IDS, gay rights and family breakdown

The British press is getting worse.  Jack-of-all-trade journalists appear increasingly unable to look into the meat of a story.  All they want is a cheap and dirty headline.  Greg Clark's recent use of a Polly Toynbee quotation to describe poverty is headlined as if Tories had embraced the Guardian columnist's whole political outlook.  Tony Blair slips during an interview and the whole media scream that he has admitted that the Iraq war has been a disaster - although any reading of the transcript would lead any grown-up to believe that he still believes that the liberation of Iraq was right and justified.  Grown-up journalism is increasingly rare, unfortunately, and we have another example of the tabloidisation of every British newspaper in today's Telegraph.  "Gays as parents?  They're irrelevant, says IDS" is the headline above Melissa Kite's account of an interview with the former Conservative leader.  The BBC has taken up the story and I'm disappointed that Iain Dale has rushed to judgement, too.

IDS could have been more careful with the phrasing of his answers but I've spoken to him and Melissa Kite spent much of her interview trying to talk about gay rights issues even though a tiny number of families with children are headed by gay couples.  Iain Duncan Smith was there to talk about his social justice policy group's analysis of data on family breakdown (reported here yesterday).  It was in that context that he said that less than half of one per cent of Britons were gay.  If you look at that context he was clearly talking about the number of gay families with children.  Gay parenting may be on the increase but it remains a very small proportion.

For me there are two issues here: Iain Duncan Smith's views and the importance of the family:

Iain Duncan Smith's views: Iain is not homophobic.  There is much talk of his opposition to gay adoption when he was leader (rightly or wrongly he believed that the most vulnerable children should not be placed in unconventional families).  There is much less recognition of the fact that he abandoned his party's support for Section 28 when he was leader.  He introduced a proposal (rejected by Labour) that would not have focused on explicit materials of a homosexual character but would have stopped explicit materials of any character.  As leader he promoted opportunities for gay people to become Tory candidates and as ex-leader trekked down to Cornwall to give support to the embattled Ashley Crossley, who had been the victim of anti-gay feeling.

The importance of the family: Melissa Kite's interview is a clear indication that the metropolitan media would rather talk about their preoccupations than the issues affecting most Britons.  I once was talking with Danny Finkelstein when we were both at CCO and said that I'd happily see gay people get just about every right they desired from serving in the armed forces to civil unions if only public policymakers could focus on doing something to stem the breakdown of relationships between fathers and mothers.  The issue of family breakdown is the pressing issue in Britain - not gay rights.  The Conservatives issue a landmark report on the scale of misery and underachievement caused by family breakdown and Melissa Kite wants to talk about gay rights.  She should be ashamed of herself.  It really is pathetic.  If you want to understand what Iain is really trying to say I recommend his article in The Sunday Times.

Comments

[Denis Cooper]

Jack, there is a difference between single parents and couples - a single parent is one parent (plus in some cases transient boyfriends or less usually girlfriends), while a couple are two parents. In the past it was considered a misfortune if a woman lost her husband and was left to bring up the children on her own. Now it's virtually a badge of feminist honour. Unfortunately while there are excellent single mothers, statistically the outcome for the children is poorer even with state aid.

[Sally Roberts]

Ted, thank you for providing that web-link. What a fascinating site! I recommend that people take a look. The statement that people are unlikely to change their viewpoint is sad but true and for that reason I not going to respond any further to Larry Green except to say that as far as examining my conscience on this issue is concerned, I have no cause for concern.

[Scotty]

I agree with much of the editor's comments regarding IDS's interview.
But the fact remains that journalists want a contentious headline grabbing angle on any often heard political argument.
Instead of uttering a comment like "They're irrelevant" he should have pointed out that while not being a big factor in family breakdown they could offer a valuable contribution when trying to tackle the problems outlined.

[TomTom]

I don`t think single parents, gay parents or hetrosexual parents or there children should be treated any differantly because at the end of the day there is little differance between them.

You're just confused Jack Stone and have no idea what is actually happening on the ground. There are vast differences in family structures and if you don't know what effect matriarchy has had on Afro-Caribbean families I suggest you move to Peckham or Brixton.........or maybe you should go teach in an inner city school say in Brixton or Peckham or Tottenham and see what the end-product of chaotic families looks like.

Sally Roberts.........why don't you become a Christian ? Seems your Judaism is so liberal you could embrace a Judean Mesiah

[margot james]

Quite right Scotty. Also HF spot on - there seemed to be a lack of communications savvy in the release of this important report. IDS has done us all a valuable service with his group's painstaking research into the most pressing problem of our times. The crucial question politically is whether to take the leap and focus solutions around marriage, about which IDS has credible arguments and statistics, or whether to follow the political consensus of the past 20 years and target help at families with children regardless of marital status. That is what we should be debating - not as IDS says the very small number of gay parents.
It is a shame that so much of today's blogging has followed the press agenda rather than IDS's.
PS as for you Larry Green, I celebrate your right to free speech but might I suggest that an evangelical site be a more relevant channel for your views than a blog about a report into family breakdown?

[Sally Roberts]

Tom Tom funny you should say that!!! Actually my background is that my mother was Catholic and my father Jewish - I WAS brought up Catholic - and became Jewish! I'm very happy where I am now.

[Deborah]

"The journalist was just doing what all journalists do - there's no point blaming her."
I'm not sure I agree. As my mother used to say - it doesn't matter if everyone else does it, that doesn't make it right.
Perhaps if journalists took a more responsible approach to reporting we might have a better-informed public. This is a serious subject which cries out for responsible reporting not petty opportunism. I agree with Tim: Melissa Kite should be ashamed of herself

[matt wright]

No I agree with the Editor on this. Of course papers have to sell and reporters have to probe. This is different than actively trying to create news by creating a non-existent split. This is not informing the public it could be construed by some as decieving the public. Whether that was the situation with this item I don't know but it is with other items. None of this helps our country in which those reporters live. It is having a corrosive effect and undermining democracy and making the public think all politicians are worthless. Boris Johnson made a similar comment when he became a politician and was asked by the press why. I repeat none of us expect the press to be supine, of course not, and we do need investigation but real investigation is expensive and there are very few true investigative reporters left. This is leaving a vacuum for some reporters to pretend to be investigative and probing with trivial stirring,

Matt

[malcolm]

As always the best and the worst of Conhome on this thread, from the Larry Green/Tory Loyalist bigotry to the snide sneering of Hinchcliffe and Lindley about fellow Conservatives.But a lot of good stuff in between.
Perhaps in an ideal world IDS should have chosen his words more carefully but in a way I'm glad he didn't. This story will die quickly because there really isn't a story there. Not even Melissa Kite whose objective remember is not truth but to sell a few more copies of her rag will be able to make much of this.
Listening to Cameron recently I get the feeling that he and IDS are in broad agreement about much of the work of the CSJ and I predict that much of what the CSJ proposes will become party policy in the coming years.

[Philip]

I note Margot James' says Larry Green’s comments would be better on an evangelical site. Maybe this reveals prejudice about “evangelicals”, and might indicate she wants, not only some uncomfortable facts, but also the traditional viewpoint on family and morality out of the general public domain (so much for free speech). If so, she would want to exclude views on the morality that has been the accepted norm, and that underpins a better society and tackles poverty and social disadvantage, until recent years when we have been told to accept the promotion of alternative lifestyle choices.

However she does say IDS has credible arguments and statistics that justify creating policies to support marriage, which we need to consider rather than worry about the “very small number of gay parents.”

I'm not a psychologist but it seems obvious that the roles of both Mum and Dad must be needed in a child's development. Sometimes this is not possible due to the absence of one of the partners through illness or tragedy, but sometimes through adults’ lifestyle choices.

David Cameron’s statement posted by the Editor at 1322 is very welcome indeed. Furthermore, he was quoted by the BBC News website on 29 June 2005 as saying “All the evidence shows that children benefit the most from having both parents – mother and father – involved together in (their childrens’) upbringing…” Let’s hope he follows through to make the courageous policy decisions to promote traditional family life – then he and IDS might contribute significantly to the rebuilding of our fractured society. As Mrs T in the 1980s did to the rebuilding of the economy.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I've just got in from the pub - so I'm going to hold my fire.

If Mr Green, a one-sided Zionist, cares to email me at justinhinchcliffe@hotmail.com then I'll take him to task. He seems to be a nasty little individual - but I'm happy to put him right.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Jews (e.g. Mr Green) should remember that gays, gipsies, the disabled and the retarded where gassed by the Nazis – not just Jews. Hitler did not discriminate. Remember this before you espouse further homophobic nonsense.

[Spacemonkey]

"It was in that context that he said that less than half of one per cent of Britons were gay. If you look at that context he was clearly talking about the number of gay families with children."

I'm afraid this is just one example of the editor's continuing obsession of supporting the indefensible when it comes to IDS. The context of IDS' statement is clear (and I quote):

"Men and women are the ones who have the children. Gay couples have nothing to do with this at all. If you think that something like half of a per cent of Britain are gay, you are dealing with tiny numbers here."

According to IDS 0.5% of Britian are gay editor, NOT are gay and rearing children (as you seem to imply he meant). Even without accepting the one sided propoganda of Stonewall et al that 1 in 10 of the UK population is gay, it is surely emblematic of a man who speaks with little knowledge of this area when he gets the figure so badly wrong (a more accurate figure is probably about 6%).

How can it be helpful for the future development of Tory social policy to be obscured by such basic ignorance and unprofessionalism? I only hope that the wood represented by the BB report can be seen for the trees, which IDS has so unhelpfully brought into view today.

[horatius]

I'm gay myself but don't subscribe to the concept of the "gay community". I am an individual, capable of judging issues on their merits, not on the basis of “is it good for gays?". The last thing I want is to be treated as belonging to a “minority” and given “victim” status. I’m realistic enough to accept that being gay can bring limitations as well as benefits, but I try to get on with life and enjoy the positive rather that nursing a sense of grievance.

I wasn’t in the least bit offended by IDS’s original comments and I suspect that applies to many non-militant gays. While there are millions of gays in Britain, the number of gays who want to and are suitable to adopt children is very small. No doubt there are some individual exceptions, but, generally speaking, I do think it is preferable for children to be brought up by a hetrosexual couple, because it exposes them to the influence of both sexes from an early age. I’m not denying that gay couples can be caring; but parenting by a same sex couple is, inevitably, a bit “one sided”, for want of a better expression.

I hope I’m not going to be classed as “homophobic”. I don’t have an irrational fear of my fellow gays - I’m just trying to be realistic (that used to be a Conservative virtue) rather than taking the now-fashionable sentimental approach. In that respect, I was rather disappointed in Iain Dale’s initial reaction, which seemed to be more concerned to “hug a gay” than anything else.

[Philip]

Horatius - thank you for your helpful contribution to the debate. You and I would probably not agree on everything, but it was encouraging to read your thoughtful post. Unfortunately it seems to be the "militant" gays that politicians have listened to, including too many of our Conservative ones who have caved in to their demands. Whoever makes the most noise and creates the most fuss in our pressure-group culture...

[Jonathan]

Morality as a whole is an elephant trap for politicians. Many of whom do not practice what they preach. Morality is an issue where the professionals are no more expert than the amateur and it is no longer sensible to rely on the judgement of MPs alone.
Conservative policy on morality should be to have no policy but to put moral questions to a referendum of the whole nation and to promise to enact the result.
Special interest groups make a lot of noise and often have an influence vastly disproportionate to their numbers. By their nature most are anti-conservative (with a small c). Only by appealing to the whole nation over the heads of the media can we tap into the moderate, generally conservative inclinations of the English public without being pilloried by the chatterati.

Politicians should keep out of morality but Let the People Speak.

[TomTom]

Jews (e.g. Mr Green) should remember that gays, gipsies, the disabled and the retarded where gassed by the Nazis – not just Jews. Hitler did not discriminate. Remember this before you espouse further homophobic nonsense.

What an intemperate comment from a silly little man, Perhaps Master Hunchliffe you should research those who passed through the camps............maybe you should realise thatb the Disabled were murdered on the T-4 Program in hospitals not concentration camps - names like Hadamar, Sonnenstein, Hartheim - those "disabled" included depressives (described as "retarded" by Hinchliffe) illegitimate children, not just physically disabled

http://isurvived.org/t4-program.html

You forgot in your attempt to equate the 20.000 homosexuals murdered with the Jews you omitted the 100.000 Communists, the 200.000 Freemasons, 2 million Poles, and the Red Army soldiers, the Allied airmen...........the Serbs.......

I don't see you pushing the claims of Communists for special breaks nor of Fremasons.

As for Larry Green - let him express his views without your continual attempts to suppress. Engage and Discuss rather than this thuggish comment

then I'll take him to task. He seems to be a nasty little individual

Actually, he expresses a democratic principle to advance an argument and it requires engagement rather than the Brownshirt response it elicited.

As for might I suggest that an evangelical site

Why would a Jew want to be on an Evangelical (Christian) Website ? I am sure he would be welcome, but it does tend to be dismissive of the world's oldest monotheistic religion and the basis of Western Civilisation.

I prefer not to ghettoise contributors but to debate with them. Lenin made a mistake in 1903 in London when he split his faction from the Russian Social Democratic Party for ideological purity
and had to stage a coup d'etat in November 1918 to gain power when the group he had left won the elections.

To return to the family. Read Hannah Arendt - one of the first things Hitler did when he took power was on Law & Order........two highwaymen who had been hi-jacking motorists entering berlin were executed immediately; and camps were set up throughout the country to deal with teenagers who were running amok and impose discipline on them.

That is how far the Weimar Republic discredited itself with failed social policy; at some stage if politicians in Europe do not get a grip, there will be a harsher authoritarian form of government throughout Europe - democratic parties are on probation

[TomTom]

Hitler did not discriminate.

Oh but he did. Get an education and learn the facts especially that only one piece of paper is said to exist connecting Hitler with any of this - he was like a certain Prime Minister - instructions were oral and documents were for Himmler and Heydrich who ran an Executive Agency called the RSHA - and as we know Executive Agencies operate at arm's length from political authority.

[johnC]

I think this thread's current focus on Nazi persecution is as eccentric and irrelevant to the report as the media's focus on gay rights. We need as a party to show that we take domestic social issues as seriously as we have begun to take the environment and international development. IDS's report sets out clearly the main problems and we need to start coming up woth some practical and workable solutions. One is to restore the married persons allowance, so that those parents who choose not to work but to remain at home and bring up children are not penalised by the tax system for doing so. The benefits of having two parents are increased the more time they are able to spend with their children.

[Gareth]

Oh Dear, it seems TomTom is reduced to 'not everything the Fuhrer did was bad' arguments at the same time as calling for tolerance of Mr Green who shows so little tolerance for gay people that he cites books which hold them to be responsible for the holocaust. All very odd.

[John Hustings]

I'd just like to say I agree with every word of the editorial except for:

"IDS could have been more careful with the phrasing of his answers"

I didn't see anything wrong with his phrasing. You shouldn't have to apologise for being maliciously misrepresented.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

For Mitzi Link

[Gandalf]

The repeal of Section 28 which came into effect on 18 November 2003 has been a terrible social disaster. As a 68 year old I had not come across homosexuality until on becoming 21 I had moved to Manchester which was a centre for the activity at that time.
In general no youths had been exposed to this perversion. I had heard the word before when as a fifteen year old; a teacher was explaining the prefix homo. None of my class had heard of homosexuality.
If parents could be in a school today and hear the sex education which is being taught there would be a major uproar. Not even School Governors can easily find what is being taught.
Primary kids are taught about homosexuality many years before they can comprehend what it is all about. The call of “Gay Boy” is common between boys of around 10 and 13. They even know such terms as "fudge pusher" meaning anal sex!
In Secondary Schools they are actually shown pornography and ask to name the sexual perversions taking place. This even includes photos of women being urinated upon I am told.
As the first comment in this thread says:-
“Since its abolition (Section 28). we are now seeing new laws coming in which are having the effect of making the promotion of homosexual lifestyles compulsory in our schools.
Unfortunately there are some homosexuals who are not satisfied with being left to get on with their own lifestyle, but they want it promoted to everyone. Since IDS softened his stance no one, it seems, has stood against them”
The sad fact is that many kids are damaged; those who may have had normal lives with their own family will grow up under the impression that they are “Gay” a misnomer if ever there was. A whole generation of parents have not lost their sons and daughters to sexual deviancy and will have no Grandchildren to look forward to.
The whole trouble stems from Blair’s pandering to every minority group going. As a Prime Minister he has been a disaster beyond all others.

[Gandalf]

The repeal of Section 28 which came into effect on 18 November 2003 has been a terrible social disaster. As a 68 year old I had not come across homosexuality until on becoming 21 I had moved to Manchester which was a centre for the activity at that time.
In general no youths had been exposed to this perversion. I had heard the word before when as a fifteen year old; a teacher was explaining the prefix homo. None of my class had heard of homosexuality.
If parents could be in a school today and hear the sex education which is being taught there would be a major uproar. Not even School Governors can easily find what is being taught.
Primary kids are taught about homosexuality many years before they can comprehend what it is all about. The call of “Gay Boy” is common between boys of around 10 and 13. They even know such terms as "fudge pusher" meaning anal sex!
In Secondary Schools they are actually shown pornography and ask to name the sexual perversions taking place. This even includes photos of women being urinated upon I am told.
As the first comment in this thread says:-
“Since its abolition (Section 28). we are now seeing new laws coming in which are having the effect of making the promotion of homosexual lifestyles compulsory in our schools.
Unfortunately there are some homosexuals who are not satisfied with being left to get on with their own lifestyle, but they want it promoted to everyone. Since IDS softened his stance no one, it seems, has stood against them”
The sad fact is that many kids are damaged; those who may have had normal lives with their own family will grow up under the impression that they are “Gay” a misnomer if ever there was. A whole generation of parents have not lost their sons and daughters to sexual deviancy and will have no Grandchildren to look forward to.
The whole trouble stems from Blair’s pandering to every minority group going. As a Prime Minister he has been a disaster beyond all others.