Banging On About The Family and Faith again

[PeckhamRose]

So it's back to family values is it? I remember last time the tories tried that, we found out about the new families some of the married tory front and back benchers had started with various secretaries.

But what if we're not part of a loving family? What if we don't want to be part of our family and move away? What if - not only do we not operate within a family - but we don't believe in God either? We simply have no place in future Tory Britain.

[Frankito]

You devote yourself to this forum and call me brother and, together, we get on with it!

[DJKillaQueen]

It's just a soundbite PR....has no real meaning. The more the days go by the more Cameron becomes a characture of himself, with no original ideas of his own (he's not really that bright tbh).

Frankito is right.....all the family you need is right here in forumland (although that might just fill you with horror too).......

If all else fails there are aways cats!

[richardbach]

tehm consrvitives and lap dog lackys them libs abng on bout famliy valu yet the only famly value i can see in society is teh specilas that icelnd and lidl ofer for less than a tener

[richardbach]

ps : lol

[Voyageur]

I liked what Cameron had to say, and also think that years of liberal initiatives have assisted in causing the problems seen recently. Kids respond positively to firm boundaries.

Stats seem to point to the fact that a stable family unit good role models is the most favourable environment for a kid to grow up within - although that is not to say that many single parent families do not provide a stable and secure environment. I am also well aware that you can twist and abuse stats to fit your particular viewpoint. I don't hold with any religious slant though and don't feel that you need to be married to create a stable family unit.

[Huguenot]

Judging by that, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what 'liberal' means - it certainly doesn't mean no boundaries. Neither does liberal mean an end to the family.

The abuse of 'liberal' in this style is a facet of American politics which doesn't transfer well to English politics.

The best equivalent would be 'bleeding heart pinko', but I think most sensible people would agree we haven't seen any of those leading the country for a long long time. They're nothing to do with New Labour.

In fact 'libertarianism' tends to be a preoccupation of the right wing.

[Voyageur]

More than happy to be corrected about where the initiatives have arisen from - in my view though, the eroding of the authority of teachers, police officers, parents etc. has contributed to the problems faced by young people today and let them down in many ways. Not expecting everyone to agree, just my take.

[mockney piers]

Agreed Huguenot, our political labels definitely need some sprucing as the definitions across the pond are quite different.

I'm not averse to US cultural influences, I think our language is enriched by it, but their politics are wholly screwed, the greater we can keep those influences at arms length the better, and having a firm understanding of the semantics of the labels we bandy about i think is actually pretty important in stopping the viral spread of their ideas.

The US thinks of red and blue as right and left respectively but there is absolutely not a hint of the left in mainstream politics, it more centre and centre right (which is getting rightier all the time).

The traditional UK term liberal definitely needs parsing from us libertarian, as they are only distant cousins of each other with very little grey in your average venn diagram.

New Labour is a tricky one, being a broad church. Weirdly despite Blairs' reformist, modernist, centre friendly presentation I think it very much gave in to socialism's state centric tendencies. It was usually referred to as nanny state, but they might as well have called it stalinist (which is what happened the moment Brown took over, even though there was no shift in philosophy, it's just he and his Campbell replacement had none of those presentation skills)

[Ridgley]

Not sure what you mean PeckhamRose, what?s wrong with family and faith which a lot of my generation and my mother generation of West Indians were raised with?

[StraferJack]

Nothing wrong with family ridgeley, but nor is it the answer to everything. Keeping couples together when they no longer wish to is a recipe for disaster esp for the kids

As for faith ? it?s been discussed to death on the forum. I doubt anyone will say anything new (but count me ?against?)

Anyway, whatever your views on either F, they aren?t an automatic answer to the problems this week, which is what some people are saying they are. By doing that it excludes people like me and PR which we take offence at (sorry if I?m putting words in your mouth PR)

[PeckhamRose]

That's okay, there are few things you and I agree on!

[Ridgley]

I see from my point of view, it worked for me growing up but I suppose it was because I was brought up the old Victorian way which you would find most West Indians from that generation were.

[peterstorm1985]

Kids need one good, able, and willing, parent. If they get two they're lucky and may be happier, but it may not make any difference. The same goes for believing in God, going to church on Sunday and all the rest

I think we should focus on those kids who don't have at least one good, able and willing parent, and let everyone else do their own thing.

(OK, I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to be that one parent unless they can demonstrate the necessary skills - GCSE in parenting?)

[Ridgley]

I think the government has plans to introduce parenting classes.

[PeckhamRose]

I am sure you are a happy well balanced person Ridgley but trust me, the old Victorian way really had rather a lot of faults to it. I'm not even going to start listing them.

[Ridgley]

You have a point PR but in my case it served me very well, and I hold some of those values today and it has served my daughter well too. Very proud how she it turning out she currently doing her Duke of Edinburgh Award at the moment.

[StraferJack]

And many people without faith and family could say the same about their offspring

But if you want to see faith and family in action in 2011, have a look at the Republican party as the various lunatics try and out faith and family each other with their anti-gay, anti-evolution rhetoric

[BB100]

This I-turned-out-all-right so I don't need XYZ sounds like the 100 year old smokers proclaiming 'it never hurt me'. Well, maybe it didn't but there are plenty that fall along the way, so this truimphant feeling some have over making-it without faith and family does not provide any evidence at all that society in general doesn't need it. I can hear some of you sharpening your claws and teeth but that's atheists for you :)

[StraferJack]

BB - take a deep breath

"so this truimphant feeling some have over making-it without faith and family does not provide any evidence at all that society in general doesn't need it."

there is nothing triumphalist about it - it's just a counter to people who say faith and family is the reason for whatever achievement they quote. TO compare it to smoking is facile, as cancer caused by tobacco is a demonstrable fact whereas succeding in life is due do a whole host of different factors.

Nor have you addressed my point about the rise of both religion and family in the scary part of the republican party - doesn't it make you a little bit scared in an Orwellian way?

[Ridgley]

SJ wrote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And many people without faith and family could say the same about their offspring

But if you want to see faith and family in action in 2011, have a look at the Republican party as the various lunatics try and out faith and family each other with their anti-gay, anti-evolution rhetoric

Not everyone SJ with a faith is extreme, and I am not homophobic but the points you have made that can apply to people who don?t have a faith as well. There is nothing wrong in holding those vaulues.

[PeckhamRose]

And let's define "making it". We're all we have. I just don't need governments to make narrow definitions of how we should all make the attempt at making it.

[StraferJack]

ridgely - you're quite correct. And I'm not trying to denigrate you for any values you hold

but as PR says, as the country is gripped by one of it's periodic moral panics, hearing the government reach for those particular values isn't helpful to many

[Ridgley]

I agree that the Tories should not be the one to dictate to us in how to live our life?s as it is clear they are not a good example.

[katie1997]

No, we had enough of banging on about families and faith by Tony Blair and New Labour.

I have moved away from my family, left home at 17, am not religious, was brought up fairly but strictly by my mum on her own. But the facts are that some of us could do with nannying from the government and some don't need it at all.