For richer – but for poorer?
Anastasia De Waal, 17 October 2008
“Family structure doesn’t matter,” is a favourite Labour mantra. The government’s keenness to distance itself from confused Tory “family ideals” is understandable, and on the basis of equality, in principle more appealing. There is a problem with Labour’s “diversity” embracing position, however, and that is that it’s inadvertently also embracing deprivation.
Continued at Comment is Free
The article is a good read but to me fails to put the bell round the cat’s neck, by failing to note that
1. The irresponsibility of individuals is a compelling commonality that links failed relationships, fatherless children, teenage mothers, the long-term jobless, crime et al.
2. The age-old interpretation is that “families in disadvantaged areas are vulnerable to a pile-up of {factors}”…. without once mentioning that the greatest, vulnerability of all is to their own unchecked response systems.
3. The spiral is fuelled by the hopelessly shallow, self-gratifying Liberal-left response.
Is it not now clear that the most vicious act of all, towards the poor, by the Leftist movement, has been this removal of self-determination? The ultimate generic act of prejudice is surely to determine destiny as a function of origin, behaving as if it were a done deal. A pretty damning sort of suppression is then to build social and economic, thus psychological, conditions that reinforce it.
While this is not something I would necessarily advocate, let me float a hypothetical thought, by way of something that looks like a college essay question. (Sorry about that.)
Consider the situation that the next Government announced child allowance would be stopped in two years time. Those having children needed to prove financial self-sufficiency, or the child would be taken from the parents if not achieved within 6 months after birth. The child would be adopted by better-off parents. In case of unemployment through the child’s life, benefits would be offered to the family for one year, before the same condition was applied. In cases of divorce, access rights would be equal and both parents had equal responsibility to provide for the child, unless locally agreed otherwise. In all scenarios, money that would have been given as child benefits, would be given instead to the child, as a life-long education grant after (s)he had reached 18: either to do a degree or vocational qualification at that time and/or later. (16 years x £15/week + interest factor = upwards of £15k)
You are asked to consider the short, medium and long term impacts on the various groups of people involved, commenting on: well-being of child in formative life; life-prospects of child moving-to and in adulthood; prospects of their own family; impact on guardians when supporting the child financially in working years versus at retirement age; behaviours and choices of prospective “vulnerable” parents.