Cameron is right to use the bully pulpit of his office

The normal Monday morning calm of The Spectator was disturbed today by an argument about David Cameron’s comments about fathers who go ‘AWOL’. I thought Cameron was right to say what he did, my editor didn’t. He felt that it wasn’t the Prime Minister’s job to moralise, and that him doing so was the beginning of a descent into totalitarianism.
 
The reason I think Cameron was right to speak out is that so many of the problems in this country are social or cultural. They can’t be solved by another piece of legislation or a government initiative. Rather, they require a broader cultural shift: a move away from the idea that it is alright for people not to face up to the consequences of their actions and a greater recognition of the responsibilities that we owe to other people. If the Prime Minister can use the bully pulpit of his office to catalyse this change, then that is to the good.
 
Considering the costs to individual lives and society more broadly, it would surely be better if society took a sterner view of men who father children and then don’t do — or even try to do — their bit financially or emotionally. Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with the Prime Minister using the platform he has to try and lead society in this direction.
 
Much of the criticism of Cameron’s piece has centered round the idea that he didn’t take into account how difficult it is for some fathers to see their children. Cameron, though, wasn’t criticising divorcees who are struggling to gain access rights or others who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances. His target was those who go ‘AWOL’, ‘runaway dads’ as he called them.
 
To be sure, the Cameron government could — and should — do a lot more to help families. But just because he is a politician does not mean that the Prime Minister shouldn’t talk about these issues. Morality is too important to be left to the bishops.