Do we need daddies?

In the aftermath of these riots-cum-looting, or general thuggishness, whichever you prefer, much has predictably been made of fatherless families

For example IDS has just said:

“We’ve been ambivalent about family structure in Britain for far too long.”

Of course, we all know this means single-parent families, predominantly single mothers, but are they really to blame?

Well, yes and no, I think

Undoubtedly the rise of the Vicky Pollard style teenage mother with her feckless brood is a problem - arguably if there were good hard-working fathers in those lives those children would be much better off (or alternate partner if you wish, I don't necessarily think it has to be a male, although generally it's going to be)

But this does not simply mean a single parent is worse, or a problem in itself

I come from a single parent family, did I go and out and rampage through the streets? I can't prove this here of course, but I'd like to think you believe me

You see it's all well and good to bang on about families and how bad people like me are, how I'm so much less likely to have a degree (masters) or a job (I do) or have a family (married), but the real issue is hidden in what I said earlier - 'good' and 'hard-working' - it is the stable environment that is vastly more important

I bet you we all know a single parent, and I bet, unless you roam around inner city ghettos that the kids are fairly standard, and likewise you may have right terrors born to 'proper' families

The statistics bear out of course, but they also bear out for black people - anybody want to suggest that's inherent to what they are rather than where they are?

You live in a place where young women are poorly educated, have little respect for themselves and are treated like dirt by feckless young men, who also have no respect for themselves or anything, then you are going to get social problems and out of control kids - even if you were to force marriage, and even fidelity, upon them, you are not addressing the root of the problem - the single mothers in question are a symptom, not the cause

So there's no need to worry about young Mrs Smith down the road, whose husband just buggered off with his secretary, producing the next gun-toting hoodlum

I do think welfare is misguided - we effectively encourage people to breed and be irresponsible, because we won't let anyone starve, but this just encourages dependency, ironically my mother never did, and never would, claim welfare

Ultimately this is about those willing, or able, to engage with society and play by the rules, and those who can't, or won't - a breakdown of respect, particularly for themselves, the individual family structure has little to do with that

So how could I ever say single parent families are to blame? I couldn't, and frankly anyone who says that is a dimwit, or just hateful

What I do say is a lot of these problems do happen to come from single-parent families, but what is needed is a stable and loving home, the culture that happens to create single mothers in deprived, inner-city areas rife with gangs is to blame - attacking the notion of single parenthood itself is, at best, just plain daft

I'll take the risk

Apparently Brown's idea to reduce the nuclear fleet from four subs to three is unworkable, as we need four to adequately defend Britain

I think I'll take the risk on something that has never been used, and never should be used

[John Hutton] (former defence secretary) added that Britain would 'rue the day' it became vulnerable to blackmail or aggression.

Do you find it a bit odd that John Hutton (who incidentally is the only named critic) is being cited by the Mail as some sort of expert because he was Defence Secretary, when they regard his successor, Bob Ainsworth, as the devil?

Maybe Hutton was a far better candidate with some sort of defence background? Nope he's a lawyer and career politician who held the job for 8 months....

I don't doubt this is a foolish move, but at least bring me a general!

I understand the arguments for 'the deterrent' - but seriously, what does it achieve? It protects us from aggression and blackmail - I guess Germany, Canada, Japan and Australia are all under someone's thumb?

I appreciate that if we gave it up we'd be weakening our defences, we could be bullied by the Yanks, Russians, or Chinese (not the French) if they so wished - but seriously, are we the last line of defence for Europe? It's giving away a very big weapon that makes it look like we could deal with the big boys on our own, but in reality what does it do?

Like I say, I understand the rationale for it - it's very hard to give up and place this sort of capability solely in the hands of other nations, having to trust the US essentially - it's hard, and my ideal preference would be to get all the powers to disarm, I have little fear of anything North Korea decide to send our way, but let's face it - this is all about saving face - we want to think we're independent

But the question remains - how do Germany, Japan etc. survive on relying on other nations - do they even fear the threat? Maybe because I'm now in Australia I can be a bit more reflective - because they certainly don't regard it as an issue - the issue for Britain is not about having them, it's about giving them up

I would say that while I like having an independent deterrent of our own, primarily because I dislike the idea of the yanks having all the cards, if there need to be countries like Britain and France there to maintain the balance for everyone else in the western world then they shouldn't be funding it on their own

If the other countries don't even care about the balance then I think we should become as grown-up as them and ditch the bomb - it's all about ego, because while it 'could' be useful, it's far more likely to result in the end of the world if we start having to use the bloody things - think about it - there's actually a world situation where Britain needs to defend itself with cataclysmic weapons, where it can survive as a nation in a world where probably no-one else would? I think a lot of the world just accept that if they do get used then we're all toast - it's just bravado to keep them

Of course what I really love is that Brown, by taking the middle route, has completely fudged the issue - all he would do is undermine the military capability to save a paltry £2 billion, pleasing absolutely no one

*I must also admit one of my favourite bits was this

There are also concerns about the impact on jobs. Some 15,000 posts are claimed to be connected to the Trident replacement programme. The submarines are likely to be manufactured by BAE at Barrow-in-Furness, a constituency represented by Mr Hutton, with their nuclear engines made by Rolls Royce in Derby. The submarines are maintained and decommissioned in Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, and operate from Faslane naval base in Scotland. Aldermaston in Berkshire, where the missiles are made, employs 4,000. The weapons programme also supports jobs at the nuclear reactors that create the bomb-making material, including Sellafield.

In my recollection, the government creating non-profit, public-sector jobs (or using financial stimuli) is bad in the Mail 's eyes

Unless it's to make bombs, of course

Tie update

No doubt because this is a little bit of a hot topic right now, but what a coincidence that this just so happens to be in the news today

Boys and girls at St Peters Church of England Aided School in Exeter, Devon, have been told that their normal uniform will be replaced with branded polo shirts.

Hehe,

But what I'd really like to know is the Mail's point - they don't particularly say it's wrong, nor get much opinion against it, but have an inflammatory headline (why do I ask..)

The only opposition is, as I said earlier, is tradition! - i.e. a load of old bollocks

Brilliant piece on the new paedophile scheme

Chris Stevenson, the detective who was responsible for the capture of Ian Huntley, puts it brilliantly in the Times today

Commentators constantly refer to Huntley and the events in Soham as the reason for this. I am sure Sir Michael Bichard, who chaired the inquiry into the murders, did not intend such a wave of recrimination over one case. Yes, changes were necessary: Huntley lived a charmed life in Humberside, where he was investigated for a number of crimes. He was charged with rape, but after he spent a week in custody the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

As a result of poor intelligence, Huntley was appointed a school caretaker in Soham. Did that give him access to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he abuse them? No. In fact he reported to the headteacher that several teenage girls had made inappropriate comments. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets, but did he come into contact with them through being a caretaker? Not exactly — he was caretaker of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls attended St Andrew’s Junior School. Different building, different caretaker. Huntley had contact with them because Carr was employed at St Andrew’s as a classroom assistant.

Speaks for itself...

'Politicians don't know anything'...your point?

I feel I must briefly mention Littlejohn's article about the Phoney Four

Now, while I know Richard Littlejohn is an idiot blowhard, I really can't stand by and let him hold Blair, Prescott and Brown up as being uniquely unqualified for their jobs

No politicians are qualified for their jobs, they are pol-i-ti-cians

That's what civil servants are for...

Tax hikes to save your soul

Ahh, the Tories have announced a policy!

They plan to raise taxes on alcohol to stop binge-drinking - these taxes will of course only apply to 'strong' alcohol - i.e. cheap ciders and beers, and alcopops, which aren't strong, but are evil

Now I have already had experience with this policy - they introduced it in Australia over a year ago (albeit with a ridiculous amount of legislative dithering, but still, at least they have a legislative) and it doesn't appear to have done much - it's too early to tell, but there's still a media panic over violence outside pubs and some pretty tough legislation aimed at it - which would indicate the soft option of taxation is doing squat

Now what I don't get is why don't countries follow the example of others? I understand why they won't accept the Netherlands' version of prostitution (or New Zealand's, or Australia's, or the USA's...) but when it comes to more regular legislative moves why don't they look at how other countries have fared? In Australia they started talking about selling school land to finance the state budget - meanwhile I'm suddenly thinking 'has no-one heard of Thatcher?', this is a country that loves sporting achievement, thinking about doing one of the things that went a good way to nearly wrecking British sports

I do of course know the answer to my question - it's politics. they don't care about long-term benefits, only short-term solutions and easy votes

So with that in mind is it any wonder that this tax hike will see cheap, strong, supermarket-brand alcohol rise in price while traditional alcohol (beer and wine, and presumably spirits) will 'fall in price' (according to the mail) and therefore 'save our pubs!!' Thus appealing to that broad group which is the conservative middle classes

Election won! And with a rise in tax to boot!

It's not that I particularly mind attacking crappy alcohol - but one) don't dress it up as for public benefit and two) also admit it's an easy revenue raiser, which it is, and there's nothing wrong with that

The fact is, alcohol will still be cheap enough - even if white lightning becomes more expensive than Cristal people will still drink to excess, I used to do it on regular beer, as do most students - a few pence here or there makes no real difference

The Mail justify this action by saying this legislation in Australia and Germany has reduced consumption of the worst alcohol by 'as much as fifty per cent' - yes, consumption...nothing in that article about crime or violence - all they did was screw over a few breweries while people drink whatever is cheaper

Have you ever seen someone who binge drinks stick to a budget? No, you will see them go out with twenty quid saying they'll only spend that, only to go out and have a rather cold and wet trip to the cashpoint an hour into the session, then wake up the next morning another fifty quid lighter - unless all alcohol (except perhaps Sherry) costs the Earth then young, naughty people will drink, because at the heart of the matter is that the government still want regular 'decent' people to drink freely and so will always ensure alcohol is affordable

You want to control people, then you have to actually control them - restart the temperance movement, enforce a 3-drink maximum across the country, but don't pretend that aiming at the cheapest, roughest booze will do anything but soothe your conscience

By all means aim at the young - you can address the problem of under-18s with tougher action, and should, but a pretty feeble attempt at social manipulation of young adults will do nothing - people always forget that most alcohol related violence is still perpetrated by adults, even if they are 'young'

Like I say, I don't have a huge problem with the action itself (which is probably why it's such a clever idea - who's going to protest?) - I just think it's virtually pointless and a cheap gimmick to gain votes, it's shameless more than anything

A real pandemic!! woohoo!!

I have a question about swine flu

Why do we care? True, this is the first time a disease (bird flu, SARS etc) has actually reached 'pandemic' which sounds alarming, but just means it's cross continental

I'm watching Newsnight, who have a special on it, as a doctor says it's nothing to worry about - slightly more pathogenic than regular flu, dangerous to pregnant women etc and they interviewed three people who have already recovered

So they had the flu!! There are thousands of cases in Australia now, which is expected based on the season - nobody has died yet! A sodding rugby team caught it! Regular flu kills off 36,000 people in America alone each year

This has got to be the most boring pandemic, ever

The only real difference is we couldn't get in first with vaccines, which no doubt they will eventually aim at high-priority groups, which may hurt us a little bit, it's never nice to lose a baby or have an elderly relative die, but this will not result in people dying in the street, losing millions of the workforce, mass graves etc

It's just flu, people...we get it every year