Family

David Cameron’s big parenting push this week is a reminder of what the Prime Minister would have liked to have been before the economic crisis intervened. Cameron believes that encouraging stable, loving families is the best way to prevent social failure. Doing that reduces the demand for government and, so the logic goes, shrinking the state then becomes a lot easier.   How the government can try and help people be better parents without falling into the nanny state is undoubtedly tricky. But Cameron’s emphasis so far has, rightly, been on simply giving people more information to help them make their own decisions. Part of this approach is a series

Parliament has decamped for midwinter, but the business of government goes on. Today’s announcement, by the children’s minister Tim Loughton, is contained within a Times article here. ‘An expert panel,’ it reveals, will be tasked with designing a new system for assessing prospective adoptive parents by March next year. That new system, making it easier for suitable folk to adopt, should then be in place by the end of 2012. In many respects, adoption is perfect Cameroonian territory; being, as it is, at the intersection of social responsibility, family, deregulation, etc, etc. But politics isn’t what should concern us here. A lot of unmitigated good can be done in fixing

David Cameron has finally announced the way forward on his pledge to ‘turn round the lives of 120,000 of Britain’s troubled families’ — and it is good news. These families combine behaviour that is harmful or disruptive to the rest of society with reliance on benefits, social housing and other services, reinforcing the sense that they are taking a lot from their fellow citizens while giving nothing positive back. And although dealing with their problems is expensive, they already cost government and society a lot of money, as the Prime Minister is rightly emphasising today.  He actually made this pledge a year ago, ‘based on the broken society’ agenda he

Back in August, the riots were being talked about as an event that would redefine our politics. But the economic news has been so relentless that the post-riots issues have received minimal coverage. This, though, doesn’t make them any less important. This week, we’re seeing two strands of the government’s response. First, Louise Casey starts work at the DCLG on dealing with the 100,000 problem families that the government has identified. Second, the May and IDS report on gangs comes out. So far what’s been trailed from the report is the proposal to create a new offence of intent to supply fire-arms. But what’ll be most interesting is to see

Siobhan Courtney, who blogged for us last week, is part of our ‘another voice’ series – occasional posts from writing from lines of argument different to the ones we normally take on Coffee House. She has sent this report from Dale Farm, where hundreds of travellers are due to be evicted tomorrow. Siobhan was granted access to the site, on what will probably be its last day of existence. Irish folk music pounds out from one chalet. Women vigorously scrub the outsides of neighbouring caravans, while their children bring tea to the men who are fixing their vans. Around them, plastic statues of Mary Magdalene are firmly rooted into the

Tony Blair has dropped in to write an article on the social context to the recent riots. It’s insightful, especially as a testament of his failings in government. At the close of his premiership, he says, he’d realised that the acute social problems in Britain’s inner cities were “specific” and could not be solved with “conventional policy”. So much for ‘education, education, education’, Blair’s favoured solution was a mixture of early intervention on a family by family basis to militate against the “profoundly dysfunctional” upbringings these young people endure and a draconian response to antisocial behaviour. Alas, he was forced from office for before implementing the plan. The present government

The facts of life are Conservative, as the old phrase has it. The events of the past few days have shown the urgent need for Tory social policies. The case for reforms to the police, welfare and education has been amply demonstrated.  Some in the government appear to get this. But there is also an odd hesitancy about getting on the front foot. As Tim Montgomerie said yesterday, why wasn’t a minister put up for Question Time last night? They could have used the programme to push Cameron’s reform agenda. Equally, why isn’t Cameron setting up an inquiry that will expose how the police have effectively abandoned parts of our

I understand that the government’s view is that social housing tenants whose children live with them and are convicted of looting should be evicted from their homes. The law already allows for this, although only if the criminal act occurred within the borough in which the family lives, and the Department for Communities and Local Government is encouraging councils and housing associations to use these powers. Although, the final decision on any eviction would be for the courts. Personally, I think there might be a case for broadening this out. The problem with the current approach is that it lets off those dead-beat dads who take no interest at all

As James says, it’s been a day of high passions here at The Spectator. He feels strongly that many of the problems in Britain are societal, and require a cultural shift. Maybe so. I disagree with James when he says a Prime Minister’s role is to “lead society”. I disagree. We pay him to run the government, not offer his advice (or, worse, condemnation) on how society is running itself. Sure, society is shaped by government incentives. Cameron can fix these. But shaping society by exhortation is not what we expect of limited government. Fundamentally, it confuses what I see as the natural pecking order. In Britain, the people pass