Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'?
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has let it be known he didn't like my TV piece last night on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) newly published report on children.
His disappointment, I suspect, reflects the fact that the respected Paris-based think-tank has questioned one of the key pillars of Conservative social policy.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The OECD document - parts of which are available here - devotes a chapter to Child Well-being and Single Parenthood, interrogating the received wisdom that broken families are bad for children and wider society.
This is a hot political topic of course because, as the document puts it:
"[I]f policy makers believe that there is a causal relationship between family structure and child outcomes, measures to promote two-adult families may be desirable, as would policies to compensate for negative effects for children who grow up in single-parent families. If policy makers do not believe that there is a causal effect on child well-being, they will be less concerned about policies both to promote two-parent families and to support children of single parents".
Mr Duncan Smith chaired the Conservative Social Justice Policy Group which argues for a "positive policy bias in support of marriage".
The group's report, Breakthrough Britain [816KB PDF], makes the point that:
"[T]he policy-making community has been reluctant to 'grasp the nettle' of family breakdown by sending clear signals about the benefits of marriage and committed relationships, and the merits of supporting and encouraging them".
So Iain Duncan Smith would appear to be in the first camp - a policy maker who believes that "fractured families" damage children. "Family structure and family process matter - making a commitment can make a significant difference to behaviours and attitudes," his report asserts.
The OECD, however, is not so sure. It has pulled together research and data from 25 developed nations and concludes that:
"Overall, the general thrust of these more focused methodologies is that the causal effects of being raised in a single-parent family are smaller than hitherto believed, or even zero."
The report quotes research which states that:
"[T]here is currently no unambiguous proof that growing up in a lone-parent family has adverse effects for later-life outcomes".
The OECD is honest about the limitations of its analysis - "caution is in order in drawing conclusions, because of the immature nature of the literature in the area" - but it summarises the research findings like this:
"Overall, if there are indeed negative effects of being raised in a single-parent family, the effect is small. Such effects, surprisingly, seem somewhat higher on average in the Nordic countries than in Anglophone countries (excluding the United States). These findings cannot prove that single parenthood has no negative impact on child well-being. But they do not provide strong support for the proposition that child well-being will be definitively enhanced by policy encouraging parents who would otherwise have split up to remain together for the benefit of the children."
When we interviewed Mr Duncan Smith for last night's report, he suggested that he was untroubled as to whether single-parenthood "causes" poor outcomes:
"There is an effect. Children brought up in lone parent (families) will do worse than those in couples. That's a fact established in the report. What they (OECD) simply won't say is this is cause or effect. In other words, is it the result of lone parenting or not. Actually I don't think that's that important to be honest with you."
The OECD, however, does think it is important to separate out cause and effect.
"The largest effect sizes found in the meta-analysis were for externalising behaviour (disruptive behaviour by children). Externalising behaviour has clear social costs to third parties, as well as to the disruptive child. The temptation to regard this finding as causal is strong. But there are obvious selection mechanisms whereby people who are unable to successfully sustain a relationship are more likely to have disruptive children without there being a causal link. In addition, there are further questions about the direction of causality - disruptive children may place such stress on parental relationships that they separate."
The question for policy-makers is whether the social "remedies" they put in place, target the real problem. Will the measures work?
The OECD, while accepting that it is right "to be concerned about the implications of family structure for child well-being", does not think we yet know enough.
"If there is a causal effect of single parenthood on children's outcomes, a further issue becomes the relative efficacy and cost of policies to a) encourage people who will not form a stable family unit to avoid having children, b) encourage parents who may be at-risk of separating to consider staying together and c) compensate children who find themselves in a single-parent family structure for the adverse causal consequences of their family structure. The costs of the various policies will then have to be compared with their social benefits. Information on relative policy efficacy in this area is, at best, patchy and - for most member states of the OECD - non-existent."That said, the OECD is convinced that giving specific benefits to single parents may make matters worse.
"There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being, while they discourage single-parent employment. Payments could be phased out when children reach compulsory schooling and the resources re-directed to improve family income or improve pre-compulsory education up until this stage for single-parent families."
The single mum has inspired polarised political debate in Britain for a generation: to some, a deserving recipient of social security; to others, a cause of social insecurity. The OECD has rattled the cage of those in both camps.
Update, 7 September: Iain Duncan Smith explained his concerns about the OECD chapter on single parents in an e-mail. He has now given me permission to reproduce some of his arguments here:
"Our agreed conclusion was that the OECD had attempted something akin to the impossible by trying to read across data collected in different countries and arrive at a conclusion. In fact they admit as much particularly in the summary by saying the work they have undertaken is inconclusive. The reason for this is simple and the authors again refer to it, it is that the nature of the data from different countries is collected differently and in many countries is hardly collected at all; quality of research is everything in this field and such a simplistic set of comparisons incorrectly gives weight to poor work, they even failed to collect data from some quite significant countries.
"Furthermore outcomes for children from lone parents are influenced by the culture they are living in, for example Italy has a tiny number of lone parents by comparison with the UK and also has much stronger extended family ties which can improve outcomes for such children. In countries like Holland their lone parents tend to form two-parent unions more than the UK where a peculiarly high number of teenage parents stay as lone parents. They also tried to exclude critical influences on the outcomes such as divorce, trying to focus only on the aspects of lone parenting they felt they could collect enough data for. The problem with this approach is that family break up has a huge bearing on the outcomes for children as we pointed out in our recent report on family law, as well as the nature of the post-breakup relationship, as does the issue of income. You cannot isolate the fact that most lone parents lose significant amounts of income post-breakup, this is a direct consequence of the process of becoming a lone parent and some countries have no understanding of what this is so they seem to isolate it.
"I have always believed that it would be impossible to prove conclusively that simply having a lone parent effects your outcomes as a child and we have never argued that. The data on family breakdown looks at what happens to children who have lived with a lone parent and what their outcomes were. We do not believe it is possible to isolate the multitude of experiences that a child will feel and boil them down to such a simplistic comparison. Intriguingly, the report indicates that they are unhappy with reaching any strong conclusion by pointing out that: 'Policy makers should keep a close eye on trends...on the impact of family structure on child well being.' That suggests that they are not at ease with a simplistic interpretation.
"I therefore felt that a simplistic return to a debate about lone parenting based on a chapter in a report which was so vague and inconclusive was a lost opportunity. (...) I wonder if those who presented this to the outside world are the same as those who wrote the chapter. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that whilst the authors of the chapter write that their findings are inconclusive, the 'exec summary' appears to have been 'sexed up' somewhat..."
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Another excellent blog, Mark.
This is not a simple subject, and when politicians like IDS try to make it simple, that's the sort of thing that makes us (well, me at any rate) distrust politicians.
It seems that IDS has already decided, for political purposes, that single parents are bad and married parents are good. Any actual evidence on that matter is just a distraction. That is not the attitude I want policy makers to have.
But the evidence is important, and the causal relationships are important. Without knowing the causal relationships, it's impossible to design any interventions in an intelligent way (it should also be noted that even if an intervention is sensibly designed, that's still no guarantee that it's going to work in the real world, although obviously it stands a better chance than one that's been made up as a result of political dogma).
I haven't read this latest research, but when I've seen previous research on the effects of children on being raised by single parents, I've never really trusted it because the research has such huge potential for confounding by numerous other factors: single parents are different from married parents in a great many ways other than just the number of parents living together, and to ignore that complexity is bound to lead to the wrong conclusions. If the latest research has managed to pick apart that confounding, then it's definitely a step forward.
Complain about this comment
Thanks you for such a clear a well reasoned piece. Of course it only confirms the minds of Daily Mail and Times readers that the BBC is a hot bed of radical left wing propaganda merchants because being fair and unbiased is a clear trait of "lefties", as true thinking people make their mind up first and then only look at evidence that supports their pre-formed opinions.
The issue of one-parent versus two parent families is not one of the type of "marriage" contract entered into, nor even the sex of the main bread winner but the availability of positive role models both male and female, opportunities for the youngest children to socialise and a loving and supportive environment that encourages learning.
It is easier to provide this is a traditional family but that neither guarantees it nor does a non-traditional family necessarily mean that it is not achieved.
Countries that support children well and perform well on a number of measures tend to fund proportionately more to support the early formative years, in particular ensure low cost affordable nursery school places are available from about 18 months onwards to enable one or both [parents to work, to have a break from the children and to give a socialsing peer group for the child in a managed and supportive environment.
The UK provides little and at high cost.
I would argue that focusing much more in to that area would actually result in savings in most other areas of child support right up to 18. Get that right and the rest follows.
Complain about this comment
Ian is right when he points out that the OECD research proves a dramatic correlation between single-parent child-rearing and (relatively) negative outcomes, as best exemplified by the UK. The OECD simply could not provide scientific evidence of any causal relationship between the two.
If Ian was dismayed by your reporting, it was perhaps because he found it unbalanced, and therefore potentially misleading. It would have been necessary to give equal weight to the fact that the UK has both an exceptionally high rate of lone parenting AND an equally exceptional rate of juvenile drunkenness and anti-social behaviour. His one-sided interpretation of the report was perhaps a necessary corrective to yours.
It would be sad if the findings of this no doubt expensive research were to be read only through the prism of preconception. There are points on which the report is unambiguous and on which we should all agree to work together, for instance, on how best to promote behaviour that conduces to the sustaining of long-term relationships. If only for the sake of our children ?
PS : We could start by sacking the writers of "Eastenders"
Complain about this comment
I think the problem with single mothers as a term is that it covers separate groups that are more different than unitary. You have 1) families that split up, 2) working single mothers, and 3) mothers who make a living off their children in a life of benefits. I suggest that the first group could be quite similar to a family with a hard working absent father and a stay at home mother (possibly with lower income), the second group could be quite similar to a family with two hard working parents (possibly with lower income), and the third would be similar to a family with a culture of scraping by on benefits.
I would classify myself in group 1, my half brother in group 2, and either way we are much more life effective than anyone I have ever met in group 3 irrespective of whether that person had one or two parents or even a whole tribe of church going relatives.
In terms of policy I think it would be prejudicial to discriminate against people who may not have the opportunity to have the so-called perfect atomic family. Some of us are ugly and opinionated, it is more of a burden than you might imagine, unless of course you are IDS who seems to get away with it.
I do not mean we should not encourage productive and supported lives helping a valid & valuable future generation; but why this general talk about single mothers? Surely it just shows poor analytical framework skills?
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton:
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'?
That would be a SIMPLE reason for the rationale regarding the Broken Britain...But, the "thesis" behind a Broken Britain is, the broken family and the lack of social & economic development for most parts of the average British Family.....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
One parent families are up against it all the way, either the parent is financially struggling due to living on benefits, or the child is spending time in care establishments that do not provide a suitable alternative to family live.
The question is why are there so many single parents ? Perhaps there would be less if divorce wasn't so cheap and easy, perhaps if parents bore responsibility for teenage mothers, perhaps if motherhood was given a positive press it would make a difference.
Complain about this comment
My personal experience of 'staying together for the children' gave interesting results. My son exhibited some fairly traditional troubled behavior including obvious theft from school mates, minor bullying & fighting. This went on for some years despite private schooling and psychological counselling. However, once a divorce was agreed his behavior settled down and ceased to be a matter for any concern. It is impossible to tell whether this was due to his greater maturity which would have happened anyway, or a reduction in the general stress inevitable in a household where two incompatible people are trying to stay together and falsify committment to a relationship. For me it is indicative that some years later both children freely comment that the divorce was the best thing that could have happened to the family.
Complain about this comment
There are different types of single-parent families as AdamOpines #4 states. It really doesn't help the debate when all are lumped in together. Many single parent families survived the two world wars when the men went off to fight and the women were left to bring up their families as best they could but no-one denigrates those mothers in the way we do today.
The most important thing for children is that they grow up in a secure loving environment so if two parents don't get on it really does not help children to be living in more or less a war zone. I don't think many people set out with the intention of being single parents but sadly many relationships fall apart and I can vouch for the fact that it's much harder than being in a two parent situation. Yet instead of being supported by society, lone parents are made into society's scapegoats which makes the job even harder.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
The single mum has inspired polarised political debate in Britain for a generation: to some a deserving recipient of social security; to others a cause of social insecurity. The OECD has rattled the cage of those in both camps.
I am glad, that this "single mum" was able to do something positive and started this important conversation regarding this type of important information in the United Kingdom and, rattled the cage of the OECD.....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Not a simple problem! How often we hear this as a "complex" problem from our government to explain their incapability to handle a situation. When used it simply explains our politicians lack of understanding on social and economic issues and capability to address them.
Myself and my younger sister were brought up in a broken home in the 50's when it was not socially acceptable (divorce), and wife beating was common and accepted.
Was I deprived? - Yes. But not to the extent that is common now, since our family was classed as poor, and practical local assistance in health and economics were given to both myself and my sister. More could have been done on education, but this I did later under a student apprenticeship and self learning.
In my opinion Britain is alone in the modern world in not doing enough for family values (politicians spout mantras that they do not believe in or are seen as politically correct), or in providing the needed support to those deprived of these values, especially since our politician's values are now so corrupted that their lying and fraud are perceived by them as acceptable.
I have lived and worked all over the world, and the social and family values we had in the 50's and early 60's are in the process of being replicated or simply exist in many countries, and offer protection, especially against non-benign governments, war, and famine.
If we had the common education levels of Scandinavia, Japan, and even Germany then perhaps we would not have so many broken families.
In 1951 at the age of ten I visited a state Danish school and was in awe of the linguistic and other skills of pupils of my age. This benchmark has stayed with me for over 50 years.
Mark Easton and his social engineering cohorts probably have their hearts in the right place, produce thousands of words to support their defense of the indefensible, but seem incapable of defining and implementing a strategy to get us out of our downward spiraling broken Britain situation.
Complain about this comment
I dont think its so called single parents that you can blame as most have well extended familys and friends tha help out with life(as was pointed out about the wars). I think what has happened is a decline in moral values as familys become fragmented and as media has become more immoral over how life is reported and portrayed. I know a lot of people put down religous education with strange comments like your not filling my childs head full of that rubbish blabla bla. But is the core value of religion ie Morals and how to live with each other realy what parents are failing to teach children by rebuking such education?
Complain about this comment
How many PMs are divorced with children? how many have second and third marriages mant Tories are like that and many of the upper classes look at the royals wanted for nothing but still could not stay together. We are getting this push towards marriage because many women do not want to be in relationships that are abusive and to keep their children in this sort of relationship. IDS has emotional problems there is a feeling of rage in him and he is into the church a god bother. Men who are married live longer than those who are not but for women not so. So the wives and children left because of the fathers love war more than they do them i.e soldiers are they not at a disadvantage part of the Broken Britian?? IDS is a Tory and lives in cloud cuckoo land always did, there is a lack of empathy about this man/child parents are born not created and being married is like sex a small part of a good relationship. As Europe becomes more church then we will get this usually set in place by the religious sects who need to control everyone like Catholics, Muslims , Jews and American evangelistic people and the many sects that they have in the USA. Broken Britian is to do with the Govenment as it is with all countries. Were do Yummy Mummies live? not on any run down place and she is married with a big house and usually blonde and blue eyes and her husband never plays away.
Now there will be more broken families because of the stress of not having a job and whose fault is that, how many times do bankers remarry? loads of times, there has never been a Golden time of Britishness after the wars we were to tired to do anything but we had many broken marriages then many did not come back from the war and it was not always to do with Germans. What the moan is about is the young will not join up like they used to do, and keep asking why are we doing this????
Complain about this comment
Social engineering is always based on some sense of group classifications that is extended to indviduals. Like, all politicians and bankers are corrupt. Even though this is generally true, it does not account for the small percentage that are not. Therefore, policies tend to punish those who wish to overcome some social condition and reward those who don't in order to reinforce our existing beliefs. Governments do many things poorly, but social policy seems to bring out the worst.
Complain about this comment
The Welfare State is the concept that has done most to "break" Britain, and of course supports, promotes and by example propagates single parent families. Blaming single parent families is a little like blaming gravity for the brick that falls on your head, rather than the scrote who threw it - beneath this socially disruptive phenomena lurks the cause - welfare dependency. And no political party appears willing to tackle that. Interestingly I see Michael Portillo took a shot at it this past weekend, with zero follow-up in the media. I wonder why?
BTW, Mark - the OECD report looks at 25 countries, IDS is looking at one, as are most of us. We have a unique environment - our welfare state coupled with the most heterogenous population in the developed world puts us in a whole different ball park. A doomed, broken, failed ball park, in case you were wondering.
Complain about this comment
It is such a complicated problem talking about it is one thing but taking the right sort of action to change where we are especially during these times of recession are quite honestly a hopeless task.
Single parent families on benefit are not the cause of the problems but are caused by them.
A society which over the past few years has been driven by greed not need and where it has been necessary for both parents to work full time under pressure of not being able to give their children what every other child has led to many debt ridden households falling apart under the pressure.
The breakdown of the extended family where grandparents could take some of the pressures off young mums has albut disappeared as they themselves have had to work to keep up appearances.
There is an attitude deeply entrenched in modern society that needs to change. It is an 'I want it all now' and 'my child has to have the best' no matter what the cost.
Attitudes only change when circumstances do and when we all accept that the 'nanny state' will not help us when we're in trouble we will start thinking again about how we prioritise our lives.
Perhaps it will happen naturally as we all have to start
Complain about this comment
It is pointless to take a generalisation drawn from many countries and apply it to one country.
I believe that Iain Duncan Smith's report collated experiences from many countries but the report's findings and conclusions were meant for the UK alone.
As such I am not sure what the BBC’s opinion on this matter is leading to or the point it is trying to make.
Complain about this comment
KennethM: "It is pointless to take a generalisation drawn from many countries and apply it to one country." Why? It seems an eminently sensible thing to do to me.
cassandrina's comment is the most accurate so far. I too have lived and worked in many countries and no other country I have ever been to has quite such an anti-family, anti-child culture as this one. Britain is extreme and unusual in this respect, and people here need to recognise how bad they are at family life and start learning from other countries where they do it better.
Complain about this comment
Well Im a Divorced Mother of three Children that has worked up to 3 jobs at a time to support & raise my children. Ive given them the guidance and discipline to become responsible,respectable and contributing members of Society.
When I divorced my Husband it was because he was not a good provider and wass unable to remain true to me. He was an abusive partner and parent.
Generally it would seem I was entitled to the financial support for my Children, which I never recieved, due to his refusal to pay and the negligence of the relevant Child Support Agency to pursue him for the same.
This added to the pressure for me to earn the family income alone and I did. The law changed between having my 2nd and 3rd Child and we as parents were no longer allowed to use smacking as a disciplinary tool.
Childline was available for those Children who were in need of a service of this nature. However was regularly used by children to threaten their parents when they were being disciplined. I remember my son complaining because I was trying to make him eat his carrots.
The difference in the attitude of these siblings is enormouse. This is due to the fact I was always at work and not allowed to smack him & with no designer toys or tv to confiscate it wasnt really easy to discipline him.
This Government has done too little too late and now wants to pass the blame.
Morality steers us a a society to the lack of support regard and respect for parents with care.
Childminders were not available when required and I was left paying all my wages in school holidays to get my children cared for . Paying for full time care when they were only being looked after for two hours after school , because the child minders would not give a place part time as they would lose a full time paying customer.
I had to pay family and neigbours to do the job of caring for my kids nesecitating another job to cover the expense.
Despite the struggle I am proud to say I am successful and happy with the young adults I have as a result of my efforts.
I am not happy with the press young people are getting , I am sick of the hypocrites who condemn the parent with care, who tirelessly strive to survive in this unfigiving society, when they may be in a single parent family through no fault of their own.
Try looking at the absent parent who refuses to provide financially or emotionally for the children of the family, especially the ones who were no good at being that in the first instance, and not fit to continue in their role as a parent , be it due to the way they conducted themselves in and out of the marriage/relationship.
Too many people just abandon their responsibilities and continue on with their lives spawnining more dependants and leaving them also.
My children have given me a lot to be proud of and I want the general public to see the other side of this story, mine just being one facet of millions who were abandoned and left with little or no hope.
The Government did not provide facilities for our children , closed youth our center, stopped opur children from playing ball on the street near their home, did not pursue the absent parent for mantainence, as I was working and no longer a burden to the benefit system, and to add insult to injury did not even request the file from the county court for processing for 6 years, despite many letters to the csa for progress on the maintenance claim.
A letter of apology from the cheif executive for the csa and a cheque for 220 compensation was just a slap in the face.
I hope Im not an average example of lone parent.!!!!
Give some of the lottery money to our underprivelidges kids and some of the money send abroad for foreign war would be better spent on our own.
Complain about this comment
I co-wrote Breakthrough Britain for IDS. The OECD report itself is excellent, its conclusions heavily laced with appropriate qualifications and provisos. IDS is right to question the simplified media summary. The OECD report says that lone parenthood does have a negative effect on children. Media focus on the word "small", to describe the "effect size", is what is misleading here. These are statistical terms and not necessarily an indication of the consequences. Effect sizes are often watered down because meta-analyses include the best designed studies and those less good. Focus on the word "small" misses perhaps the key finding in the report which is that 94% of the non-US studies included and 88% of the older US studies used as a comparison showed the negative effect of being brought up by a lone parent (see p130). The direction of travel is overwhelmingly one way. This is hardly rocket science - life is bound to be more difficult on average for lone parents and their children. For starters, one pair of hands makes it harder to stay out of poverty and harder to give love or discipline to children. This is simple reality and not in any way a judgement. Of course IDS is therefore right to question this minimising of the consequences of lone parenthood. The otherwise excellent report does have one crucial omission. Children's outcomes are impacted by both family structure and family process - how we organise ourselves as families and how we relate to one another - and often by the interaction of these two. Most people will recognise this as self-evident. The report rightly acknowledges that not all couple families do well and not all lone parents do badly (p138). What they don't cite - but should have - is the well-established finding (by the top US sociologist Paul Amato who they otherwise quote liberally) that children do worst following low conflict divorces/separations (which they may not see coming) and better following high conflict divorces/separations (which may provide relief). Family structure and family process matter. Read the policy implications and in fact the OECD authors conclusion (such as relationship education, my particular specialisation) are in fact remarkably similar to the range of proposals submitted three years ago by IDS in Breakthrough Britain. Harry Benson, bcft.co.uk
Complain about this comment
Wide-spread and respected research shows that children who remain in a family where there is domestic generally demonstrate increasingly disturbed and often abusive (and self-abusive) behaviour themselves as they enter their teens. There is a much better prognosis for the children of women (and men) victims of domestic violence who leave violent relationships before their children reach puberty. "Broken families" are not to blame. It is the thing that breaks the family which is to blame. Very frequently the breaking factor is violence, exacerbated by drink, debt, drugs and what might be termed "cultural" violence - i.e. men whose learned behaviours are such that they believe that violence against their partners is acceptable.
The problem with the research and with the self-satisfied approach of IDS is that it further drives the problem underground so that help is harder for victims of domestic violence to obtain and the social censure that they suffer on leaving their violent spouses is a deterrant to their leaving. If they do not leave, statistically, their children are more likely to either be abused or become abusive than those women (and proportionately fewer but not insignificant number of men) who have the courage to leave difficult relationships.
I am proud to have left my violent husband. I have suffered financially, emotionally and socially for having done so, but my children are miles better off. I doubt I will get a medal for bravery for doing this, indeed I didn't expect one. But it would be good to be supported along this difficult road.
This week we see the publication of research from Bristol University about the sadly high proportion of teenage girls who are subject to physical abuse and sexual coercion from their boyfriends. Yet IDS would have those teenage girls trapped in those types of relationships to the huge longer-term detriment of society as a whole let alone what it does the lives of those young women and their children.
The Conservative Party's stance on the family will have no credibility for me until it stops ignoring the huge role domestic violence plays in relationship breakdown and child, adolescent and adult mental health issues.
Complain about this comment
IDC is correct in protesting against Mark's report. We are making a story out of the OEDC's challenge to the Conservative's "Broken Britain" report in the same vain as we never gave much coverage to the "Broken Britain" report.
Our outcomes from broken homes are there for everyone to judge. Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications. 20% spend their life in and out of prison where 80% of prisoners cannot read and write, 40% become alcoholics, 40% become drug addicts and 70% become clinically depressed. These are our outcomes nevermind the global picture.
Daddy leaves primarily due to financial pressure and his awareness that his family will be better off financially without him. The state is a partner in waiting and to every single parent mother there is a lonely and near destitute father with no support group like the BBC. This throws further financial pressure onto his peers of similar income and family breakup accelerates threefold in 20 years.
Regards,
David Lilley
Complain about this comment
As someone who has worked within the privileged field of private education and the impoverished social care system, alongside children from fractured family backgrounds in both settings, I can assure you that single parenthood cannot be labeled as a key driver in ‘broken Britain’.
What is far more damaging to any child is an absent parent or two parents who are themselves inadequate and hampered by their own issues of lovelessness, addiction or distraction by work and their own lifestyle pursuits. A child cries just as hard and with as much sincerity, whether they are sitting along in their elite boarding house after being fobbed off again or whether they are sitting in a dark kitchen with no food because all the money has been spent on drink or drugs. Bad parenting is not the preserve of the underclass. Nor is good parenting (either sole or dual) to be found only in leafy cul-de-sacs or gated communities.
A family can become ‘broken’ even if it is in possession of two parents and two taxable incomes and lets us be frank, an unhappy and discontented married mother and father can be much more damaging for a child than a single parent who attempts to mitigate against the absence of a partner by working industriously to fill that natural void. If I have learnt anything in my work, it is to say yes – ideally, a child needs a loving and secure mother and a father. Yet, I have also learnt that however, in our maddeningly complicated society, we cobble together our own personal relationships to strive for this model – as long as there is the presence of stability, love and commitment – a child will flourish. If Britain is broken, it is just as broken behind the windows of the rectory, manor house and parish pub as it is behind the windows of the high-rise, sink towns and nightclubs throwing out at two in the morning.
Complain about this comment
#17 Richard1634 Every country has its own culture and way of life. We have a situation where extended families are scattered and, in many cases do not provide the support that may be required, especially when a family unit only has one parent.
Conversely, in societies where the extended family is tight-knit and living nearby, I am sure that the absence of one parent would not be so much of a problem. In fact I would have thought that it is common that the breadwinner leaves the family home for long periods to find work leaving, not only the remaining parent but aunts, uncles and grandparents to help with child-rearing. It is pointless lumping all cultures together as one. We are all very different from one country to another.
Complain about this comment
An excellent feature!
I have to be honest I am the product of a broken home. My father left my mother when we were just eight years old. Mum was left with four children 12 and under.
I find that this broken families leading to partial break down in society to be absurd. Whilst my mother had the help of my grandparents she kept us all in line. She was strict but needed to be. Her kids didn't add to "broken Britains" downfall, we might have added to the statistics, but not the downfall.
Look at the general fabric of our once great nation. We don't trust or believe the government of the day. This country seems to lurch from one disaster to another. Whether that be economic crisis because "fat cats" and those who should have been able to deduce what was about to happen failed, or whether that be our current ailing foreign policy - without getting our own house in order.
Society is breaking down because we all expect far more of our lives. Very few people are content to just get by nowdays. The welfare state allows young parents to get something for nothing. Our benefit system is, at best fatally flawed. The major problem still is that in this country the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Always has been, always will be. The drama now extends to what used to be the middle classes. Try buying a house with a semi decent income, it isn't that easy.
There is no fast fix but we need to stop the current rot we have in our government. Maybe a "fresh face" would help? Stop making the idea of a very young family claiming just as much off the system as they would for 40 plus hours a week and we might just get there.
Complain about this comment
There isn't a fast fix for the "Broken Britain" but how can anyone apply such a huge generalization of "if you grow up with only one parent you are going to have problems in life". If thats the case then if I'm ever in a loveless marriage, where all me and my wife do is argue and take it out on the kid, then thank god that the kid will turn out better than if they went between us each week. Most ridiculous stance on something I think I've ever heard.
Complain about this comment
Part of the problem has been the development over time of the "me,myself and I" philosophy.This focus on personal needs to the exclusion of the needs of others, coupled with a developing need for more instant forms of gratification means that we expect to have our individual needs satisfied immediately and on our own terms.At the same time this had led to an increasing unwillingness to accept responsibility in social relationships.The result is a society out of control.
There is now a free for all over pay with bankers,MPs and other demanding a larger slice of the national cake even though their decisions have financially crippled the nation; have led to hundreds of businesses going under; and have led to the dismissal of employees further down the command structure who have become the price to be paid by decision-makers who look after themselves and who don't accept responsiblity for the erroneous decisions they make.
As a result of the behaviour of our "leaders", this self-centredness has percolated down to the lower echelons of society to create the dog eat dog society we see, hear and read about in the media.
Some MPs want their large salaries, expenses and pensions at a time when their decisions and actions are causing others to lose theirs.Some men want sex with women but don't want to accept responsibility if the women become pregnant.Some people feel that if you don't have something that you want then it's OK to go out and steal it.And yet others are trying to escape the dreariness of day to day life in a haze of drugs, binge-drinking, casual sex etc.And then of course there is the litter,fly-tipping, industrial waste - the dumped by-products of a society that cannot be bothered to be socially responsible.
Britain is broken because we have a social leadership that thinks more of its own needs than those of the nation.As a result others feel the same.We need to get back to caring and just Britain.We need to get back to doing the right things because it is the right and moral thing to do, not because we benefit from it personally.We need to move over to a philosophy and lifestyle of teamwork that is more "us, ourselves and we", something that has a communal, neighbourhood feel to it.
Britain can be fixed but it will mean major changes at the top.Only time will tell, if that is going to happen.
Complain about this comment
my dad brought 3 girls and 1 boy up on his own and he tought us respect not only for each other but for other we was smack as a child and we new never to do that again for what we was smacked for we looked up to our dad no matter what he made sure we did not watch anything that we shouldnt watch on tv like fighting or sexual nature we was a poor family some times all we could get to eat was school meals that is what kept us going a good school meal i can remeber 1 time he had to sell the fridge becouse we had no food in the cubards the morgage came first and food came 2nd he is the best he could of walked away like our mother did but he didnt he put his heart in to caring for us i think disapline needs to be alowed as no one dares smack there children a tap on the legs or the hand made us not to do anything bad so why cant we do it to day i dont meen beat or punch a child but if a child gose to put his fingers in the plug socket a little tap on the hand that will make him cry will teach him not to do it again but to day they get away with a lot to much should i say we cant blame single parents for broken britain the goverment as done that them self we dont av health care like we did 20 yrs ago like dentise our hospitals are worse then 10 yrs ago working familey who put most of the tax in this country are penalised if your a single mum you get housing befits councile tax paid and they get free school meals and money in the bank that a lot of parents split up because working parents cant aford to stay together i work and my partner we should help working familys as well as single parents familey taxs credits is a waste off time as you end up paying more back then what you got we found that over the 3 yrs we payed back more couse they over payed us we cant even aford to pay back the 359 pounds we ow for this yr so we are in the red this year agn
Complain about this comment
You need to be very careful about studies of this type of issue: it's complex and difficult to do 'hard science' (eg a controlled experiment).
Lets say some academics study 100 dual parent families compared to 100 single parent families. They find the single parent kids aren't doing so well at school. But they also find the single parent families are earning less.
How do you interpret that? Is it having one parent, or being poor? Should the academics 'control' for earnings? If they do that then their statistics will eliminate most of the effect - whether it's single parent or poverty causing it. You need to read the small print of their report to know if they have done things like this.
People need to take this sort of stuff - regardless of which way the results go - with a healthy pinch of scepticism.
Complain about this comment
Seems to be a constant picture here
Moral/religious belief V Consumerisum V balance
Consumer beliefs of the me myself and I political thought which endows most of the modern populas via the rat race.
Moral beliefs of im here to help everyone in every walk of life who needs support.
balance has not been thought about in such a long time with the constant devaluation of the person and the persons role in life in order for us to remain a Strong economy. The price for this is always going to be the same and bear the same sour fruit social breakdown!.
Complain about this comment
#21 dlilley wrote:
Our outcomes from broken homes are there for everyone to judge. Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications. 20% spend their life in and out of prison where 80% of prisoners cannot read and write, 40% become alcoholics, 40% become drug addicts and 70% become clinically depressed. These are our outcomes nevermind the global picture.
Just out of interest, where did these numbers come from? Can you point me at the research? I'm especially interested in the first statistic.....
Complain about this comment
#30:
Just what I was going to say. I also find those statistics rather hard to believe.
dlilley, I trust you'll be able to enlighten us?
Complain about this comment
Having observed life in a working class, Northern town for 21 years, from the age of 20, I can say with a great deal of confidence that the main problem is being missed; it isn't that children are being raised by a single parent, it is the number of partners that that single parent takes! A different role model each week or month, with different rules and standards being thrust upon a child, is where it all goes wrong. The number of people I know that have no qualms about introducing a new partner after a single date, or even in the morning after a one-night stand, is staggering! I believe this country's major problem is that so many of our children are being "raised" by many different people, none of which are that child's parent!
Complain about this comment
I have just ended my marriage of 22 years, I have two daughters (15 & 18) I have brought them up mainly on my own as their father worked away or didnt want to be part of the family.
I dont feel staying married is always a benifit to the family unit, as children pick up if their parents don't get on and I believe this will effect them more than splitting up.
Both my daughters were relieved when we did split, they said they were not sure why we had not done it sooner?
So I say 'One size doesn't fit all'.
Complain about this comment
@ dlilley
Wow !
I guess I'd better give up on life and look forward to a life of prison, drug addiction and depression as I'm one of those who have come from a "broken home".
For me, the day my parents separated was a great relief. They'd been unhappy together for several years but had tried to stay together for my benefit but all they ended up doing was harming themselves and our family.
Once they admitted it wasn't going to work out any longer and moved on we all became happier, they weren't stuck in a loveless marriage and I wasn't growing up in a very tense environment.
Many of my friends' parents are divorced yet we're all reasonably successful people and none of us have ever been arrested, we're not alcoholics or drug addicts either.
Personally, I think it's better to have parents who are separated and happy rather than together and unhappy as no amount of staying together is ever going to make up for growing up in an unhappy home, parents may think they're hiding things from their children but in most cases the children know their parents aren't happy and this is far more distressing than the separation.
I find the Conservatives ideas so out of date and irrelevant that they're actually quite funny. They'd love us to go back to some imagined 1950s ideal where everyone got married and stayed together their entire lives, regardless of how happy they were. They ignore perfectly good reasons for divorce such as domestic violence, incompatibility & infidelity and try to make out that everyone should stay together, all for the good of the children of course, even though for some, staying together is doing their children more harm than good.
Complain about this comment
The IDS model, whereby couples are "suitable" and "single parents" are not, is palpably nonsensical. Many people are single parents by force of circumstance.
It would be better to concentrate on the notion of "responsible" parenting. A concept that many Conservative MP's - indeed all MP's - might find exceedingly hard to grasp. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Good on you, Mark - as far as I'm aware all IDS sees is that if statistically worse outcomes come out of 'broken homes' then broken homes must cause it - completely flawed logic, correlation does not equal causation - they could in fact be two symptoms of a wider social problem
i.e. this doesn't mean a middle-class child with one parent will fare any worse, and it's offensive to those of us who have single parents to say our parental situation causes us harm and makes us overwhelmingly become criminals
it's ridiculous to think marriage is a silver bullet
and as for you, 'dlilley':
"Our outcomes from broken homes are there for everyone to judge. Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications."
Nice, well here's 1% for you (4 a-levels and a degree from a russell group uni) - I hope you're just trolling
Complain about this comment
Blimey dlilley looks like my lifes not going to go anywhere then. I'll just throw away any qualifications that I've achieved so far and go jump in the closest doorway and start begging for change shall I?
Complain about this comment
When I was at university the only people amongst my friends to receive first class degrees were both brought up by single parents.
In fact, I am more than a little concerned about " dlilley's" level of education as he seems to have a rather dubious grasp of statistics.
Were you in fact brought up by a single parent "dlilley", and are basing your statistical sample on one person, namely yourself?
Complain about this comment
It's hardly a blow to IDS or the Conservatives that the OECD cannot exclusively define or deny a single factor root cause, because they (IDS and the Cs) understand that the "brokenness" or otherwise of families is only one of the factors causing societal breakdown as a whole, and that even the brokenness of a family isn't just defined by whether it has a single parent.
It's more useful to express these ideas in lay terms and then look at what those actually break down into afterwards. The breakdown in society does appear to have a high correlation with the breakdown in parenting; although I don't think that it's impossible for a single parent to provide holistic high-quality parenting I think it's much more difficult than when you have a "standard married couple" and thus more likely to go wrong.
The breakdown in parenting has these among it's probable causes:-
- Nanny state undermining parents ability to parent in their own style.
- Nanny state and increasingly litigous society undermining discipline in schools.
- Focus on immediate child happiness at the expense of everything else.
- Societal/economic encouragement of both parents to work full time.
These each in turn are not simple single factors.
The problem with the way the government (and especially the press, curse them) treat this is that they always focus on one small factor and change it as if it were the single cause of all the problems, thus causing unplanned knock-on effects on the complex system. For example, trying to eliminate Child Poverty (a hugely misleading, emotionally-loaded and ultimately destructive goal) by giving lots of benefit money to their parents even if they choose to just sit at home and spend it on the infamous plasma TVs. It's not hard to see why this causes more damage to society than it fixes.
If you want to fix broken britain, you have to examine the whole model holistically and change each factor in a direction that will, in concert with your other changes, have a positive outcome. I actually think that this is what the Conservatives are trying to do... with the problem that the average bloke on the street doesn't understand the model, and both the government and the press are constantly telling him that they aren't smart enough to understand it.
And this is where the talk of personal responsibility comes in. Once you have each citizen understanding that they need to take personal responsibility to educate themselves about and manage everything in their personal domain, and work for themsevles and society instead of just themselves, then you can work on the symptoms of this underlying problem. Or in layman's terms - it's our job to make sure we are doing the best we can both for ourselves *and for everyone else*.
The average citizen thinking - and being told to think - that the problems of society are nothing to do with them is the closest you are going to come to a "simple root cause" of pretty much all the problems of society. It always has been - Democracy as a system assumes and requires the best efforts of each individual, and when instead each individual assumes they have no responsibility to society we're all... well, in the sort of mess we're in now.
Complain about this comment
Reading the comment left by Secratariat makes me smile, I to came from a broken, single parent home, but like you I have a good education -
4 degrees, O'Levels and a BTec in Business Studies,
no criminal record, no drinking problems, in fact I am a stable unright person.
So why should we all be tared with the same brush, this survey that was done was it a cross section of the whole population, or just those who suited the requirements?????
Complain about this comment
sadly there is a culture still of young girls getting pregnant to get what they can off the state and this coupled with the lack of morals in modern males creates yet more problems.
social services are also at fault in many cases by damaging and spliting families whilst failing to do their jobs.
with single people getting better benefits than married persons you can see that opens the door to open partnerships etc that weakens family ties as years progress.
children are a great responsibility not an asset but they are used as assets and that is again part of the problem.
Complain about this comment
I agree with what Harry Benson writes:
“Read the policy implications and in fact the OECD authors conclusion (such as relationship education, my particular specialisation) are in fact remarkably similar to the range of proposals submitted three years ago by IDS in Breakthrough Britain.”
and with rupertdeBare
“It would be sad if the findings of this no doubt expensive research were to be read only through the prism of preconception. There are points on which the report is unambiguous and on which we should all agree to work together, for instance, on how best to promote behaviour that conduces to the sustaining of long-term relationships. If only for the sake of our children?”
As someone, like Harry Benson, who works in the field of relationship education, I look forward to the day when the BBC looks beyond its own preconceptions and starts to report upon the good work being done in sustaining long-term relationships. Nick Gulliford www.affinities.org.uk
Complain about this comment
Quite troubling to see such bias from the bbc.
It's blindingly obvious that two parents are better than one (all other things being equal). That's an absolute wealth or research showing that both boys and girls benefit from having a father figure around.
Many single mothers do a great job under the circumstance, but inevitably it's still a far worse job on average than most two parent families
It's a shame the bbc have to be some blinded by their feminist agenda that they can't acknowledge such basic truths.
Of course Duncan-Smith is equally blinded by his dogged support for marriage that he ignores easily the best solution to broken families, which is of course the need to introduce Equal Parenting in seperation cases rather than just insist everyone stays married.
Thus in summary, everyone on all sides of the debate is either so biased one way or anther that they choose to ignore basic facts, or those acknowledging these facts still don't even acknowledge the possibility of the most obvious and practical solutions.
What a crazy world.
Complain about this comment
The reason why research is unable to be helpful is because it is unable to have a control experiment. It will always be impossible to compare similar cohorts of children on such a complex issue. The best thing we can do is abandon research that identifies long-term impacts. The truth is that resilience in children allows them to overcome hardships, including separation. Where children don't have resilience (don't feel loved) then blows that other children can recover from can knock them down. Therefore the link with separation largely depends on how loved a child feels. However, we can identify that fathers - who most often lose touch with their children - by and large have a positive impact on self esteem. Of course, there are those who are abusive and violent, and in such cases cause severe damage to children.
However, a simpler way to approach this problem is not to look at it from an economic perspective (what are the long term impacts of separation) where the research is contested, but to look at it from a child's perspective. Most of the work I'm aware of is that children feel devastated when their parents separate (look at Newsround's campaign) and that feeling is as important as the long-term impacts.
That's not to say separation shouldn't happen. Relationships where there is significant conflict are bad news for everyone. But if we looked at children's experience, and the isolation and fear that they can feel when parents separate, we might take a less ideological line on this and accept that the present for children lasts a long time and, as parents, if we have one duty to them, it is to look after them. One way of doing that, if separation is inevitable, is to behave in a decent way throughout the emotional turbulence of separation. Not easy, bit if we have children's wellbeing at heart, utterly necessary.
Complain about this comment
Unrelated to the post, but could you try and have quotes displayed in something over than pale grey text on a white background? I'm glad quotes are clearly identified as such, but making so hard to read renders their content useless.
Complain about this comment
Single parent families.
1)Have more time to spend with each other so you would expect their child to actually do better than two parents both working(about the same as one working, one at home),unless they(two parents) pay for expensive child-caring facilities.
2)Action ? -
Give more money to single parent families.
But to do what exactly ? Spend money on child caring facilities whilst the parent goes out to work.
But where does this benefit the child ? Less time with mum, more time at the creche.Equals,about the same.
3)Ideal scenario? Two parents at home,not working,who can spend all their time with the child ?
But research does not bare this out,because in the real world,the two parents are most likely to be on low income so don't have much skills/resources to make the difference.
Out of all of this, the answer seems to be in the perceived benefits of education. Setting up the child for it's future education requirements to achieve as good as possible result.
But is this just ''Making plans for Nigel(la)'' ?
What happens if (s)he twigs ?
Complain about this comment
I am still loking forward to the results of having children brought up in families where both 'parents' are of the same sex. This to me is a time bomb awaiting to explode. If a single mother/father is seen as the reason for a child's failure what will be the reaction when the children who have single sex parents foisted on them fail and become part of the present problem. I for one think that if you want to live with someone of your own sex then you should be rerquired to put up with being unable to have children. Being a parent is not possible for homosexuals.
Complain about this comment
#43:
"It's blindingly obvious that two parents are better than one (all other things being equal). That's an absolute wealth or research showing that both boys and girls benefit from having a father figure around."
You are missing the same point that IDS misses. The key phrase here is "all other things being equal". It may well be true that children with a father figure around do better than children without, but that's precisely because, on average, other things aren't equal. There are many factors that result in a good upbringing for children. Many of those factors are more likely to be present in 2-parent families than in 1-parent family. But when all those factors are present in a 1-parent family, is there any evidence that children do any better in a 2-parent family.
It may be "blindingly obvious" that two parents are better than one, but that doesn't mean it's true. What this latest research may show (although sadly they don't seem to have made the relevant bits available online, so I don't know whether it shows it or not) is that, other things being equal, 2 parents aren't necessarily better than one.
Complain about this comment
#43 harrietharmman wrote:
"Thus in summary, everyone on all sides of the debate is either so biased one way or anther that they choose to ignore basic facts, or those acknowledging these facts still don't even acknowledge the possibility of the most obvious and practical solutions."
So, everyone is biased or unable to acknowledge the obvious except you then Harriet? You really are a very special person ......
And methinks dlilley is definitely a Troll.....
Complain about this comment
I am a Canadian who reads British publications. Blaming broken families for your society’s many ills is wrong and incorrect. There are other, more influential, problems with your society.
For example, I have noticed that we have similar problems in our countries, but they are often handled differently, such as your recent scandal involving inappropriate expenses billed by government MP’s. That scandal was resolved by Gordon Brown by his changing declaration rules so that his elected people have a higher limit for making claims without receipts. That must be a very comfortable punishment for offenders, but it is ridiculous to consider that outcome equitable or just. In comparison, a recent expense scandal in Ontario, Canada (which included awarding untendered contracts) resulted in all of the Ontario Lotto Corporation’s board and top executives being fired. As well, a new “Integrity Commissioner” has been appointed to review all bureaucratic expenses. If any are billed inappropriately, the submitting person will have to repay any reimbursement funds they may have received. Different, eh?
It makes me very sad to recall my visit to Britain 30 years ago, when your general social decline had not yet occurred. Back then, people still cared about one another. Your society has utterly changed and I am still wondering how and why. I cannot help but conclude that, in part, your corrupt parliamentary system has had a profound “modelling” effect on your citizens. What has resulted is that many of your people have ceased to make sacrifices to pursue moral principles, while personal achievement and community pride seem too often suspended by your young.
Instead, incredibly large numbers of disillusioned, addicted drug addicts are wrecking havoc in your society, many of whom would not have turned to drugs if opportunities for education and work had been available. It is especially telling that educational opportunities fall so short of demand. As long as your elected representatives continue to stop short of investing in ordinary people to make their lives better with things like education, your society will continue to deteriorate. As long as you continue to allow your medical people to refuse medical treatment to your elderly populations (which leads to their deaths), you will continue to degrade your concern for others and diminish whatever empathic abilities your society has left.
I used to respect Britain. They were world leaders who won the second world war. Today, your chemical drug laws allow lots of room for trade to flourish, which increases addiction and the crimes perpetuated by unemployed, needy people.
I am so sad for you all because even honest people are subject to depression, frustration and overwhelming feelings of failure. Desperation can easily lead to drug addiction or other corruption. It is not even all the druggies that are to blame. Ordinary people influenced by anti-social behaviours other exhibit, illegal workers who do not have deeply-rooted commitment to Britain’s wellbeing, and hustlers who take advantage of weakness generally, all contribute to your moral downfall.
How sad for one of the greatest countries in the world.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has let it be known he didn't like my TV piece last night on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) newly published report on children.
His disappointment, I suspect, reflects the fact that the respected Paris-based think-tank has questioned one of the key pillars of Conservative social policy.
Yes, I figure out the reason why Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith wasn't happy with your reportage; Because in his eyes; there are showing discontent to the argument of what the acceptable way to do social adhersion...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
#50 Very well said
Complain about this comment
beautifulCanadianEd: If you were to believe all you read in the press then of course you would have an appaling image of the country. The Britain in which I live is one where caring people are found all around me in work and society as a whole. Also, I haven't come across many drug takers recently. Finally, I hardly think a few expenses makes us corrupt (we are the 16th LEAST corrupt country according to the CPI rating).
Complain about this comment
In the rush to get more and more women into the work force to basically use them as cheap labour the family has suffered big time. You have women which have forced the PC correctness hard to give them the "freedom to go out to work". But you cannot have it both ways a "career" and a "family", you have to choose one or the other.
The ones that do go out to work are so guilty they shower the children with presents to ease there guilt but the net result is the children end up spoilt. Family life has been completly destroyed and a much deeper damage has been done to the UK economy as the men in some families have been assigned to the scrap heap. Employers love hiring women they know they will work hard and they can pay them less.Call me old fashioned but the man earns and the woman cares for the children it worked for years now everything is messed up big time.The sad thing is its the children thats paying the price.
Complain about this comment
"So, everyone is biased or unable to acknowledge the obvious except you then Harriet? You really are a very special person ......"
No, everyone highlighted in this article having this debate EITHER refuses to acknowledge the facts OR in Duncan's Smith's case, acknowledges the facts 100% but can't see the key solution due to his obsession with marriage.
Plenty of people support equal parenting in separation cases, it sin't exactly something I've invented. In fact it's the law in so many countries all around the world all of which have far lesser problems in these areas (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Australia etc). Thus many many millions of people share my views 100%.
It would have been far better if the OEDC had distinguished between countries with shared parenting laws and those without, as I very much expect the incredible success of such laws skews the figures and hides the fact that family breakdown only generally results in major problems in countries with the winner take all system.
Complain about this comment
How about instead of promoting 2 parent families by rewarding them or the alternative of punishing single parent families we reward the result that this somewhat outdated assumption is supposed to support.
Why not reward people who's kids do well in school, who do not get arrested or cautioned for bad behaviour, whose attendance at school is good maybe who are active in sport (it's supposed to be good for them) and maybe for older kids who volunteer in a way that benefits society.
Or maybe that's what good parents do anyway. I would be more inclined to inflict punishment on parents who allow antisocial behaviour - not giving someone who doesn't care enough something is much less likely to invoke a response than taking something away from them.
Some may think that is a bit dracionian but has molly coliding done any good - I think a step back to taking responsibility for one's actions rather than blaming others would achieve far greater success.
Complain about this comment
May i just say I think part of the problem is Children having access to drugs at a early age in the worst of these cases.
Complain about this comment
Whats the root cause of marriage failure - 1)one partner cheating on the other , 2) financial pressure eg need two incomes to survive, 3)the "we culture" has now become the "I culture", 4)Demographic changes to UK work force.
All three have contributed to marriage failures, lets face it both man and wife(sorry pc correct both partners)have got to work to afford to live in Britain. The debt trap was sprung long before we were born.The UK wants everybody in debt to keep everybody on the tread mill.
Students come out of University with huge debts, couples struggle to afford homes. Both have to work and take on huge debts to put a roof over the families head. The pressure is enormous, the children get passed around like pass the parcel. And who is there to teach them the boundaries when it comes to behaviour? Then when they get to school the teachers cannot do anything with them.When are we going to recognise that the great social experiment has created huge problems? Equal rights, what about the rights of the child? To be cared for brought up with the parent guiding them?
No question that the UK family life is broken the root causes are there if you dig deep enough.The quality of life is very poor and a lot of it is our own fault chasing the material crap that is pushed down our throats. Values need to change big time the "we culture" needs to be brought back fast, its obvious the "I culture" has failed miserably.
Complain about this comment
# 30 DameMolestrangler
Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I memorised them from last year's Conservative Party "Broken Britain" report. You will find many more similar statistics therein.
You may also wish to research Andre Aggossi's school in Las Vegas which has the following statistics, again from memory:
-located in the worst part of town
-high demand for places
-annual running costs are half the state average
-it is a state school and not private
-most of the pupils are black
-most of the children are from single parent families and most of the fathers are in prison
-outcomes are nothing less than fantastic and from a standing start it is one of the top state schools in the US
-it attracts good teachers because pay is good because school hours are longer than other schools so they work longer hours and more weeks per year for their higher rewards
-if you attended the school from 4 to 18 you would spend 2 years longer at school than at a normal US school
-the key is in the robust parent school contract and of course the extra school-time
-the political message is "I (Andre) can do this at half the cost per pupil per year so why can't you?"
I hope that these statistics also generate some interest.
Regards,
David Lilley
Complain about this comment
Cause and effect, effect and cause very difficult very subjective in a complex and multi layered and diverse society though one thing is sure it is always some one else.
One statistic I do know is that the school where I am governor has 14 problem children out of 200 they all come from 12 of the single parent broken home of which we have thirty.
So 40 percent of broken home families provide all our difficult children while our 154 two parent homes provide none one school one statistic not very scientific but maybe closer to reality than some of the manipulated figures of statisticians doing their political masters biding
Reality is there are many reasons for the growing broken bits of Britain’s society and for the intolerable problems our society face and much emanates from the example set by our public and celebrity figures, our greedy bankers in fact all in society who show high excesses self indulgence and demonstrate lack of regard for others.
Question is from where does our broken society emanate? The real problem lies with the cushy 60 percent of nice, respectable, middle class people who go about their everyday business and go home to their security gated homes from which they do nothing to stand up,join in and do something about the society they live within they share nothing of their values time or understanding with the rest of society only a few tuts.
The excesses, the intolerable problems, the things we don’t wantaround us exist not because of the minority who perpetrate them but because of the majority who allow them.
Complain about this comment
47 SnoddrsB
What a load of complete bigoted rubbish!
Any child being brought into a gay relationship will have been planned for and the consequences carefully considered. That child will be loved and feel wanted, unlike many heterosexual couples that have a child as the consequence of an unplanned accident. The female gay parents who I know are doing a fantastic job of bringing up well-balanced and emotionally secure children, with the fathers involvement.
It's been statistically proven that gay people are likely to work harder in the work place, having to prove their worth and trying to gain acceptance from bigoted colleagues with opinions like yours. My guess is that any future statistics on gay parents will show similar results.
Complain about this comment
they call us the dustbin of europe we come last in everything /health/wages /you name it we the brits are there,a big part of this is that we are so taxed you have to have 2 jobs just to make ends meet,we have the highest price for petrol/diesel/ gas /electric/water/companies can hike the price 30/40 % comunity charges here are a joke [check them out in france/spain /germany,they get a lot more for the money,
with everybody to busy working who is looking after the kids!
child care is to expensive and the police only come out after some ones ,
been killed ,then nobody see,s them till the next time,
all of this enviroment adds up to YOU HAVE TO GROW UP FAST,
this is why a lot of kids go off the rails ,there,s nothing to look forward to :
pmose
Complain about this comment
Broken families are in part to blame but one has to treat the cause not the symptoms.
What is wrong with this country can be summed up in two phrases:
1) political correctness and
2) lack of faith system
This govt promotes both - until they go we have no chance of recovery
Complain about this comment
#59:
Nice to see your statistics from from such a reliable and unbiased source, and have been filtered through your memory as well, just for good measure.
Forgive me if I don't believe a word of them.
Complain about this comment
#60:
You are also missing the point. As you say, your statistics are not very scientific, but lets say for the sake of argument that they are representative of the wider population and that you have a nice objective definition of "problem children".
Do you think that the only difference between the 12 families producing the "problem children" and the 154 2-parent homes with well behaved children is the number of parents?
My guess is you'll find many other differences as well.
Complain about this comment
what do kids have to look forward to ,everybodys a genius at exams,only because the schools dont want to loose finacial incentivs/there are no jobs
universitys,s will put you in serious debt, what used to be your peers have been found to be filling their pockets with public money the list is endless,
i grew up in the 60,s i had a broken home ,i had 2 spells inside came out
got married that crashed but i everything i could to keep and look after my kids,i lost jobs ,but did everything i could to make sure they grew up straight ,with an understanding of cause and effect to others,
it was hard ,i did not want them to have the start i did:
oobuckshot
Complain about this comment
#63:
You may have a point about political correctness, but "lack of faith system"? Seriously? They have a pretty strong faith system in Afghanistan. Is that your role model for a happy and healthy society?
Complain about this comment
@ hack-round
That's the problem with only basing your opinions on what you know or experience.
I mentioned on another blog recently that one of my school friends is currently in prison for murder, of our year group of 32 children from Primary School he is one of three who are currently in prison (the other two were convicted of rape & assault respectively). All three of these people grew up in two parent families.
If I was to assume that my experiences are the same as everyone else's and if I didn't know about some of the other factors affecting these people then I'd end up coming to the conclusion that children growing up in two parent families are more likely to end up in prison for serious violent or sexual crimes.
Obviously, this isn't the case.
There's far more going on here than how many parents you have at home, one my Grandfathers was raised by his mother as his father had been killed while serving in the Armed Forces when he was very young and his mother never re-married.
He still went on to serve our country in the military himself, raised a family and worked until his retirement a few years ago. The fact that he grew up in a single parent family was irrelevant, he still made a success of himself and contributed to our society.
I'd suggest that if you looked into the home lives of your "problem children" then you'd find there are far more important factors influencing their behaviour than just coming from a one parent family.
Complain about this comment
I agree with DisgustedOfMitcham -
Faith is a major issue in its own right. We dont need to be told how Britain is failing, we already know how we have been let down by the Govt.
Our children have very little to look forward to, this could be a contributing factor in the way the youth of today behave!
If the Govt. didnt make it so easy and inviting for young girls to have babies and give them somewhere to live expenses paid etc, then they might think twice before opening their legs!!!
I was brought up with values and knowing right from wrong, where have these values gone?
Complain about this comment
This story was a big shock for me - and a surprise. My parents divorced when I was 4, and I lived with a lot of guilt after that, hating and blaming myself although they tried to be very civilised about it. They shared all parenting duties and even now, after my brother and I have long since grown up and left home, they are still very good friends and see each other nearly every day.
So what do I read in this story?
"disruptive children may place such stress on parental relationships that they separate"
Well I thought I had finally forgiven myself after all these years, but I guess that sentence still shocked me. Everyone has been telling me all these years that it wasn't my fault, and maybe that's true, but it looks like we have here the unpalatable truth. Children are a big strain on a marriage. My parents were happily married for 5 years before my brother was born but didn't last long after that.
On the other hand I think it has something to do with money. In my primary school years, I was at a state school, and no one was well off - and of all the people in my class, only 2 had parents that were still together. The rest of us had stepfamilies or single parents. Then I won a scholarship to a very expensive independent school (I was hugely driven by guilt as a child and had to be best at everything). Everyone had a lot of money. And I was one of only 2 girls in the class whose parents had split up.
Maybe it's something to do with the fact that children cost a lot of money, but people should definitely think twice before having them - I know I do, because of my experiences. Also, the guilt is terrible - I think my brother also blamed himself; he struggles with alcoholism and hasn't worked for years.
Complain about this comment
Yes, in response to "DisgustedofMitcham" and "vampirebunny65" (there's a sentence I never thought I would write!) the faith system is complex; I am not promoting a controlled religious regime what I mean is our idols in this country are celebrity and youth (something this govt promotes), we put no value in our society on honesty or kindness or wisdom; this may sound trite but what example is it when we see our ministers and mps abuse and steal from the public coffers and nothing repeat nothing happens to them. We know where appeasement gets one and all we do is appease.
The issue vampirebunny alludes to about young women having children to get council houses I fear is true but they are just playing a system which this govt continues to pay into (I heard today incidently that Baby P's mother has just had another child in prison!). What sanction can we apply except limit the number of children we (the state) will fund? Any ideas??
Complain about this comment
hack-round
"One statistic I do know is that the school where I am governor has 14 problem children out of 200 they all come from 12 of the single parent broken home of which we have thirty.
So 40 percent of broken home families provide all our difficult children while our 154 two parent homes provide none..."
---
But once again - (assuming your stats were credible) does that mean that it is the lack of a parent that causes the problem? - does taking a parent away from a well-off household, maybe even one which could send their child to eton, give the kid a natural disadvantage? Or is it the economic and social situation that causes the problem, which also probably caused the single-parent family in the first place - there is a correlation, but it does not mean that to introduce a second parent would improve anything in people's lives
I will demonstrate with a far more obvious example - there are far more young black men with criminal records than their white counterparts - to take that at face value then it must be something to do with their skin colour, that is the main difference in this case - however few would accept a racial answer to this - most would see that as a higher proportion of black men grow up in lawless inner city estates that this causes their proportionately higher rate of crime - were they to be growing up in a well-to-do middle class home would this be the same? It seems unlikely, and few would argue that skin colour is a predisposition to crime - now swap 'black' for 'single parent' - it's exactly the same logic
Complain about this comment
@ jdsholdencaulfield
If I was to point to the thing that is really wrong with this country it'd be people who blame all of our problems on;
1) political correctness and
2) lack of faith system
Political correctness is just another form of being polite and considerate. It is allowing people the right to live by their own beliefs and customs so that, for example, a Christian does not have to work on Sunday's and Jew's are allowed to buy kosher meat.
Most of what people refer to as political correctness these days is no such thing, the tabloids have started using it as a label for anything the government does that they don't like and it is then regurgitated by their readership as they're unable to form a coherent argument. So whenever something comes along they don't like it is branded PC gone mad and no explanation is ever enough to change their closed minds.
A lack of faith is also irrelevant, I have never had faith and neither have most of my friends and family yet we're still decent, hard-working people. You don't need to have faith to have a set of morals and standards and there's plenty of evidence that some of those with faith sometimes use it as a way to control or abuse others. You need look no further than the televangelist Christian preachers in America who use their faith as a way to instil fear & hatred into their parishioners while also conning them out of their money, in my opinion they're no better than the likes of Bin Laden who use radical Islam as a way to inspire people to commit acts of terrorism.
If you want to live your life according to some anthropomorphised adaptation of the Pagan Sun God belief system then you're welcome to do so but to suggest that a lack of faith or Political Correctness are a cause of societies problems is just diversionary and doesn't help us solve anything.
Complain about this comment
54. At 8:18pm on 03 Sep 2009, KeithRodgers wrote:
In the rush to get more and more women into the work force to basically use them as cheap labour the family has suffered big time. You have women which have forced the PC correctness hard to give them the "freedom to go out to work". But you cannot have it both ways a "career" and a "family", you have to choose one or the other.
The ones that do go out to work are so guilty they shower the children with presents to ease there guilt but the net result is the children end up spoilt. Family life has been completly destroyed and a much deeper damage has been done to the UK economy as the men in some families have been assigned to the scrap heap. Employers love hiring women they know they will work hard and they can pay them less.Call me old fashioned but the man earns and the woman cares for the children it worked for years now everything is messed up big time.The sad thing is its the children thats paying the price
Not sure what you base this on Keith. I've worked throughtout my 3 children''s lives and have had a good career and family life. 2 of my children have left school (one at university the other doing A leves) and they aren't spoilt and have a stable family background to support them. I compare them to several of my husband's cousins children who have 1/2 siblings, absent fathers and mothers that have never worked. I know who has a better life.
Complain about this comment
It's nice to see a report that dares to question causation. So many reports leap to wild conclusions about causation, based usually on their own prejudices rather than any scientific proof.
Having said that, the only way that this could be relevant in this case is if somebody were advocating measures to keep miserable couples together. Here is where Mark Easton's bias becomes apparent: in his presumption that this is precisely what IDS wants.
In reality, any measure aimed at keeping couples together for longer would increase the relationship and parenting skills and incomes of those who might otherwise separate. Whether these skills and this money are what improves outcomes for their children, or whether the simple fact of having two parents achieves this, is a nice question for PhD philosophers to discuss in the student union while stroking their beards thoughtfully, but of little practical benefit in the real world.
Oh, and finally: @ secretariat, I am intrigued that you believe that our countries problems are actually caused by people who object to political correctness and those who believe that faith is a good thing. It's not unusual for someone to blame society's ills on people that they personally happen not to like, but to blame these particular groups does rather stretch credulity. Exactly by what process is it that these people have torn the fabric of our society?!
Complain about this comment
Secretariat is quite right.
I am a single parent. My partner moved out when our daughter was 3. She is now 14. She is in the top set for every subject at school and her behaviour is normal (probably slightly better than many of her school friends). Certainly, it is better than many of the other children in her year at school.
This proves conclusively that it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT how many parents are at home. The only influencing factor is the quality of the parenting. For further proof, look at all the recent court cases surrounding children;
Baby P was killed by his mother's partner, who had had a very disturbed childhood.
The 2 boys in Doncaster had TWO parents, one (the father) who was 'too strict' and one (the mother) who, apparently, didn't seem interested.
The 2 boys in the James Bolger case both came from disturbed backgrounds.
Mary Bell came from a very disfunctional background.
The cases like this are virtually endless. It is the quality of parenting which is the single over-riding factor in every case, not whether they came from a one- or a two-parent background. It is extremely dangerous to avoid this issue, as the problem seems to be getting worse all the time (I have my suspicions as to why).
I am afraid the evidence is incontrovertible. Bad children come from bad parents. It is a simple as that.
It is, of course, not as simple as that. Not every child of a bad parent turns out to be bad.... But that's a different story.
With regard to the "statistics" from David Lilley;
"Our outcomes from broken homes are there for everyone to judge. Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications. 20% spend their life in and out of prison where 80% of prisoners cannot read and write, 40% become alcoholics, 40% become drug addicts and 70% become clinically depressed. These are our outcomes nevermind the global picture."
I cannot comment upon the final four figures quoted, although I would suspect that they have been inflated for effect. However, based on personal experience, I would strongly dispute the assertion that "Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications". Of the people I know who grew up in single parent families, around 80% left school with at least one qualification. Now, I don't claim this to be a representative sample, but the fact that I know so many means that either dlilley's figures are a lie, or that I know EVERY SINGLE PERSON who grew up in a single parent family and did not leave school without qualifications.....
Complain about this comment
PorterRockwell wrote:
"Oh, and finally: @ secretariat, I am intrigued that you believe that our countries problems are actually caused by people who object to political correctness and those who believe that faith is a good thing. It's not unusual for someone to blame society's ills on people that they personally happen not to like, but to blame these particular groups does rather stretch credulity. Exactly by what process is it that these people have torn the fabric of our society?!"
That would be because every time we have a problem they automatically scream about faith and PC as if forcing religion onto people and abandoning over a century of Secular Liberalism and almost a century of PC is going to solve everything.
We're never allowed to go to the root of problems because we're told we're being Liberal do-gooders or appeasing people that are doing things wrong when what we're actually trying to do is find out what is causing the problem and then finding ways to prevent them from occurring in the future.
The people who bring forth such views are generally day-dreaming about some imagined 1950s society where everything was perfect while ignoring the social problems that were so widespread back then. Their simplistic approach was used for hundreds of years and found to be lacking, that's why our society advanced into a Secular & Liberal society.
There are plenty of arguments as to why faith is a bad thing, not least of which being that it is often based on a misguided misinterpretation of scriptures that are themselves based mainly on anthropomorphised astrological & Pagan observation and predictions.
Christianity, for example, is nothing but a misinterpretation of older Pagan beliefs that were adapted by earlier civilisations, the Son of God is really just the Sun God but since Roman times a social structure, belief system & set of rituals has been superimposed onto this and then used as a way to control people and keep them separated from the truth about our origins and relationship with the wider world.
There are countless examples of Christianity, and other faiths, stifling social and technological advancements while also being used as a way to terrorise and in some cases murder large groups of people, all in the name of God of course.
I'm no Dawkins, I'm quite happy for anyone to believe whatever they want and I have no problem with them being able to observe their faith but I am sick of the religious minority in this country trying to impose their belief system onto the rest of us while claiming some moral high ground just because they believe in some imagined deity and go to Church once in a while, and that's before we even mention the obvious negative things the Church has gotten up to.
Were someone to suggest to you that Zeus was the God of the sky and it was he who created thunder then you'd probably nod and smile as you walked away thinking he was a tea cake short of a party as our society and the individuals who make it up have progressed past such beliefs yet we have thousands of schools up and down the country filling children’s heads full of rubbish about some God who created the Universe, and everything in it, in six days before having a day off.
The Bible, and all other scriptures, should be taken as what they are, the best efforts of pre-scientific societies to explain the functioning of the world, the origins of our species and what happens to us when we die.
God may well exist but if she does then she isn't an interventionist God as most religions would have us believe, nor does she have a magic list of things we should and should not do and she certainly wouldn't want us to waste our lives worshiping her.
And that is why I think those trying to force faith onto our societies cause more problems than they solve, actually this is a very shortened version but I think you get the point.
And before anyone comes up with the usual "you wouldn't say that about Islam/Judaism/other", I think exactly the same thing about the lot of them and view all organised religions in the same way; they're nothing but a way to control people.
Complain about this comment
Broken families are not always responsable for broken britian. Yes I know that there are some families who do not care what their children are or what they are doing.
Various governments have taken away societies powers to discipline children. A freinds daughter went home one night and said to her mum "If you hit me I can go to social services and tell them what you have done I can hit you and there is nothig that you can do" this was not said in any threatening way it was what was learned at school. the rights of teacher and parents to discipline children have been taken away. When I was a child if I didn't behave i was smacked some times told to stand in the corner of a room facing the wall sometimes all day among a range of punishmnets. Now I am the parent and smacking going to bed with no tea are not allowed. I think most parents don't really know what they can do or they are too scared to ask for help because they fear that they willl be labeled as a bad parent and have their children taken awat
Children need to have boundries which need to be enforced by society they know their rights but what about the rights of others like parents teachers and others.
There also needs to be facilities and activities provided for children families on low incomes or benefits can not afford to pay to go out to places all the time these activities should be provided free to who ever wnats to use them give children some thing to amuse them and activities adn they willl not be roaming around the streets with nothing to do.
The media reporting of people claiming benefits single parents teenagers and other creates moral panic and these groups of people are rediculed by society
Complain about this comment
I continue to be infuriated by 'professionals'who mistakenly believe that two parent families are preferable to a one parent family.
As a single parent of an intelligent, independent, well adjusted child I would like one of these so called 'experts' to explain to me why choosing to remain in a relationship with a drunken, abusive, bully would be a better environment in which to raise my child compared with the loving, stable, abuse free home my child and I have now.
Complain about this comment
You did not answer the question David - from which official statistics did the Conservative Party obtain these statistics?
"59. At 10:33pm on 03 Sep 2009, dlilley wrote:
# 30 DameMolestrangler
Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I memorised them from last year's Conservative Party "Broken Britain" report. You will find many more similar statistics therein.----"
Complain about this comment
Tarquin, secretariat and DisgustedofMitchum2
Well at last it is proved if you cant beat them join them thanks for participation even if I did goad you into response with a very true though very bias statistic - because the school down the road may have an entirely different set of stats that balance out the ones I gave they were not offered as a suggestion of what might be but to show how much we are fooled by the statistical argument whoever puts up the figures even accurate ones
My point is the man with his head in the oven and his feet in the fridge is statically comfortable I have made this point time after time on these blogs yet we still fall into debating some one else’s statistics
In my post 60, the argument of the first three paragraphs is totally spurious and will not lead to any resolution just heated debate divide and rule principle. By contrast debating the content of the last three paragraphs may just lead to some solutions, but no one has even commented.
The issue is politicians and for that matter journalist want us to look at some one thing to distract us from another. Yes there are difficulties for some broken families yes there are problems for poor families yes there are problems for………. The issue is not single, two or three for that matter it is not even dysfunctional families, dysfunctional authority nor corrupt society or even the people who cross the streets rather than get involved that make society the way it is.
In actual fact it is your and my problem and it is up to you and I to do something about it because no one else will. It will not be sorted by blaming this group or that group or sighting this problem or that problem but only by looking at the entire cross section of people and deciding what type of society we want to live in and then building Utopia piece by piece because those who continue the way they do in the main do so because it suites them or they know no different.
This one will not be solved in History.
Complain about this comment
# dlilley wrote:
"Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I memorised them from last year's Conservative Party "Broken Britain" report."
Are you sure you don't mean "Breakdown Britain" report?
Also, when you say 'memorised' do you mean 'made up'? I've looked at the document and none of the dodgy and somewhat unreferenced statistics echo your bizarre take one things.
Complain about this comment
I'm impressed with the comments of
50. At 5:53pm on 03 Sep 2009, beautifulCanadianEd wrote:
It reminds me of when I served in W. Germany in the Army, I believe when a couple split, the maintenance of the children was calculated on a weekly basis, irrespective of wether the absent parent showed means to pay.
The debt grew with the time and when the absent parent was in a position to pay the money would start to be deducted and if nescessary the sale of any assets forced to clear the financial responsibility to the child/children of the relationship. No if's of but's the bill stood for the general term of the dependancy.
Lack of concern and investment in the lower classes and the neglect of the relevant resouces to perform with an acceptible level of competence is the cause and should be addressed.
Too many overseas workers and a breakdown in border security and drug and crime control has also added to the boinling pot.
Why dont the relevant authorities just explain how the average parent on the london estates is supposed to discipline a child who has become attatched to a gang , drugs and weapons and violence with the naughty step!!!!!!
It is the failure of the responsible authorities to police the streets and borders and control the flow of illegal drugs and arms getting nto our inner cities and causing the drug lords to be the major controllers of our country, walking around in their Thick Gold necklaces driving their prestige vehicles and wantonly flouting their ill gotten gains.
These people get away with it, own many of the private sector letting, where they have laundered their illegal money and furthermore are now profiting from the tax payer by charging seriously sickening rents to low income or dss claimants for which the taxpaying responsible law abiding Citizens are footing the bill for.
Despite information being given to the relevant authorities by responsible informants the information is not much good , because of the political correctness of the legal system, the police can't act.
Bring back the days when if you misbehaved you'de get a crack from yer Mum or the belt from your Dad when he came home from work.
If all else failed, your get taken down the cells at Chaddy Cop Shop and the hiding of your life given to you.
Ok maybe we will have to draw the line at a decent level of punishment, but I'd be true to you all and to myself, that if one of my kid's ever disrespected a teacher , a good clobber with the board duster chucked at you would not have been a bad idea.
Now as indicated by beautifulCanadianEd when he wrote his blog, I agree this country is isn a real mess and Im no longer proud to be British.
I might add the points made regarding too many new Dads in the house was a valid one, the last thing a child needs to see is his Mum with a stanger in her bed, who dissapears and never to be seen again might have some bearing on the causation of bad behaviour , that and the lack of quality time with the parent with care and the funds with which to pursue them. (Also the pace in which to play and build social skills and team working skills, as in our town any more then a couple of kids together get moved on, as the neigbours complain as they play football. when the signs say "NO BALL GAMES" in most green spaces on council estated and parks too far to send your kid, just in case some nutter kid decides to use the to stick knives in or drop a sink on their head, or rob their mobile of music player.
Police get some bodies on the streets, get to know the kids, engage them in team competition and spoRting activities allow them to air their views, give them a chance to show that theyre not all bad. Just living amongs bad people.
The nice houses in my area are owned by the gangsters, who shove drugs down the troats of our children turning them into the scroats we are all talking about today.
And just in case you thought your kid's were safe, think again. They are particularly vulnerable when they go away to Uni. As these predators hang around the Uni social network and make rich picking building friendships with your children and offering drugs free to get them hooked, once hooked they too will need to start buying.
IT'S ALL ABOUT FUNDING, THE GOVT. SHOULD INCREASE THE FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, POLICING, AND MORE LOCALLY OUR CHILDRENS FACILITIES.
We reap what we sow........
God help our country
Complain about this comment
I am a single parent. My partner moved out when our daughter was 3. She is now 14. She is in the top set for every subject at school and her behaviour is normal (probably slightly better than many of her school friends). Certainly, it is better than many of the other children in her year at school.
This proves conclusively that it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT how many parents are at home.
With regard to the posting above - THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. Just because you have brought your child up responsibly doesn't mean that everybody does. If people would just take off their blinkers and realise there is a world out there that - believe it or not - not everybody acts the same as you. With 1 child receiving normal care from a single parent, there are 20 that aren't. I believe that girls do much better with a mother as a single parent, but a boy needs a man to guide him and provide a good role model. Sadly the one thing these single parent homes normally lack is a male role model, probably because a lot of the 'men' are only boys themselves.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #80 and 82.
Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I have returned to my source and make the following qualifications:
-If you wish to visit the data it is online on the Social Policy Justice Group website. IDS is the founder and was chairman of the report but the data comes from dozens of organisations, mostly charites, and none of the contributors were paid. It is now, as one of you states, "The Breakdown Britain" report but I think it was initially titled "The Broken Britain" report and this put the term Broken Britain into parlance. I sent emails to the IFS and others at the time quoting the following figures from the Broken Britain report and not the Breakdown Britain report.
-the figures I have quoted from memory should read;
The children from lone parent families are 75% more likely to fail at school (from the Breakdown Britain report). The near 100% failure at school belongs to those in care homes. And for those who leave school with no qualifications the outcomes are stark with 5% spending time sleeping on the streets, 20% in and out of prison, 30% (not 40%) alcoholic, 30% (not 40%) drug addicts and 70% clinically depressed.
-The following figures come from the Breakdown Britain report:
70% (and elsewhere 50%) of all young offenders come from loan parent families. The 70% figure may include those from care homes.
1/3 of all prisoners come from single parent families.
Children from loan families are;
75% more likely to fail at school
70% more likely to be drug addicts
50% more likely to be alcoholics
35% more likely to be unemployed
I am not on this comments page for social networking. I spend most of my time hanging around under bridges waiting for goats. I felt it necessary to protest against the Mark Easton/BBC/OECD report that flew in the face of these statistics. This is a lot of misery to be in denial about. The first step in solving a problem is to understand it, truth is correspondance with the facts and in infinite regress does not help. My memory wasn't that bad from a 30,000 word report that I read two years ago.
Please make some comments on the Andre Aggossi school.
Regards,
David Lilley (my own name)
Complain about this comment
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has let it be known he didn't like my TV piece last night on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) newly published report on children.
His disappointment, I suspect, reflects the fact that the respected Paris-based think-tank has questioned one of the key pillars of Conservative social policy.
Mark Instead of suspecting or making assumptions about what IDS really thinks simply go and ask him about it.
I know IDS is a politician and as such never says what he thinks in plain English, but given your reports and blogs you should be adept at filtering out the chaff and reading between the lines.
Complain about this comment
What has done the damage has been the liberalisation of the education system, the politicisation of the police and the rampant, loony left claptrap of the early-mid 1980's. Getting rid of the cane, selling off school playing fields, encouraging benefit dependancy, not building enough prisons. Adopting a "state will provide, from cradle to grave" to buy votes in deprived areas. The unions had their part to play in this disintegration as well, especially the teaching unions.
We've all allowed it to happen. Other contributors have a point when they say that bad kids come from bad parents and that is obviously true - but there should be a political solution to protect those in danger of falling through the net. But not at the expense of greater society in general.
Haringey's social services being a case in point. Baby P wasnt the first time they failed spectacularly and it wont be the last.
Complain about this comment
Little bit confused here Fubar - are you calling Thatcher one of the looney left because she was firmly in control in the 1980s
*87. At 3:15pm on 05 Sep 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
What has done the damage has been the liberalisation of the education system, the politicisation of the police and the rampant, loony left claptrap of the early-mid 1980s. Getting rid of the cane, selling off school playing fields, encouraging benefit dependancy, not building enough prisons. Adopting a "state will provide, from cradle to grave" to buy votes in deprived areas".
Complain about this comment
What is happening is that we are still trying to treat everyone the same way. People have many choices these days so they live their lives in many different ways. Some of these ways do not achieve the results desired. So these people need help with the ways they are doing things. Not the ways we would do things.
Complain about this comment
People may laugh at what I am about to say but anyone of the age of 40 and below are the first group of society that have been brought up on television. I feel it is more to do with adverts and the amount of exposure to adverts we have in our upbringing. Adverts that constantly tell us we are in need of something. It is these subtle, repetative messages that leave people feeling insecure. Feeling that there is always something better on offer than what they have. So I think our generation suffer a lack of commitment to old values like the family, and marriage. Because we have this constant nagging voice telling us we are inadequate and should pursue consumer goods in place of committing to the serious business of raising a family. Perhaps not just adverts but films too. They give children unrealistic expectations of what is achievable in life.
Complain about this comment
The main problem is not having a role model at home to teach them the correct values and also behaviours that any child needs when they go out into society.Children need love and the bond with both parents is strong given the chance to grow. But thats needs time and we all know time is short supply in todays fast paced world. As parents whats more important working all hours god sends to buy them possessions, or just simply being there to teach them right from wrong? Caring for other people has vanished from there mind set, some children do care but the mind set of most children now is " I have got rightts you cannot touch me". The word I has complelty replaced US or WE, they do not see them selves as being part of a society or community.Society is broken no question of that, the fault lies with - PC brigade, employers, movies media pushing violence & products down our throats, governments that have failed to protect families time together, the combined effect has been to put huge pressure on couples. Some woman have pushed PC agends to benefit themselves, employers have loved that because it suits there own ends.
Men have been pressurised in to working insane hours by employers cutting costs and the family unit has then started to fracture.
My dad had a saying - having wealth is no gaurantee of having happiness, possessions do not make u happy,wealth just means you can be miserable in comfort.
I always remember it because he was right, all children need is time with mum and dad then they grow up well balanced individuals. There are always exceptions to the rule and some single parents are doing a fine job, I take my hat off to them but children need both role models.
Complain about this comment
Just one other point I saw this situation developing in 2000, so I moved my family to Canada. The western world is spoilt no question of that and it needs to get back to core values instead of just focusing on money and position , status.
I am not interested what a person does for a living or for that matter what car he drives, what interests me his is core values, not self centred, he or she cares for other people, will not tread all over people to get what they want, its this thats important!
If you grown up in a slum in India or Asia you look out for one another thats the unwritten rule. You share because you are all in the same boat!
Complain about this comment
The OECD research conclusion should not surprise people who open their eyes to observe parenting.
Bad parenting and/or born difficult children are the main culprits which create bad adults. The number of parents is not the crucial factor. In a family with 2 good parents, things are easier. In a family with one or more bad parent, it is better for the bad parent to disappear. Children from poorer families ought to have more motivation to strive higher than richer ones, and good parent(s) would instill that motivation.
Paying a bad parent more does not make the badness better. We know that.
Complain about this comment
No 50, Beautiful Canadian Ed
I'm afraid I don't recognise the country that you're writing about.
Perhaps you should come back here and not rely on memories of a brief visit here 30 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Its no surprise that say Indian children succeed beyond all others is due to the very strong family structures.
Complain about this comment
@rupertdeBare
To use your logic:
My organisation uses Linux. My organisation is making a loss. LINUX CAUSES BUSINESS LOSSES!!!
Cause and effect correlations cannot be so glibly drawn. That is why people actually go to university and study statistics - reading the Daily Mail (especially not the Daily Mail!!!) does not a statistican make.
Complain about this comment
Even though David Lilley has given info as to where to find these 'statistics' I would like to say I think it's utter rubbish!!!
My Dad left when i was 7 and to be honest has been little more than a part time father up until now and that's 22 years on!!!
Despite this I have managed to achieve 10 GCSE's, 2 A-levels and a degree and work for a major international bank. That's a far cry from the suggestion that I should be sat on a street corner either out of my face on drugs or drink waiting for someone to come and pick me up and take me to the nut house coz I'm emotionally disturbed!!!
My Mum did an amazing job bringing myself and my brother up from a young age and I believe that if you have that support then kids from single parent families will not turn out to be emotional wrecks!!!
I can not 100% say that my Dad leaving did not have an effect on me, of course it did but my mum didn't let herself or the family fall apart at the seams. I think a very important thing in break ups is to not use your kids as a weapon if the estranged parents no longer get on because it is not fair to put a child through that.
Anyway, best go, my internet time's running out and i must get back to my cardboard box and scrounge the money for my next hit!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Just a little puzzled by 'Broken Britain' in the heading. If Britain is broken then heaven help the countries outside Western European. I am sure the above writers have checked on the Office of National Statistics and the Home Office web Sites? If they have not and if they do then they will find that the UK outside of the above countries - Germany, France , Holland, Belgiem. Scandinavia has the lowest serious crime rate in the world. Texas which has the death penalty has as many as the UK per annum. Google USA cities crime rates and open your eyes - horrendous. California has a higher prison population than the UK; the USA has 2 million to our 90,000! Look at Mexico, Brazil - worse than Iraq! Name any other country it is the same. Compared to the UK other countries are completely smashed up. Hundreds of thousands of children are abducted in the USA - most are found but thousands are never traced again and one can only imagine what could have happened to them, I have always considered comparisons can be odious but the title of the Tory report is very misleading but of course it is political pamphlet . Compared to most we are a very civilized country.
Regarding the two boys' crime; as horrendous as it was it is virtually unique and with 3,000,000 children in poverty who can deny that the social circumstances have much to do with the situation. Having said all this it is not always these parents in stress full circumstances who are in trouble; it happens in better off families. Look at the crimes within families. Most murders are within families, relations and neighbours.
Complain about this comment
I have not been challenged to return and defend my statistics this time but I do have a little more to say.
Firstly you might read IDS's email to Mark Easton at the bottom of Mark's piece above.
Secondly, for the many who said having a single parent didn't prevent them doing well at school. It didn't with me. It doesn't with servicemen's children. It does, however, when there are drugs, alcohol, deprivation and antisocial parents.
Thirdly, lets stop knocking our servants, our politicians. You are being political if you are reading this and you are being political if you post a comment and I for one am pleased that you devote your time to this big subject and I call none of you a troll. Basically there is politics (talking) or war (fighting).
When John Major was PM he said "3% of pupils leave school unable to read and write and 7% leave with no qualifications, do they all want to be PM? Schools are failing them." (from memory). Last year 12% of sixteen year olds left with no qualifications and I think the BBC reported that it was as high as 25% with white boys. Bradford had 20% truancy with white pupils a few years ago and some 10 years ago it was estimated that a truant costs the tax payer £2m over his lifetime.
Enough depressing statistics. This is a great country and I could present 1m statistics to corroborate that and I could even present some non-demon solutions but if you check out the Social Justice Policy Group website you will find some professional (non amateur) solutions. I am an engineer and apologise for being personal when arguing.
Regards,
David Lilley
Complain about this comment
newSweetMonkey2 wrote:
I am a single parent. My partner moved out when our daughter was 3. She is now 14. She is in the top set for every subject at school and her behaviour is normal (probably slightly better than many of her school friends). Certainly, it is better than many of the other children in her year at school.
This proves conclusively that it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT how many parents are at home.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you say your ONE example ( you ) proves anything conclusively ?
Complain about this comment
swirvy wrote:
Secretariat is quite right.
I am a single parent. My partner moved out when our daughter was 3. She is now 14. She is in the top set for every subject at school and her behaviour is normal (probably slightly better than many of her school friends). Certainly, it is better than many of the other children in her year at school.
This proves conclusively that it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT how many parents are at home.
Baby P was killed by his mother's partner,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry misquoted previously
Your ONE example proves nothing " conclusivley " at all
Yes Baby P was killed by the partner while the mother looked on
Complain about this comment
The thesis that some group in society is responsible for the ills of a society is a form of 'scapegoating'. The idea that families can re-shape society is a hopeful ideal which cannot be certain. The thesis that a society is shaped by its intellectual, religious and cultural heritage and choices is far more credible, but unfortunately far more complex. If there is something needed for improving the prospect of children behaving well, it must surely be that the society in which they live, publicly affirms and models the moral, religious and social values that are understood to be implied. This is far more difficult to analyse as a process, or to manupulate such a process without resorting to extreme forms of indoctrination and social control.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the lead article so much pseudo-psycho-gobbledegook?
The only way to prove what works for one child is to look at what they achieve with :
a) two parents in a stable, loving relationship
b) two parents in a stable, financially successful but unloving relationship
c) two parents in an unstable, financially successful relationship
d) two parents in an abusive and violent relationship
e) one parent who really cares
f) one parent who really doesn't care
g) one parent who doesn't even know they are responsible for their child
and, of course, all stages in between and outside of these. Needless to say that is impossible.
What we do have, however, is the chance to look at what bringing up a child successfully actually means for each individual concerned. Is that up to an outside agency (such as the one mentioned) or is a better measure the child themselves?
Parents and their children have one crucial thing in common - they only get one shot at it.
Complain about this comment
I have some sympathy with IDS's reply. For better or for worse we do have a decent set of statistics in the UK and IDS's report was on...Britain and not on a whole slew of disimilar countries. All that has been revealed is that there are a mass of cultural differences that influence the chances of children in single-parent families and cross-comparisons between countries is at best analyticaly lazy, at worse dangerous.
I'm fortunate enough to be relatively well off and married, but amongst my children's peers I see divorced parents as endemic...possibly even in the majority. Their kids appear OK but you come across lots of behaviour that suggests otherwise...compulsive nail-biting, bedwetting among older children etc. Worst of all you see competitive parenting in which divorced parties lay on the largesse in the hope of gaining favour...to the extent that my own kids often have to be reminded "what would you prefer? An iPhone or a dad?" Poor kids can go off the rails and steal cars...rich kids become horribly spoilt and frequently devoid of any values. Which is worse?
In all of this is the inappropriately humorous observation that...every few years, someone has the temerity so suggest that, despite the successes and undoubted love and commitment shown by many lone-parents, wider society might be happier if fewer people were divorced. This usually leads to an outpouring of bile from numerous pundits and columnists stating "what's the fuss? Their parents divorced when they were nine and it had no affect upon them". All of which misses the point that they have ended up as journalists...one of the more spiteful and malicious professions. Can their be a connection?
Complain about this comment
@ poorgeriatric
Careful mate, with an attitude like that you'll be banned from the HYS blogs. Don't you know we're living in the worst country in the world with more unemployment & social problems than anywhere else in the world ?
I've got to say I agree with what you're saying, too many people have either never left Britain or, when they have, they've only ever gone to Ibiza, the Costa del Sol and other tourist traps and because of this they never see how many people around the world live and the conditions they put up with and regard as normal.
A quick look on Nation Master will confirm everything you've said and will show that almost every country in the world have worse crime levels than we do, but then everyone will have the obvious answer that our government somehow fudge the figures but in my experience, there is less crime in Britain today than there ever has been.
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime
Complain about this comment
Our upbringing leaves as lifetime adolescents.
We are at school till we're 24 years old and e perpetually in pursuit of playtime enjoyment.
Our attitude to our families is one where the children are a millstone not an investment in the future.
Our spouses are now "partners" to be discarded at the slightest tiff.
We are children dressed as adults.
Complain about this comment
'Broken Britain' ? Is this not a Tory party political propaganda sound bite? It was just as broke under Thatcher ..... if not more so.
Complain about this comment
The Tories should look to themselves. The Thatcherite credo considerably exacerbated the pressure on the ordinary people of this country, making a major contribution to the selfish dysfunctionality we see in today's society. The Labour party adopted that credo to get elected and have done little to ameliorate its effects. The winners in society, who hold the power, have no incentive to tackle it as long as their wealth protects them from the consequences of it on a daily basis.
Complain about this comment
I was worried by the title of this blog, thinking it might have been your opinion, Mark. I think better of you than to think in such black and white dichotomies. I'm glad my worry was unnecessary.
I really don't feel I live in a "Broken Britain", On the whole, things are better than they were 10 years ago, and even better than they were 20 years ago, and so forth. The standard of life in Britain has been steadily improving, but this doesn't make good copy for the media scaremongers. As to "broken families" being to blame for unruly behaviour in our children, they may be a contributing factor in a very complex set of causes, but to put all the blame on to "broken familes" is dangerously simplistic and myopic, at best! And hardly constructive in the scheme of things. But media and politicians like to give us simple "Good/Bad" dichotomies because it helps with their agendas.
Complain about this comment
I think in many ways capitalism works against unified families. It can be a strong negative factor. For example, when parents feel a compelling urge to keep up with the Jones's, by buying the newest car, washing machine,house etc. It results usually in two parents having to work to pay for this lifestyle and takes the attention away from children who should be the focus in the family. People look to their fullfilment in material objects rather than relationships. Oftentimes, men leave their families because they feel unappreciated for providing for the very thing that's making his family unhappy. Its a viscious cycle.
Also, if parents are separated that means two of everything. Two homes, two washing machines, two cars. Companies make a lot of money when populations of people are in a state of planned dysfunction. I think a lot of the degredation we've witnessed is a result of unfettered greed and capitalism. We need systems of government that work for the common good not the common few.
Complain about this comment
I think that successive governments are responsible for the decline in social cohesion in UK. The welfare system, although good at root, as been extended so much that it has encouraged evasion of responsibilities and avoidance of effort. I am sure there are many genuine cases of need for support but I am equally sure that there are people who have put themselves into the category to qualify for support, to avoid or change difficulties that they might have struggled to overcome.
It was the struggle to overcome hardship that built this country and it has been the encouragement of avoidance of struggle that is destroying it.
The government is also responsible for the extreme over-development of regulation and restriction that is turning England into a police state, spying and reporting on each other and hindering initiative and enterprise.
Complain about this comment
Having been a child of divorced parents and tossed from family group to family group within the broken family, I believe I have valid data to add, i.e., :
1. Child needs to be able to count on someone, if only the government, to give a hand up; working hard and burying oneself in studies only gets one so far, one needs the government to protect one's legal rights as a person, and, to ensure that one has food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and medicines, funds for school and for transport to school, and the tools to do a proper job at school. The government needs to be ready to take legal custody of a child in jeopardy in order to give the child a chance to survive and contribute positively to society.
2. Child is lonely, but loneliness becomes a friend, and the church family can play a tremendous role in socially/spiritually adopting the child into the wider church family, and act as an intro through "closed doors" [places where one's family connections alone open necessary doorways for one to blossom and achieve] especially for holidays and all those significant times and events.
3. Child must be easily able to find solace and a personal niche in education, including easy access to gifted or advanced programs where individuality and being a lone wolf have an educational advantage.
4. Child must feel "safe" and "secure" in the educational system and in the domestic neighborhood so as to maximize capability and minimize the negative insecurity and unsafe feelings one has as a child of a broken home, thereby maximize ability to learn, work and achieve.
5. Constancy, loyalty, and easy pathways to work and create success are vital to ultimate success and positive contribution, use of talents to benefit society.
N.B. One good parent is better than a bad, unsafe, insecure domestic situation, but the inabilities of the one good parent to provide everything needed to achieve and succeed, including "access" become a conscious 'handicap' the child must bear. No parents but a stable and supportive domestic situation which fills all the failial needs with reliable, constant surrogates can be a very good substitute for the real thing, assuming all else cited herein above are also provided.
Nowadays, the extreme competitive environment the child must be in means that any deficit becomes a major handicap, and the lack of a stable, reliable home situation could be catastrophic, and begs for extensive government and church provided supports on a constant reliable basis. Security through reliability is vital. A capable, reliable parent figure, already successful in the community, to guide, comfort, console, and help is essential.
Complain about this comment
If anybody thought that the conservatives were begining to understand the world most of us live in think again. Having been brought up by a single parent i would very much agree that people should consider the stability of the relationship before having children. However would fisal policy have any affect on 99.9% of families breaking up or not, the answer is no.
Can there be "good" reasons for parents to break-up, the anwer is yes.
Would i have prefered to have had a bad parent along with a good parent, no.
As the blogs have demonstrated, it is usually the factors which break the family that also cause suffering to the child, not the fact that they are brough up by a single parent
Complain about this comment
maybe it shouldn't be always the 'broken' families that take the blame, for example it may be how the people of these backgrounds are raised up, whether it's in a rough estate or a poor family, or maybe they struggle for attention but they end up with the wrong crowd.
Complain about this comment
I wonder whether the problem of 'Broken Britain' is not caused by lone parents but because of the social pressures that mean that child-rearing is no longer seen as a worthwhile and fulfilling aspiration for many people.
At one time, the traditional family structure consisted of a maternal home-maker and a paternal breadwinner. The whole process of courtship and marriage was designed to enable women to select a reliable and faithful mate to father and support her children. Women did not have to be doctors or lawyers or whatever themselves in order to be 'successful' - they just needed to attract someone who would provide them with the genetic and material wherewithal to raise a viable family. The competitive male would strive to provide the material needs, whilst women would socialise and 'network' with each other to provide vital emotional and social support needs. Each parent therefore had a clearly defined and fulfilling role which nature had equipped them to perform.
Of course, not everyone fits this stereotype and there are women who understandably do not want to raise children, and/or who want a career. Similarly, some men would be much happier in the nuturing role. In my view, the problem that has arisen is that under the banner of 'gender equality' or in an attempt to match the spending-power of double-income households, far more women have felt obliged to enter the workplace than might otherwise have been the case. Some men have been displaced and lost their own sense of role, but the main losers have been children who have to be fitted in around work schedules by busy parents who are often both worn out by the pressures of work. The workplace itself has been transformed from a mainly monogamous environment to one in which both sexes intermingle, with a greater chance of affairs developing. The fixation on money and material possessions as a symbol of success also means that marriages suffer when financial times are hard. Lone parents are thus the result of societal pressures that undermine the whole raison d'etre of marriage and which at the same time damage children. Yet the damage occurs before the tensions that drive the marriage apart develop, which is why the statistics don't show any real difference between the two groups (single vs married).
It would be interesting to see some research which compared life outcomes for children with part-time or stay-at-home mothers with those from families where both parents (or the only parent) worked long hours.
Complain about this comment
Surely we need to make the distinction between "disfunctional" families and this Tory sterotype "broken family". There is no more disfunctional family in the UK than our own dearly beloved Royal Family who appear to be a fairly emotionally stunted lot incapable of forming long-term adult relationship and providing a stable environment for their children to flourish in. What emotional damage and distress did the post divorce media "tit-for-tat" behavour of the late Princess Of Wales and the heir to the throne do to their children? Not all single families live on sink estates and not all two parent relationships provide a happy environment for children to grow up in. Simplistic and patronising IDS response to a complex social issue which makes the prospect of a future Tory administraion running this country and even more frightening prospect than the current clowns..
Complain about this comment
ukhuman1st wrote:
"At one time, the traditional family structure consisted of a maternal home-maker and a paternal breadwinner."
Only if you were a well off middle class family.
My mother has worked her entire adult life, as did my grandmothers & three of my four great-grandmothers, as have most women throughout history.
During the industrial revolution Britain's factories were staffed almost entirely with women and children and in pre-industrial Britain women made up over half of the agricultural workers in the country.
The myth of the stay at home mother came about during WWII when middle class women had to join the land army to make up for the men who were away fighting on the front lines. This meant that traditionally male jobs such as ploughing were now being done by women instead of men. During the Victorian era middle class women had become pretty little things that stayed at home looking after the man's home and family but for the majority of women if they wanted to survive it meant going out to work.
Matches were made almost exclusively by women, as were pins and anything else that required a delicate touch, not to mention textiles being woven by women.
The real truth is that we're living in one of the best times there has ever been to live in and suffer from far less social and family problems than almost anyone else throughout history but as this doesn't sell a lot of papers all we ever here about are the very rare, yet very tragic incidents that do occur.
Things aren't perfect but for most of us they're a whole lot better than they've been for most of the people who have ever lived.
Complain about this comment
50 - beautifullCanadianEd wrote (extract)
"As long as you continue to allow your medical people to refuse medical treatment to your elderly populations (which leads to their deaths), you will continue to degrade your concern for others and diminish whatever empathic abilities your society has left."
Late in the day but just read this comment and if I did not know it I would think that I was reading an extract from our daily rag gutter press (Murdoch). I have never read such a terrible misinformed comment in its entirety. I guess this is where this person obtains his/her information from. From my password you will see I am getting on in years but as far as I am concerned I have had nothing but excellent attention from the NHS.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'? is a good question.
You quote Iain Duncan Smith, "I have always believed that it would be impossible to prove conclusively that simply having a lone parent effects your outcomes as a child and we have never argued that.”
Dave and Liz Percival make some sensible comments at their Weekly Update of UK Marriage News - No 9.35 20/9/09 which can be found at www.2-in-2-1.co.uk
"At first sight the news that children of single parents do as well as those of married parents, both academically and behaviourally may seem like a real blow to some of the arguments for the “benefits” of marriage..... But dig a little deeper behind the bald headline and one finds an important caveat – singleness is OK as long as it is constant, with no new partners entering the scene.... This poses a dilemma for policy makers – shift policy to make re-partnering of single mums less socially acceptable, or support the formation of the most stable family structure before children are born, and ensure it is supported throughout life. Far from being bad news, this [OECD] study to me seems to point to one of the most compelling arguments why the inherent stability of marriage should be high on society’s agenda – the fluidity of modern “serial relationships” is destroying the lives and futures of our kids."
The argument, “support the formation of the most stable family structure before children are born, and ensure it is supported throughout life” seems convincing to me, along with the argument of the OECD which is 'convinced that giving specific benefits to single parents may make matters worse.'
"There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being, while they discourage single-parent employment.
In the UK we have tried giving substantial benefits to 'single' parents – many of whom [up to 200,000 according to Frank Field] are not really 'single' but hostesses of 'guest' [often serial] stepfathers – only to find the lives of the children are disrupted to a much greater extent than if they remained genuinely 'single' mothers. Indeed, the rates of child abuse in such 'families' is significantly higher, some studies indicating 33 times greater.
What we have not tried in the UK is to “support the formation of the most stable family structure before children are born, and ensure it is supported throughout life”. Indeed, the status of married couples has been undermined through both the tax and benefit systems, most particularly that of the poorest married couples.
When the Labour government was elected, the Social Exclusion Unit announced that there were eight indicators of deprivation, one of which was 'family breakdown'. However, when the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and the ONS published the Neighbourhood Indices of Deprivation in 2001 there were only seven of them, plus an Index of Multiple Deprivation, the omission being 'family breakdown'.
No one has given a satisfactory explanation as to why there is no Neighbourhood Index of Domestic and Social Cohesion, nor have politicians or journalists been sufficiently inquisitive to investigate.
You quoted the OECD, "There is little or no evidence that these [single parent] benefits positively influence child well-being.... “ At the start of 2009 a Local [Neighbourhood] Index of Child Well-being was published – though not included in the Index of Multiple Deprivation; this was published through the DCLG which is now responsible for the Indices.
So in future, it should be possible to measure changes in 'child well-being'. But I doubt very much if this government will sanction the publishing of an 'index of domestic and social cohesion' for fear that neighbourhoods with low levels of domestic and social cohesion are shown to be much the same as the neighbourhoods with low levels of child well-being.
And that would never do for HMG, and probably not for the BBC either!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS