Affinities comment on the 'British values' Gordon Brown is trying to defend against attack by al-Qaeda

Affinities logo

Monday, 02, Jul 2007 12:00

Gordon Brown told Andrew Marr yesterday [ Sunday 1st July 2007 BBC News ] that al-Qaeda would, “not be allowed to undermine our British way of life” and that he would defend “the values we represent …… the values of liberty and the dignity of the individual”.

The Daily Mail, on the 28th June 2007, reports, “The number of women having babies outside marriage has risen by 22 per cent in five years. Last year 327,000 children were born out of wedlock, 59,000 more than in 2001. The proportion is pushing remorselessly towards half of all babies. Last year, 43.7 per cent of babies had unmarried mothers, compared with 42.9 per cent the year before.”

There is not much “dignity of the individual” for approaching half of the new members of the population and more than half in some areas of the country. The Mail report continues, “Academic Patricia Morgan, author of a series of studies on family breakdown, said: "Tax credits have played a big part. ‘Two out of three of the babies outside marriage will have been born to couples with one eye on the benefit authorities. There is strong state incentivisation of lone parenthood.’ Earlier this month former Labour welfare minister Frank Field condemned the 'brutal neglect' of two-parent families in the benefits system.”

This begs the question, “Is Gordon Brown simply defending the right of Labour governments to ‘incentivise lone parenthood’?” Daniel Finkelstein argues “there are too many unmarried parents with votes”. In an article in The Times on 13th December, 2006, 'Fat chance of improving family life? Wrong’, he writes:

“The data seems to show very clearly that cohabitation is associated with a far greater number of broken homes than are found when the parents marry. Most also agree that the problem is serious. At the same time, there is a broad consensus that there isn’t much that can, or even ought, to be done about it. The political reason for inactivity is simple - there are too many unmarried parents with votes. Even if the data may suggest that, on average, homes with two married parents are better for children, this is not remotely true of every home and not remotely possible in every circumstance. Voters think they know better than politicians what is good for them and their kids. They don’t like being told that their lifestyle choice may be damaging their children. And most commentators regard this attitude as reasonable. Politicians should respect the diversity of family life and keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms.”

He goes on to argue:

“The starting point of the obesity consensus is almost identical to that on marriage. There is, apparently, an epidemic of fatness. The free choice of parents is damaging the welfare of their children and the rest of us are picking up the bill. It’s the same basic point - that society would be better if parents were more responsible. At which point, consistency ceases. For the consensus on obesity is that we can, that we must do something about it. Now. Before we all catch it and die. There may be a lot of fat voters, but they must be told to get with the programme. If those fat people and their fat children think they know better than politicians, well, then they are wrong. We have every right to interfere if they endanger their children’s health. This weight diversity cannot be allowed to continue; the State must intervene in people’s kitchens.”

Gordon Brown is defending “British values” by urging us to preserve our liberty in order that we may retain the ambivalent attitude that our politicians must “intervene in the kitchen”, but “keep out of the bedroom”.

So it’s not so much liberty that Gordon Brown is defending, but licentiousness. We may well have to pay the price for this, even if we are not yet ready to face the cost of it. As T.S. Eliot wrote in the ‘Four Quartets’ and in ‘Murder in the Cathedral’, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality”.