Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Family splits cause social problems - Tory report.

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you have a point there, and that does skew the statistics.

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

    Single parents try as hard as they can, for the most part, but it isn't a coincidence that the children of single parent and broken families tend to be more likely to commit crime and anti-social behaviour, tend to perform worse in school, and tend to have their own single-parent families at a young age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Unless you disagree with the idea that the children of single-parent families are more likely to undertake criminal and anti-social behaviour and that the children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer mental health troubles as a result of the trauma of divorce.
    Such is life.


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

    Don't get me wrong. The more secure and stable the environment a child grows in, the better. If the Tories want to 'promote' marriage, that's fine by me. So long as it is not done at the detriment of unmarried couples and single parents, or their persecution. Which is exactly what happened the last time the Tories were in power and got talking about this subject.
    Do you agree, or not, that a child should ideally be raised in a happy and loving two-parent family?
    No. A child should be raised in a happy and loving family.

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

    We should not be idealists. We should be realists. Shit happens. Couples separate. Instead of persecuting those that do we should try to make things better for all concerned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case though, I think the main focus should be on cutting the number of unwanted pregnancies (obviously you need to support the ones that do occur at the same time with things like free councilling or parenting classes or what have you). But having a child, even just financially, is the biggest commitment you can ever make. Imagine if you could somehow accidentally buy a house. I would be interested to see the conservative governments position on things like birth control and sex education in classes, because from what I'm aware (and I could be wrong, since I haven't actually researched it properly) they are not particularly progressive in these areas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who's mentioned persecution? The Tories didn't even mention it last time, it was New Labour who put the words in their mouth, and look at New Labour's record on social inclusion and respect for the family. New Labour have systematically undermined and destroyed the family with their policy- as I said, if I were to split from GWST and have a single-parent family we would both be better off.

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

    I think that there should be more tax advantages for getting married, I'd start by bringing back MIRAS and the tax allowances for married people. Families not started in marriage seem to have very weak foundations, and rather than promoting co-habitation as an "equal" (because it blatantly isn't) more time should be spent promoting marriage as the best setting to have children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Such is life

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

    Crime happens, such is life, should we just put up with it? I don't think so, I think we should look to the causes of it and try and treat them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Who's mentioned persecution? The Tories didn't even mention it last time, it was New Labour who put the words in their mouth, and look at New Labour's record on social inclusion and respect for the family. New Labour have systematically undermined and destroyed the family with their policy- as I said, if I were to split from GWST and have a single-parent family we would both be better off.

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

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

    And by the way, the Thatcher government did have it in for single mothers. It said some of the most hateful and wrong things a government can say about some of their citizens and wasn't exactly jumping to help single mothers in trouble.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That has to be the most defeatest attitude I have heard for a while, just because something happens doesn't mean it's a good thing and doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to change it.

    Crime happens, such is life, should we just put up with it? I don't think so, I think we should look to the causes of it and try and treat them.
    Only the concept of crime is wrong, but the concept of single parents or cohabitating couples is not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given that counselling is available on the NHS, couldnt couples counselling be available as well? Even if the couple then split it would make it less likely that it would be nasty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    It wasn't that long ago that some of you here were spitting blood at the outrageous concept that co-habitating couples might be given some rights.

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

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

    I'm still waiting for you to explain how co-habiting couples are denied access to the rights that married couples enjoy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought I explained it very clearly the last time.

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

    That is simply not good enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Cohabitating couples presently are left in limbo if one of them leaves them or dies.

    Their choice, isn't it?

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

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

    Unless you can show that co-habitees are denied access to the rights (and they aren't, they just choose not to exercise them) then any change in the law isterminally flawed. It isn't for the Government to save the lazy and the misguided from themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No will can protect from a partner leaving you, as you will know.

    Therefore thousands of couples are at risk if that happens.

    Now, I know you appear to have trouble understanding that some people do not want to get married because they don't believe in such institution. It has nothing to do with laziness. And laws should serve the people and reflect life and society as they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No will can protect from a partner leaving you, as you will know.

    Therefore thousands of couples are at risk if that happens.

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

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

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

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

    Why should someone get rights over my property without my express consent? It's my house unless I expressly state otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    They choose to be at that risk. They weigh up the pros and cons and choose not to get married.

    If someone cares more about not getting married than they do about their partner's rights then that is their decision, and their lookout. If principles are worth more than their partner's security then that's a real shame, but I don't see why the Government should then go and interfere with everyone else's property rights to humour their choice.
    How are they interfering with other people's properties?
    Homosexual people should have the same rights to marriage as straight people, and now they do, but rights should not be imposed on either straight or gay people. If people don't want to get their estate in order then that's tough cheese.
    Millions of people would love to get their estate in order. Currently they can't.
    If I wanted my partner to have rights on my house then she would be on the title deeds and in the will. If I don't want her to have those rights then she won't (you'd be amazed how many married people don't have their spouse on the title deeds, and so they have little rights on the property).

    Why should someone get rights over my property without my express consent? It's my house unless I expressly state otherwise.
    If you or anyone else is so concerned about an evil, gold digging partner trying to get half of everything there are always contracts and opt-out clauses of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    How are they interfering with other people's properties?

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

    Ergo, if the partner is on neither, then the owner of the property clearly doesn't want their partner to have a stake on the property. The Government is imposing a stake on the property without the consent of the owner.
    Millions of people would love to get their estate in order. Currently they can't.

    Yes they can.

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

    Name one person who is legally prevented from protecting their partner in the event of relationship failure or death.
    If you or anyone else is so concerned about an evil, gold digging partner trying to get half of everything there are always contracts and opt-out clauses of course.

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

    If nothing is being imposed on anyone, why on earth would you need to opt-out?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    If a person wants their partner to have a stake on the property, their partner will be on the title deeds and their partner will be named in the will. Either that or their partner will be married to them.

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


    Yes they can.

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

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


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

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

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

    You must be really outraged on principle at least that the laws of the land impose all those liberty-destroying rules on people who get married.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Where can you sign a piece of paper that allows you maintenance/support if your partner of many years leaves you unexpectedly for someone else?

    Here.
    You are talking about marriage, aren't you?

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

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

    The legal status of my marriage is nothing more than a sheet of paper which I have signed and which my wife has signed. The emotional and moral status is more because we married in a Church in front of God, but the law doesn't give a stuff about that.
    No different from people who get married and suddenly see half their estate belonging to their spouse isn't it?

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

    When do you explicitly consent to a partner getting half of your property? When you have children? When she stays at yours more than hers? When she moves her toothbrush and a spare set of knickers in? When she comes in for coffee?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Hilarious.


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

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


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

    When do you explicitly consent to a partner getting half of your property? When you have children? When she stays at yours more than hers? When she moves her toothbrush and a spare set of knickers in? When she comes in for coffee?
    I await the government's proposals in that respect. Common sense dictates when you have been living together for a set period of time. What that period should be is of course open to debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it isn't the governments business to keep families together.
    But it is its business to look out for people's well-being, and research shows that children that come from stable and emotionally nutritious families are better off. I do strongly believe that Governments should do all in their power to support families -whatever the kind- as good and healthy families are the basis of a good and healthy society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with that ^^

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

    As I said before, I don't have a problem with the Tories promoting marriage and married families. But I make no apologies for distrusting them when it comes to the treatment they'd be giving to non-nuclear families. Their track record isn't exactly rosy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    @ Kermit/Aladdin

    It's like Israel/Palestine all over again ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People get married and have kids too quickly these days - and they are ill equipped to deal with the financial and emotional strain of raising kids, running a home etc.

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

    It's not the splitting up that's the problem, it's the gettig together in the first place ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    byny wrote:
    People get married and have kids too quickly these days - and they are ill equipped to deal with the financial and emotional strain of raising kids, running a home etc.
    People get married and have kids far later nowadays than they used to. I think the problem is people who don't make plans to have kids, but end up getting pregnant, and are then not particularly prepared for family life. There's also the issue that parents who are from broken families themselves, are less likely to have the help and support of their parents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have noticed myself that, among my acquaintances, the poorest ones and the ones who commit crime, take drugs and have casual sex mostly seem to come from broken homes. So what can the government do to help keep families together?


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

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

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

    Before anyone tries to demonise me as some kind of homphobic, nasty Middle Englander, let me make some points clear. I supported civil partnerships. Indeed, I think they should be extended to cover non-sexual relationships, such as two elderly sisters who live together. As a bisexual man, I'm absolutely fine about homosexuality. I've no problem with it. But all kinds of families must be helped out, and not some at the expense of others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Before anyone tries to demonise me as some kind of homphobic, nasty Middle Englander, let me make some points clear. I supported civil partnerships. Indeed, I think they should be extended to cover non-sexual relationships, such as two elderly sisters who live together. As a bisexual man, I'm absolutely fine about homosexuality. I've no problem with it. But all kinds of families must be helped out, and not some at the expense of others.
    When the fuck did that happen? Can't remember you ever mentioning that one before.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    it's not for the state to interfere.

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

    Discuss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When the fuck did that happen? Can't remember you ever mentioning that one before.
    Just slipped out. I've never spoken about this on TheSite before. Still, let's not get into a discussion about my sexuality. Not in P&D at least. :p
    Kermit wrote:
    It is when the state has to pick up a £20bn tab because people are having children in insecure relationships and then raising anti-social criminal children.
    Exactly. £20billion is a massive amount of money. There are far better ways to spend that. For example, anyone heard the NHS has got a deficit at the moment?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Just slipped out. I've never spoken about this on TheSite before. Still, let's not get into a discussion about my sexuality. Not in P&D at least.
    OK then, but this is far more interesting than single parent families.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It is when the state has to pick up a £20bn tab because people are having children in insecure relationships and then raising anti-social criminal children.

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