UK Politics: Picking Your Career

[Heartofice]

The whole point here is that children of divorced parents on the whole perform much worse in almost all metrics, from mental health to performance at school. Avoiding that scenario and putting effort into primarily creating a safe and secure environment for kids should be the priority.
 

None of this is suggesting that couples should just carry on toxic behaviour, but the point is to try and solve those problems rather than just give up and start again somewhere else, and only seperate if all other avenues have been pursued.
 

Derfel didn’t bother to reply to my question, but the idea that it is valid to get divorced if you have kids because your ‘life goals change’ or even if you ‘fall out of love’ is actually the sort of selfish behaviour that should be discouraged. If you are a parent then your ‘life goals’ don’t fucking matter any more, your kid is the priority. You don’t have butterflies thinking about your partner? Meh, get over it, you have to look after your kids. 
 

So the idea that there is something nefarious or authoritarian about trying to encourage parents to stay together for the sake of their kids just literally blows my mind. This place is often beyond parody sometimes, but you guys did a stand up job today. 

[Zorral]

I don't know about the UK, but here in the USA, divorce and family desertion by fathers statistics are significantly higher in the red states so famous for their family values and adoration of fetii than in the 'lefty' states, just as those states receive far more federal funds than the blue states do, who pay the most taxes, from which those funds come.

Which that latter alone should be a goad to start taxing the billionaire jerkwaddies more, which of course the red states oppose.

 

[Spockydog]

 

 

Edited May 16 by Spockydog

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'd say that if almost half of marriages are ending in divorce that is a pretty good indicator that they aren't doing everything to try and make the relationship work.

Alternately people naturally change enough to make marriages not work, and only if you outright ban divorce for people will you see them exist as they used to.

And before those laws were removed women suffered massive amounts of domestic violence and the #1 cause of death in women under 50 was suicide.

Also, if you're actually serious about making divorce rates better the #1 predictor of divorce is financial instability. Give families more economic and childcare support if you want them to stay together.

Edited May 16 by Kalnestk Oblast

[Spockydog]

 

[DanteGabriel]

I am shocked, absolutely shocked, to find HoI trying to polish a turd of a right wing position by pretending it is the most anodyne sloganeering instead of acknowledging the context of policies meant to elevate the "traditional family" above others.

Edited May 17 by DanteGabriel

[Spockydog]

*two lifelong Tories, sitting in the NatCon auditorium in-between speakers*

"Oh my god. Did she really just say that?"

"tsk. She did. FFS. "

"So, um, National Conservatism..."

"What about it?"

"Well... I mean... It's just.... Well, don't you think it sounds a little bit like National Socialism? 

"--- "

"Oh, shit. Are we those two blokes in that Mitchell & Webb sketch?"

Edited May 17 by Spockydog

[Liffguard]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So the idea that there is something nefarious or authoritarian about trying to encourage parents to stay together for the sake of their kids just literally blows my mind. This place is often beyond parody sometimes, but you guys did a stand up job today. 

Two points; one, do you think that given the statement was coming from a government source at an explicitly political conference, there's an implication that this is something the government should be actively involving itself in? That it's not just an anodyne statement that it's nice for parents to stay together (itself debatable), but rather a statement of policy preference?

Secondly, and related, do you think that there's more to the message than the literal words being spoken? That, again given the surrounding context of the conference, a lamentation about the absence of good family values in the country might come with several coded implications?

[Heartofice]

21 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Two points; one, do you think that given the statement was coming from a government source at an explicitly political conference, there's an implication that this is something the government should be actively involving itself in? That it's not just an anodyne statement that it's nice for parents to stay together (itself debatable), but rather a statement of policy preference?

Do governments attempt to influence behaviours in societies to produce better outcomes? Yes they do it all the time. If secure families and a lack of familial breakdown are shown to produce better outcomes for society then why wouldn’t a government want to try and promote that?

21 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Secondly, and related, do you think that there's more to the message than the literal words being spoken? That, again given the surrounding context of the conference, a lamentation about the absence of good family values in the country might come with several coded implications?

Possibly. However in the context of this conversation, the extreme reaction to simply the idea that someone should suggest that families staying together is a positive thing and that there should be more effort to not simply push the divorce button, is what I’m discussing. We’ve just had pages and pages of people railing against what is for me a pretty innocuous idea.

I’m sure there are people at that conference who have some horrible old school ideas about homosexuality etc that I absolutely do not agree with, but that doesn’t mean that you have to throw out the idea of family or smash shit up just because someone said ‘try not to get divorced if you have kids’

Edited May 17 by Heartofice

[mormont]

42 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Two points; one, do you think that given the statement was coming from a government source at an explicitly political conference, there's an implication that this is something the government should be actively involving itself in?

Danny Kruger isn't a government source: he's a backbencher. But as I say, he and the NatCon org undoubtedly believe that this is something the government should be actively involving itself in, as an urgent priority.

However, to be fair, Sunak has rejected this idea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65612836

 

[BigFatCoward]

If this had anything whatsoever to do with what is best for kids, conservatives wouldn't have enacted so many policies that disadvantage kids. Also what about non married parents? Fuck those kids of sinners?  

[Heartofice]

14 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Also what about non married parents?

If being married means you are more likely to stay together, since it is meant to be a life long commitment, then yes you would see marriage as advantageous to society. The principle of staying together for your kids should apply whether you are married or not though 

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If this had anything whatsoever to do with what is best for kids, conservatives wouldn't have enacted so many policies that disadvantage kids. Also what about non married parents? Fuck those kids of sinners?  

Well, this is where principle 4 comes in.

Quote

4. God and Public Religion. No nation can long endure without humility and gratitude before God and fear of his judgment that are found in authentic religious tradition. For millennia, the Bible has been our surest guide, nourishing a fitting orientation toward God, to the political traditions of the nation, to public morals, to the defense of the weak, and to the recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred. The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, and as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike. Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.

 

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, this is where principle 4 comes in.

 

Sure these people are religious.. and?

If someone says something and it’s influenced by their religion does that mean it must therefore be wrong? Do you just reject everything someone says because you don’t like their positions on other things?

I take it then you reject the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on immigration, because it’s influenced by his religion. 

[A wilding]

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The whole point here is that children of divorced parents on the whole perform much worse in almost all metrics, from mental health to performance at school. Avoiding that scenario and putting effort into primarily creating a safe and secure environment for kids should be the priority.

Just to pick up on this.

You have made a classic correlation/causation error here.

It is indeed generally considered proven that children bought up within a stable loving relationship have statistically better life outcomes, but that is irrelevant. You need to show that, once a relationship breaks down to the point where divorce is being considered, it is better for the child for the parents to stay together anyway, even if only because society pressures them to do so, rather than get divorced. As I understand it, what evidence there is tends to show the opposite.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Happy parents are best for kids.   Preferably Happy parents in the same household than happy separated parents.

Happy separated parents are far far better than unhappy parents who are still together.   Unhappy people forced to spend time together become toxic to each other.  Many couples try to hang on far too long for the sake of the kids and when they finally do separate its far worse as the parents are actively fighting each other and the kids often become part of the battle.

 

More should be done to help people separate while still being able to respect each other, and not actively dislike or hate each other.

 

as an aside - a lot of people have kids before they are in stable long term relationship.  which increases the risk of the relationship not working out in the long term.  Also TV and Movies often suggest people can go from hating each other to being madly in love and getting engaged all within a month and then live happily ever after.  Unfortunately some people seem to believe this is realistic and get married far too soon, before they have really seen what their partner is like in a bad mood.  Not sure what can or should be done about that though.

 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

An account of the Met police arresting the Night Star volunteers the night before the coronation (technically that mornong but at 2am). While wearing high vis jackets with the met logo on them, because they work in partnership with the met.

Heads should roll.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Heartofice]

28 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

 

lol do people actually think this is some sort of own or that purkiss is a serious commentator? Or that Novara media is a serious news channel? 

[maarsen]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

lol do people actually think this is some sort of own or that purkiss is a serious commentator? Or that Novara media is a serious news channel? 

Rees-Moggs seemed to think it was serious or he would never have gone on.