Could intervention lead to more exclusion and less fair society? Rupert George from eGov monitor argues we need to look at the when and how to interve carefully to ensure the policy does not have a negative impact.
My mother was a primary school teacher in Brixton during the dark days of the eighties. The children who hadn’t eaten breakfast made teaching children with aspirational parents almost impossible. I do have some sympathy with the ideas behind early intervention.
I feel uneasy about what form the initative will eventually take, we already imprison mothers for their children's non-attendence at school. The launch of pilots on early intervention are geared towards tackling bad parenting by the "poor".
This bad parenting “clearly” leads to adults who are ill equiped socially or economically, headed for prison and welfare dependency. Hence offering nothing to society but anti-social behaviour and a drain on the public purse.
- Bringing up children to respect authority.
- Bringing up children to question authority.
- Bringing up children to think homosexuality is wrong.
- Bringing up children to think homosexuality is right.
This list of opinions could go on and on. As a society we clearly have no consensus over most of them. They are personal and cultural choices.
It is unfair to single out the poor for intervention deeming their choices unacceptable. The parenting of much of our society produces materially successful yet unhappy adults. Some of the parenting decisions of all sections of society cause costs and social problems for everyone.
We are not considering intervention into families where:
- Children sent to boarding schools, often leaving them to grow into emotionally stunted adults, incapable of connecting with people outside their cultural frame of reference.
- Parents drive four wheel drives to commute, setting an anti-social, un-environmentally friendly precedent for children.
- Children are not broght up to be socially responsible active citzens committed to the wider society.
- The arts are not considered an important part of producing a balanced individual.
- Only material success or good looks are valued.
- Children are allowed to watch violent television or play violent computer games.
Again this list could go on and on. I am sure, as many would be insulted by the statements above as would agree with them. There is wide spread disagreement over what is “harmful” to society.
I am not writing this to attack early intervention or the need to ensure access to opportunity. Politicians of the right and the left often have a desire to challenge those individuals choices, which are in conflict with the cultural preferences or political beliefs of their core constituency.
The previous Conservative administration attacked homosexuality, dance music and single parent families. They attempted to influence the personal and cultural choices and foster a society that conformed to their values. The current Conservative leadership have tried to distance themselves from much of the illiberal sentiments of the parties recent past. However there have been statements about “rudeness”, families, and I am still unsure where Oliver Letwin comments on the ideas battle behind “society” are leading to?
In our multi-faith, multi-cultural, ethnically diverse, class-conscious and socially immobile society, respect for individual choices need to be the guiding principle for the actions of the State. Intervention or interference should only take place where harm to others is a direct consequence of an individual’s actions. Actions by the State should be applied universally and without being clouded by the prejudice of a social class or political ideology.
If people just want to behave differently we must allow them to do so. We should expect responsible action from all parts of society not just the poor. If we want to support families to give access to opportunity we must do so with respect and empathy.
This is the only way we can create a sense of cohesion and common purpose for the greater good to face the challenges of climate change, a global economy and community fragmentation.