Ed belatedly took the step of getting married after a long term relationship which produced 2 kids. So maybe he has come round to the idea of 'family' with 2 parents as being better than the vast number of 'mixed up' families that we have at present. The sad fact is that Labour's policies and views have contributed to the creation of more dysfunctional families, and a breakdown in society, more than we should have expected.
So Dianne Abbott is wrong and David Lammy is right. There has to be a male prescence in households and its better that the parents were married, and its not just the black community but all communities that will benefit.
Rowena is very brave to raise this very critical issue and challenge Labours drift towards social breakdown. Its a fundamental question that Labour must face up to, and admit that it did make mistakes. Labour has to change.
Probably the most important article to come out of the NS all year.

Couldn't agree more with Swatantra,, the father is such an important figure in the family, but even without one you can still go far. E.g David Lammy, Barack Obama.
Race should not matter in this debate.

On a side, Ed Miliband's wife...most beautiful political leaders wife right now. We say how this helped Nick Clegg and hopefully this will be positive for Ed as well!

If Labour really wants to talk about families, it's time for a dialogue that is inclusive, not exclusive - one that reflects the realities of people's lives. Yes, sometimes parents split up, but there are many examples of amicable separations and stepfamilies where children have positive relationships with several adults (indeed, there's a lot to be said for extended families in general, with grandparents, uncles and aunts playing a role). Families with parents in same sex relationships need to be respected, and other types of family relationship, such as caring for dependent adults, need to be given their due. We need a mature, reality-based approach that goes beyond the scapegoating that has made 'family values' a destructive term for many in the past.

fatman1001 wrotes, 'On a side, Ed Miliband's wife...most beautiful political leaders wife right now. We say how this helped Nick Clegg and hopefully this will be positive for Ed as well!'

What embarrassing tosh. I hope you were being ironic. If not, do you think party leaders should be elected on the basis of their partner's looks? Great step forward.

Ed Miliband's praising of the right to protest outside St Pauls Cathedral is not the same as praising those individuals involved in the protests. He has certainly read the script wrong.

What makes this scenario quite alarming is that Ed has made a catastrophic blunder by placing, in the main, anarchists, unemployed, non hardworking, benefit claimants and eccentric individuals involved in these protests before hardworking, law abiding, taxpaying union members and labour party members (teachers, nurses, fireman, prison officers, local government workers etc)who he fails to back, support in terms of their protest for strike action. He has got this seriously and terribly wrong. There is not much familiy happening outside St Pauls Cathedral

He places those living in tents who are very likely not to be labour party members before his own.
His judgement on this occasion has to be brought into question.
Prime Ministers cannot be reactionary every time they think in that moment.

Labour has no plan, no modern ideas and no identity. Today we are New, tommorrow Blue, along comes purple and of course there is Red. A pluralistic Labour Party that everybody can or cannot relate to.
His advisors are poor, young, many too young to understand family, inexperienced in life and on institutions and are given support not on merit but on how much they suck up to him. This is wrong and these are the wrong values and principles to be dictating through internal party politics and Labour Party Members, particularly when there is an expectation to do the opposite in society. Somewhat double standards.

Any body who observes local labour party politics will notice that playing the game gets you on board, working hard gets you nowhere. Some councillors, particularly young and easily influenced, climbing up or sliding up the greasy pole of being noticed and playing by the rules are promoted on nepotism.

The Labour party will never change unless the correct candidates are chosen.
It would be helpful if MP's paranoid from losing influence and power locally would use their FAMILY, office secretaries, chairperson less to help secure favoured candidates through the manipulation of selection processes.

Rowenna would be right to think what does family have to do with this.

Firstly, blood is thicker than water and brothers in politics should not choose power over family.

Second, Ed has a problem with the church and its relationship with marriage and the family, unfortunately he has alienated himself from every practising Christaian who believe in family values. He has made it plain and clear,like Marx before hin he is a non believer in God.

Labour has promoted the single parent family in its obsession to crush the marriage principle championed by the Tories. This has backfired. He got married before the Royal Marriage to prevent criticism from the public. He is the churches public enemy number one. Ideology before the people's tradition of marriage is the route towards Michael Foot. Disaster.

Flexible working has never been about providing workers with family help. It is about destroying collective values and individualising the workplace for Blairite reforms. Come clean with the truth Ed

Right, so apparently the consensus is that Labour isn't socially authoritarian enough to win votes. That'll explain why every time it moves in a socially authoritarian direction it loses more of its core voters - who are by now sick to the back teeth of being told that they're unfit members of society because - and for all the fancy sociopolitical frilling, this is what it boils down to - they haven't managed to become rich yet. And now we have Politico telling Labour "if you keep standing up for the disadvantaged in society, you'll never win votes again". Despite the fact that Labour are almost as reliable at kicking the vulnerable as the Tories these days - it's still not enough.

Honestly, to hear some of the self-described "centre left" speak, you'd think the only possible passport to Labour's electoral success is to promise the introduction of concentration camps for anyone currently relying on the state in any way. Shame on you all!

Weird. I've never been a parent, Politico, single or otherwise - and even I can tell that your argument is absolute horseshit. So I have to presume that you can too. Which makes me wonder what your real agenda is... or more precisely, makes me suspect I know exactly what it is.

Well done Gwen. Lovely spirited and constructive discussion and reply. You have answered my argument with great finesse. You have provided everybody reading your reponse what is wrong with society today. IndividualS who do not grasp reality only make belief. Please give me an argument why I am wrong without the language Gwen

Come on readers. Don't sit on the sidelines. Rowenna has started an important and pivotal debate. This is a very topical issue. Debate. I want to listen to what everybody thinks and says....without being personal

Unfortunately, this is one of those times where pedantry gets the better of me.
Diane Abbot isn't a member of Ed's shadow cabinet.
She is Shadow Minister for Public Health but is not a member of the shadow cabinet.

And what does Marx have to do with it?
What Marx said about religion is very sympathetic, actually.