Family breakdown and the riots: David Lammy

We mustn't fear cries of the "nanny state".

By Staff blogger Published 22 August 2011

None of us is perfect but too many parents in Britain are either absent or not doing their job properly. Successive governments have backed off parenting, fearing the cries of "nanny state", but we can no longer rely on Mumsnet and Supernanny to do the job for us. Half of all parents express an interest in parenting classes. They should have access to them. Likewise, if we expect people to work long hours for low pay, can we be surprised if they are not often around to supervise their children?

We must also recognise how society has changed. We are less likely to know our neighbours and, as strangers, we hesitate to intervene when children cross the line: seven out of ten of us say that we would now walk on by if we saw a group of children vandalising a bus stop. There are fewer surrogate parents around to reinforce social boundaries. Moreover, popular culture can pull children in another direction. Children spend twice as much time in front of a TV or computer screen as they do in the classroom. It contributes to a Grand Theft Auto culture in which films, video games and popular music glamourise violence.

Because of these changes, our civic institutions matter more than ever. Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts, described its mission as being to foster a "spirit of self-negation, self-discipline, sense of humour, responsibility, helpfulness to others, loyalty and patriotism" in young people. Modern Britain needs more institutions that ground youngsters in the habits of citizenship - say, a proper, national, civic service.

David Lammy is MP for Tottenham (Labour)

Previous: Will Straw: Encouraging marriage by tax breaks is pointless.

Next: Melissa Benn: It was mainly young men on the rampage. Why?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Family Breakdown

2 comments

Mon, 2011-08-29 23:25 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@david

Moral values have declined since the end of WWII, the time when the state grew. The modern state now seeks to control, manipulate and own people's lives. As the state's influence has grown, so moral decline in the UK has accelerated. So why will more state organs help when there is so much evidence that they will not?

Before 2008, the last government borrowed £350Bn but what did our kids get for it? (Clues are an extra Labour term, a structural deficit, a transfer of 1 million jobs out of the private into the public sector, Chinese imports, a massive debt that still needs to be paid for on which the interest is enough to buy 200 new hospitals a year). The money was spent pursuing short term votes and power and was not invested.

Most of the rioters were children of the Labour project so the answer is not spending more money in pursuit of short term votes.

Labour have gone out of its way to ridicule the Big Society over the last couple of years. Its a pitty that the party are only now realising that moral values matter -- 15 years too late -- and it is only now being discussed by the party because it is percieved as a potential vote winner. But therein lies a key - Labour has lost its socialist anchor and what remains is a marketing machine that lusts after votes and power. Its policy setting is reactive - the elite study market research and plan voter strategy.

One area beholden to Labour where the party could change to help the UK thrive is to free the state education system from the ingrained biggoted corruption and political correctness that drives leveling down e.g. exam result have risen but at 11 year old, state school kids are on averge educationally 18 months behind private sector kids. Schools kept it a secret from the party to stop it interfering, but several of the top 10 state secondary schools carried out experiments from 2007 and showed they could cut out year 9 for a third of all kids with it making only 5% difference to O level results - it proves the state system is designed to hold down the best kids in case they get a head of the less able.

Labour could turn over a new leaf and promote private schools and private universities, which are a saving to the tax payer, which set a challenging standard up to which state schools can be raised.

Instead, the last government attacked the private education sector rather than seeking to expand it. The people Labour hurt most are hard working upper working class families who aspire for their children who could afford a private education if the state would help and not hinder a little. They dont all live in poverty trap areas of Tottenham but that does not mean they should be held down too.