Blair, the Nanny State and the Stick

Aventinian · Blair, the Nanny State and the Stick

From the BBC:

Tomorrow's potential troublemakers can be identified even before they are born, Tony Blair has suggested.
Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a "menace to society".

He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.

He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children were older.

There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he said.

The PM has returned from his summer holiday to face intense speculation about his plans to step down.

In his first interview since his three-week stay in the Caribbean, Mr Blair insisted his policies could outlast his time in Downing Street.

His aides say people are more interested in problems like anti-social behaviour than in talk about when the prime minister will quit.

Starting early

The Conservatives say the government should not try to run people's lives.

And one think tank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born.

Mr Blair told BBC News his government had made "massive progress" in tackling social exclusion but there was a group of people with multiple problems.

There had to be intervention "pre-birth even", he said.

Families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late, said Mr Blair.

And there was a "pretty good chance" children of teenage mothers who were not in stable relationships would grow up in a "difficult set of circumstances" and develop behavioural problems.

He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point "pussy-footing".

But he said: "If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children who are growing up - in families which we know are dysfunctional - and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves."

Help had to be offered, but "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear, he said.

Sanctions?

Official figures released in February showed the conception rate for girls aged 13-15 was 7.5 per 1,000 in 2004.

Mr Blair did not specify exactly what changes he was preparing to make or how they would work.

He pointed to the success of Sure Start centres in giving parents help.

And he said sanctions, such as anti-social behaviour orders or parenting orders, were already in place for those who refused support.

But experience from other countries suggested people were willing to get support if they knew where to get it, he added.

Nanny state

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more state intervention.

"It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives for them."

Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, said: ""Empty threats to pregnant mothers will do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years."

Anastasia de Waal, head of the family and education unit at think tank Civitas, said: "It is teetering on genetic determinism this kind of saying that before children are even born they are labelled as problematic."

Ministers should not take a "Big Brother" approach to the problem and look at the root causes of problem behaviour.

But Dorit Braun, Chief Executive of national parent support charity Parentline Plus, said he was pleased Mr Blair was talking about intervening before families hit crisis point.

"The difficulties will lie in how this is received by families," she said, saying intervention must be "respectful".

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5301824.stm]

Now, while I doubt anything in reality will ever come of this sort of rhetoric, I find it worrying that a British prime minister even feels that he can make comments like these.

I wonder just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy it would turn out to be to label children from a young age as suspected future criminals and insist they need the state's help to cure them of their degenerate ways.

Avatar

Its almost worth keeping labour in power just to see what crazy stuff they come up with next. I saw Blair on tv last night and he looks like hes dyed his hair blonde - maybe the guy is going through a mid-life crisis and has just started doing all the crazy stuff he fantisised about as a kid - he'll be driving through London in a tank next.

IF Convenor

Labour, authoritarian? Surely not!

Morph

So if your mother and father are poor or disadvantaged or have a criminal record you are destined to grow up to be an anti-social reprebate who will sponge of the state. What a load of rubbish. It worries me though that this is one logical step away from the Nazi's views that the "mentally ill" should not be allowed to hae children. As an SNP supporter i would rather see Cameron gettin the reins of government that Mr Blair and his increasingly authoritarian party.

wisnaeme

Ah think yon Tony fella has been hearing voices again or is he that far gone into his own delusional wee world that he is now having great difficulty grasping reality. Ah think yon high heid yin should go on holiday again, a very long holiday and give us all a break. Ah sincerely think it's mair than just his reputation that's been damaged.

Cado

I'm going to try and be openminded about this.

I think it is in our way of thinking to ASSUME that he is using 'PC' and bizarrly worded schemes in order to get at groups we think he doesn't like.

ie - all the polava above is just a carefully crafted get around for the fact the we think he is trying to 'impinge' on these groups.

I'm not sure.

This is just a thought which has recently come to me - as a white 20/30 something male - I feel Ive been pretty well hammerred by the Govt with its various 'PC' schemes - in that I'm in the group that is often touted and being the root of ills within society.

This has been mainly to do with the way 'discrimination' legislation has been used. Or more specifically - that the group in question (white, male, etc) - has not been speaking up for itself and USING the same legislation for themselves.

ie - the weopon they're using (legislation to enable Govt to interfere) - is a two edged weopon. The reason for the grief is that those who are using this social tool - are very unrepresentative of society in general. However - its a tool that can be used the other way also.

Its the mechanism - the concept that is starting to interest me. I'd agree, yes - NuLabor have used it in ways I don't like - but thats mainly because none of us (whoever that is) have been USING it - rather we've just been arguing AGAINST it.

OK- yes, very convuluted. But the issue that got me thinking this way was watching how the debate over 'violent porn' evolved. The Govt got pretty well sunk in the debate. The point being that it could be discriminatory.

So - I can see the point of many here - that you don't trust the way the Govt thinks - therefore you don't like them creating tools that allow them to interfere with society.

But if YOU DID trust the way the Govt thinks - then you'd probably support the introduction.

You see my point? I suspect many of you don't disapprove due to any overwhelming concern over civil liberties - rather your concern is based on the Govts ability to have itself in the position of being the 'subjective mind' that makes the decision over what is right and what is wrong.

However - if it was a 'subjective mind' that you agree with - you'd have no issues.

I know this may not be making sence.

sandmountainslim

Being Bretwalda of the Saxon Nation isn't enough!
Now TB wants to be yer Mama!
Deo Vindice
WP

IF Convenor

Cado, the whole point is that you can't trust government. Even if you're mad enough to trust this government there'll be another one along later which will definitely be untrustworthy. Why leave them the tools to screw you?

It's like the whole ID card/detention without trial/lack of double jeopardy/whatever thing. All these tools are going to be there long into the future and (I know it's hard to imagine) some even worse government of the future is being left these gifts by the authoritarian bastards in power now. It scares the crap out of me and only hardens my resolve to get Scotland out of the grip of these maniacs.

This is where a written constitution and bill of rights would be most useful. It would limit the scope of any government's powers in perpetuity. It would be the best possible thing we could do for future generations.

Avatar

Yeah I know what your saying Cado - but imagine our great grandchildren in history class learning about the fascist UK era when the BNP ran the government and it would all be traced back to the Labour government 1997 onwards and the war on terror.

Blackadder

SMS wrote;

Cado

Fair point all.

It was more a thought on the general concept of 'discrimination' as an argument 'tool'.

Though todays stories (Blair probably on the way out.....at some point) renders it kinda redundant.

Labour/Blair have been wanting to move towards 'moral' authoritarianism - thus move into squeeze the Tories (a traditional area for them).

The problem being is they've created this whole system of argument which defines how things/laws etc are judged. This, actually, will probably prevent them moving to the authoritarian side of things, because all the 'social lefties' within/around labour wil go nuts.

Wondering if in their maneuvering they'll end up being bit of a beached whale.

IF Convenor

Labour has always been authoritarian. If you need convincing, think of how easily certain Labour MPs can move from communism to labourism to fascism. The principle examples of labourism to fascism are "Sir" Oswald Mosley and Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Communist to Labour are too numerous to list.

Morph

I agree, the history of labour involves some of the main communist principals including centalisation of power. This can also be shown in fascism. So i suppose it wasnt going to be long before we, as IF said, moved to the more fascist side of these policies

Aventinian

Sir Oswald was a Conservative MP at one point too. The only surprise is that he didn't join the Liberals...

I think what you call a politician like that is an opportunist.

Cado

This seems to be part of UK history that is often forgotton or not talked about.

During WW2 the UK was almost a communist state in everything but name. A Govt of national unity - virtually everything was taken into state ownership and commodities strictly controlled and rationed. Though this was absolutly neccessary in order to win the war.

When Labour got voted in after the war - the whole apparatus of the 'absolute' state was signed into perpetuity.

Industry probably needed to remain under the 'care' of the state - as it had all been transformed to serve the war economy. Secondly - the empire (which fuelled most of the UK industrial complex) was also getting dismantled. The problem being IMO was the fact that when things got to a point when they could evolve - the militant left (basically communist) prevented it. Therefore sealing its fate.

Empire - Total War - The Aftermath.

The story of 1914 to the present day.

You reakon we're witnessing the death throws of the war time British State?

I hope so.

Neil

A good point Cado.
The 1945 Labour government can be seen as not so much the overthrow of the Conservatives by Socialism after they had won the war but the continuance in power of the bureaucracy which had taken such thorough control of the country during the war.

A depressing view & all the more true for it.