless I expressly state otherwise.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 04:03 PM

They choose to be at that risk. They weigh up the pros and cons and choose not to get married.

If someone cares more about not getting married than they do about their partner's rights then that is their decision, and their lookout. If principles are worth more than their partner's security then that's a real shame, but I don't see why the Government should then go and interfere with everyone else's property rights to humour their choice. How are they interfering with other people's properties?

Homosexual people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people, and now they do, but rights should not be imposed on either straight or gay people. If people don't want to get their estate in order then that's tough cheese. Millions of people would love to get their estate in order. Currently they can't.

If I wanted my partner to have rights on my house then she would be on the title deeds and in the will. If I don't want her to have those rights then she won't (you'd be amazed how many married people don't have their spouse on the title deeds, and so they have little rights on the property).

Why should someone get rights over my property without my express consent? It's my house unless I expressly state otherwise. If you or anyone else is so concerned about an evil, gold digging partner trying to get half of everything there are always contracts and opt-out clauses of course.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 04:22 PM

How are they interfering with other people's properties?

If a person wants their partner to have a stake on the property, their partner will be on the title deeds and their partner will be named in the will. Either that or their partner will be married to them.

Ergo, if the partner is on neither, then the owner of the property clearly doesn't want their partner to have a stake on the property. The Government is imposing a stake on the property without the consent of the owner.

Millions of people would love to get their estate in order. Currently they can't.

Yes they can.

They can go to the registry office, sign a slip of paper, and have all the rights they want. It only costs about £100.

Name one person who is legally prevented from protecting their partner in the event of relationship failure or death.

If you or anyone else is so concerned about an evil, gold digging partner trying to get half of everything there are always contracts and opt-out clauses of course.

Which, of course, contradicts your first assertion that the Government is not imposing anything on anyone.

If nothing is being imposed on anyone, why on earth would you need to opt-out?

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 04:39 PM

If a person wants their partner to have a stake on the property, their partner will be on the title deeds and their partner will be named in the will. Either that or their partner will be married to them.

Ergo, if the partner is on neither, then the owner of the property clearly doesn't want their partner to have a stake on the property. The Government is imposing a stake on the property without the consent of the owner. Where can you sign a piece of paper that allows you maintenance/support if your partner of many years leaves you unexpectedly for someone else?

Yes they can.

They can go to the registry office, sign a slip of paper, and have all the rights they want. It only costs about £100. You are talking about marriage, aren't you?

If you are, you should know very well that marriage is a lot more than going "to the registry office and sign a piece of paper"

Which, of course, contradicts your first assertion that the Government is not imposing anything on anyone.

If nothing is being imposed on anyone, why on earth would you need to opt-out? Is not a question of imposing. Is a question of giving rights and support.

No different from people who get married and suddenly see half their estate belonging to their spouse isn't it?

You must be really outraged on principle at least that the laws of the land impose all those liberty-destroying rules on people who get married.

Kermit

12-12-2006, 04:48 PM

Where can you sign a piece of paper that allows you maintenance/support if your partner of many years leaves you unexpectedly for someone else?

Here. (http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/)

You are talking about marriage, aren't you?

If you are, you should know very well that marriage is a lot more than going "to the registry office and sign a piece of paper"

No its not. Or, to be more exact, it isn't if you don't want it to be.

The legal status of my marriage is nothing more than a sheet of paper which I have signed and which my wife has signed. The emotional and moral status is more because we married in a Church in front of God, but the law doesn't give a stuff about that.

No different from people who get married and suddenly see half their estate belonging to their spouse isn't it?

Well, it is, because if you get married you explicitly consent to the implications of getting married.

When do you explicitly consent to a partner getting half of your property? When you have children? When she stays at yours more than hers? When she moves her toothbrush and a spare set of knickers in? When she comes in for coffee?

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 05:29 PM

Here. (http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/) Hilarious.

No its not. Or, to be more exact, it isn't if you don't want it to be.

The legal status of my marriage is nothing more than a sheet of paper which I have signed and which my wife has signed. The emotional and moral status is more because we married in a Church in front of God, but the law doesn't give a stuff about that. The meaning is obviously quite different for millions of others. That's why the government has proposed to introduce legislation to cover them.

Well, it is, because if you get married you explicitly consent to the implications of getting married.

When do you explicitly consent to a partner getting half of your property? When you have children? When she stays at yours more than hers? When she moves her toothbrush and a spare set of knickers in? When she comes in for coffee? I await the government's proposals in that respect. Common sense dictates when you have been living together for a set period of time. What that period should be is of course open to debate.

bluewisdom

12-12-2006, 06:14 PM

it isn't the governments business to keep families together.But it is its business to look out for people's well-being, and research shows that children that come from stable and emotionally nutritious families are better off. I do strongly believe that Governments should do all in their power to support families -whatever the kind- as good and healthy families are the basis of a good and healthy society.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 06:22 PM

I agree with that ^^

So long as no government chooses to alineate (let alone persecute) certain family types.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with the Tories promoting marriage and married families. But I make no apologies for distrusting them when it comes to the treatment they'd be giving to non-nuclear families. Their track record isn't exactly rosy.

Man Of Kent

12-12-2006, 09:09 PM

@ Kermit/Aladdin

It's like Israel/Palestine all over again ;)

byny

13-12-2006, 11:03 AM

People get married and have kids too quickly these days - and they are ill equipped to deal with the financial and emotional strain of raising kids, running a home etc.

Personally I think there should be more done to give people the skills and education they need in the first place to make more informed choices than settling down with the first person who asks you and popping out a kid a year.

It's not the splitting up that's the problem, it's the gettig together in the first place ;)

I'm With Stupid

13-12-2006, 11:17 AM

People get married and have kids too quickly these days - and they are ill equipped to deal with the financial and emotional strain of raising kids, running a home etc.
People get married and have kids far later nowadays than they used to. I think the problem is people who don't make plans to have kids, but end up getting pregnant, and are then not particularly prepared for family life. There's also the issue that parents who are from broken families themselves, are less likely to have the help and support of their parents.

sophia

13-12-2006, 11:27 AM

stargalaxy

13-12-2006, 12:09 PM

I have noticed myself that, among my acquaintances, the poorest ones and the ones who commit crime, take drugs and have casual sex mostly seem to come from broken homes. So what can the government do to help keep families together?

It's always refreshing to hear a politician saying the obvious. I've noticed years ago that family breakdown is leading to social breakdown. The family is the unit which has kept society together for hundreds and hundreds of years. It's not just a coincidence that one cannot manage without the other. The family unit is also needed to maintain our democracy. A culture of state dependency is fostered through family breakdown - indeed, it costs the Government £20billion annually. It's in their interests to deal with this. If nothing else, they can spend that £20billion instead on keeping an illegal occupation in Iraq and an utterly pointless occupation in Afghanistan. But I digress.

Two-parent families are better than one-parent families, for obvious reasons. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Children from one-parent families are more likely to become drug addicts, alcoholics, are more likely to be poorly educated and thus potentially unemployable. I make no apologies to single mothers and fathers for saying any of this. I was in a relationship for quite some time with a single mother and I saw first hand what it was like. Although the situation was somewhat different - she was a single mum because the father of her child had died a few years earlier - she agrees with the conclusions I came to.

The question is asked: what can the Government do to keep families together? It can start by bringing back the Married Couples Allowance so disgracefully abolished by Gordon Brown, the most dangerous Chancellor that this country has seen in a very long time, and a man who must never be allowed to become Prime Minister. The state can help out financially, but there isn't much more that they can do. The rest is down to individual couples, and to personal responsibility. But these are very unfashionable concepts to the Left-wing mafia that run this country, so we will probably continue to go down this route to social meltdown.

Before anyone tries to demonise me as some kind of homphobic, nasty Middle Englander, let me make some points clear. I supported civil partnerships. Indeed, I think they should be extended to cover non-sexual relationships, such as two elderly sisters who live together. As a bisexual man, I'm absolutely fine about homosexuality. I've no problem with it. But all kinds of families must be helped out, and not some at the expense of others.

I'm With Stupid

13-12-2006, 12:15 PM

Before anyone tries to demonise me as some kind of homphobic, nasty Middle Englander, let me make some points clear. I supported civil partnerships. Indeed, I think they should be extended to cover non-sexual relationships, such as two elderly sisters who live together. As a bisexual man, I'm absolutely fine about homosexuality. I've no problem with it. But all kinds of families must be helped out, and not some at the expense of others.
When the fuck did that happen? Can't remember you ever mentioning that one before.

Kermit

13-12-2006, 12:16 PM

it's not for the state to interfere.

It is when the state has to pick up a £20bn tab because people are having children in insecure relationships and then raising anti-social criminal children.

Discuss.

stargalaxy

13-12-2006, 12:17 PM

When the fuck did that happen? Can't remember you ever mentioning that one before. Just slipped out. I've never spoken about this on TheSite before. Still, let's not get into a discussion about my sexuality. Not in P&D at least. :p It is when the state has to pick up a £20bn tab because people are having children in insecure relationships and then raising anti-social criminal children. Exactly. £20billion is a massive amount of money. There are far better ways to spend that. For example, anyone heard the NHS has got a deficit at the moment?

I'm With Stupid

13-12-2006, 12:19 PM

Just slipped out. I've never spoken about this on TheSite before. Still, let's not get into a discussion about my sexuality. Not in P&D at least.
OK then, but this is far more interesting than single parent families.

I'm With Stupid

13-12-2006, 12:21 PM

It is when the state has to pick up a £20bn tab because people are having children in insecure relationships and then raising anti-social criminal children.

Discuss.
It's an interesting one, because yes the government does have an interest. However, the government also has a responsibilty to adapt to the changing needs of it's citizens. If people are no longer living together in traditional family, then the government has to address that by some other method of trying to force, or even encourage people to do so.

budda

13-12-2006, 12:23 PM

But these are very unfashionable concepts to the Left-wing mafia that run this country, so we will probably continue to go down this route to social meltdown.

You're not mistaking Labour for a left-wing party again are you?

stargalaxy

13-12-2006, 12:25 PM

You're not mistaking Labour for a left-wing party again are you? Do you have anything to say on the topic of family breakdown? Or is this just another one of your distraction strategies?

budda

13-12-2006, 12:30 PM

Do you have anything to say on the topic of family breakdown? Or is this just another one of your distraction strategies?

Distraction strategies? That makes me sound a bit more machevelian than I am.

I said earlier that I thought that couples counselling should be available on the NHS, which I thought would help more couples deal with issues, or worst case situation break up in the best way possible.

Frankly I dont think tax will really do much, people dont get married for those reasons (or at least not many do anyway).

An increase in the social housing budget wouldnt go a miss too.

stargalaxy

13-12-2006, 12:35 PM

I said earlier that I thought that couples counselling should be available on the NHS, which I thought would help more couples deal with issues, or worst case situation break up in the best way possible.

An increase in the social housing budget wouldnt go a miss too. Now that's more like it! I'd agree with both of those ideas. I agree the state can't force couples to stay together, but they can at least try to help them out slightly in the financial stakes. Looks like you and me aren't that far away from each other on this, Mr B. ;)

budda

13-12-2006, 12:39 PM

Now that's more like it! I'd agree with both of those ideas. I agree the state can't force couples to stay together, but they can at least try to help them out slightly in the financial stakes. Looks like you and me aren't that far away from each other on this, Mr B. ;)

Frankly I cant really take anything you suggest seriously given your opinions on torture. But thats not related to this thread.

Its all about money though isnt it, and the government doesnt have unlimited amounts of it. I think improvements in social housing would definitely pay for themselves, and possibly the counselling too, but it would be a hard sell to the public.

stargalaxy

13-12-2006, 12:43 PM

Frankly I cant really take anything you suggest seriously given your opinions on torture. But thats not related to this thread. Your love for me is undying, but never mind. :pIts all about money though isnt it, and the government doesnt have unlimited amounts of it. I think improvements in social housing would definitely pay for themselves, and possibly the counselling too, but it would be a hard sell to the public.I suspect it wouldn't be that difficult to sell. The counselling, for example, would only be attacked by two different groups.
(1) Daily Mail readers who think that counselling is the ultimate example of a "cotton-wool" culture. You know, the sort of people who frown at the sight of people having a hug in public. Probably haven't had sex since 1958, that sort of person.
(2) Daily Mail readers (again!) who think that counselling is a waste of money, bearing in mind NICE won't fund Alzheimer's drugs that would cost £2.50 per patient, despite the fact that you can get this on the NHS in Scotland. Which, whilst the drugs in question should be available, doesn't mean counselling is a waste of resources.

budda

13-12-2006, 12:48 PM

Your love for me is undying, but never mind. :p .

Not really, I just think your views on crime and punishment are unrealistic and inhumane, I dont think you've a fucking clue.

I suspect it wouldn't be that difficult to sell. The counselling, for example, would only be attacked by two different groups.
(1) Daily Mail readers who think that counselling is the ultimate example of a "cotton-wool" culture. You know, the sort of people who frown at the sight of people having a hug in public. Probably haven't had sex since 1958, that sort of person.
(2) Daily Mail readers (again!) who think that counselling is a waste of money, bearing in mind NICE won't fund Alzheimer's drugs that would cost £2.50 per patient, despite the fact that you can get this on the NHS in Scotland. Which, whilst the drugs in question should be available, doesn't mean counselling is a waste of resources.

NICE has to make judgements, and often they are difficult, but the NHS cant pay for everything. As for Scotland, well thats a seperate matter, they can only afford all that because the South-East of England pays for it.