Light Blogging

Blogging will be light today and probably tomorrow. Instead, fatherly duties mixed with by-election campaigning topped off with a teething 10 month-old. *yawn*

Thanks a lot

Full marks in the diplomacy/tongue-biting stakes to West Yorkshire’s finest as they face accusations that they didn’t find Shannon Matthews quickly enough. This, despite mounting the biggest manhunt in the county since the Yorkshire Ripper, and finding the lost girl when many were fearing the worst, against a background of “oh nobody cares about her as much as Madeline McCann is it ‘cos we is working class”.

The statement from the police was loosely coded, talking of “literally hundreds of people in a huge family network” in defending the length of time it took to check out even the “usual suspects” in such a case.

That some of the locals in Dewsbury (it was one of Shannon’s “huge family network” that made the first criticism that received coverage) thought it strange that such a task should take so long says something of the normality that too many children find themselves in. A procession of “uncles” – real and generic – as well as enough “steps” to start a ladder hire shop.

It was, in a roundabout and unintentionally timed way, the sort of thing that David Cameron was talking about yesterday in his keynote speech in Gateshead. Despite the derision that greeted Iain Duncan Smith’s report last year on social and family breakdown, nothing can alter the fact that a stable family background is the best defence we have against a whole raft of social problems. That is not to condemn divorcees, for instance – these things happen, sadly – but to strive to an ideal. To put the onus back on the community – even in its widest sense, including big business and those who drive our culture – is a significant shift away from the expectation that government can save us all – a flawed belief that has created many of the problems.

Another World

So Gordon Brown is to extend the rights of parents to flexible working. Whoopedoo.

The problem with so much of employment legislation, particularly in recent years, is that beyond the great headlines, most of these rights aren’t worth the paper they’re written on unless you work in a vast, maybe publicly funded, organisation. Which, let’s face it, most of those proposing and drafting these laws do, and have always done.

After all, with the best will in the world, can someone whose employment experience has only been with large employers possibly imagine the situation of someone in a small firm, whose short-notice absence for even one day can be critical? Or that person’s thought process in contemplating asking for their “rights”, knowing that they may well then find themselves on the top of the next redundancy list?

As a father myself, now, it’s not that I don’t appreciate the good intentions, but I knew that when we decided to have a child the decision would have an impact on our lives and we accept those consequences for the greater reward. We certainly weren’t banking on the nanny state to bully our employers into making us that little bit less employable giving us more time off.

One week later

My son is the cutest and most handsome baby in the world*. Ever. No, don’t argue, I’m not listening. He also probably has the messiest nappies and is the loudest crier. Yes, now you can disagree with me. Please.

 

So, what’s been happening since I’ve been away from the keyboard?

A twice failed “Conservative” candidate who didn’t do enough work in his last constituency decides he has still done enough to deserve a peerage, and when Cameron tells him to sling his hook he throws a tantrum. Teacup, Storm. Nevertheless, hours of coverage in the media.

A story from the U.S. (that rather nasty Minnesota Bridge collapse) is reported by the BBC without them, so far, managing to turn it into yet another “blow for Bush” piece.

Still, the Beeb were on form on Tuesday covering the last official day of Army operations in Northern Ireland, with the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 referring to Nationalist areas as the “occupied communities” and playing a good old Irish Republican song. So glad my licence fee is being put to good use.

And Foot and Mouth is back. Not that the French need much excuse to ban our beef exports. Reports are that the government is keen to learn the lessons of six years’ ago – I suppose that means they won’t be burning the cattle with their legs pointing upwards, as one anonymous minister was said to have complained last time.

* I reserve the right to remind him of his in fifteen years’ time in front of his friends should the situation so demand it. I have that power now.

Blogging will be light

Blogging will be particularly light following the arrival of Mark Richard Reddin (7lb 15oz) at 3:57pm this afternoon.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Moralising

The policy recommendations published last week by Iain Duncan Smith’s social policy group have led to some accusations of politicians moralising. Moralising is always a danger, though we all accept a degree of it (isn’t a “rape/murder/theft” is wrong a form of moralising, after all?)

So PC David Copperfield’s recent post therefore comes at an appropriate time. In it, he notes what some would regard as the knockout punch (my unfortunate choice of words, sorry) in the debate over the ideal form of relationship:

The one question that just begs to be asked, is, “Are you married?” It never is, of course, because to ask it might make us appear judgemental. For the record the British Crime Survey in 2001 found that people who cohabited were five times more likely to be at risk from domestic violence

Of course, one can understand the resulting protestations of those who are co-habiting. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that every co-habitee is a beater/victim and I am certainly not going to condemn those who choose to co-habit (having done so myself!) Anecdotal evidence will always be available to demonstrate a happy non-married couple on one hand, and stormy or violent marriage on the other (and even a happy single parent on a third hand). Statistical correlations also have to be regarded for being just that, rather than final proof of cause and effect, yet policy makers have to have regard to the broader facts, and I see nothing wrong in stating that the ideal is a stable marriage - and as the evidence shows, it’s not just for the children.