« Cameron's shadow cabinet A-team | Main | Goldsmith set to be face of Green Conservatism »


Strange that four of the topics have in them the objective of reducing barriers and one about raising them. Trust in families also means trust that parents can act on commercialisation of childhood; the desire for "society' to protect soon becomes the legislation to protect or enforce.

The barriers to fathers and sons in part arises from 'society' deciding that a mother is more important in the parent / child relationship and reflecting this in legislation and guidance. So the father is reduced to the paymaster, his parenthood undervalued. Not suprising this results in alienation.

I hope this commission treads carefully and looks at enablers and changes to legislation rather than new laws which add more state sponsored interference in family life.

The loss of childhood is a serious issue and I'm glad Cameron is looking into it. But what does "have we raised barriers to a broader-based family life" mean? Can you elaborate?

Politicians must stop kissing babies and throwing their toys out of the pram.

Why the need for a long speech? He put it much better in three words.

'Hug a hoodie'

Fathers and sons - are there particular problems affecting boys?

No "problems" at all....just basic neglect and a sneering contempt from a feminised media leading to enormous frustration

I was just telling the customers in the shop how right young Mr. Cameron is, I was reading the story in The Times, I'm all confused now that I see you're arguing about it here.

Most children can grow up OK in a relaxed family and school environment, and they don't turn into thugs and ne'er-do-wells. It's really only a minority who need very much stricter control, at least at certain points in their childhood. But since neither parents nor teachers are any longer permitted to exercise the necessary control, thanks to our clever politicians and the cohorts of social workers they've installed, that minority is now being allowed to run riot and make life misery for everybody else - including other children. And of course it gets worse with every successive generation, as undisciplined children become undisciplined parents.

When I was growing up in the 1980s and 90s I was allowed outside, to ride a bike, climb trees, play football etc. I even played conkers. I also played video games a lot like many other members of my generation. I don't feel that my childhood was undermined and most people I know of my age think the same. So this is either a very recent trend or I live in an area where a loss of childhood never occurred.

I also wonder to what extent those criticising a loss of childhood have a particular vision of childhood in mind i.e. the type that they had e.g. no video games, having Just William adventures etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker