The Epitome of Hypocricy: The UK Guvmunt

**Percy** · 28th-December-2009

27/12/2009 -

Hypocritical British Left performs U-turn on love and marriage ahead of election

Gordon Brown is preparing to pitch Labour as the party of marriage and the family in an audacious bid for core Tory votes. In a shift in strategy ahead of the general election, the government is abandoning its long-standing ambivalence towards wedlock, conceding that children fare better if their parents are together. A green paper to be published in January will outline new measures to shore up “stable parental relationships”.

Labour’s 11th-hour acknowledgment of the importance of marriage has been derided by the Conservatives, who accuse the government of ignoring evidence about the benefits for the past decade. The Tories are preparing their own green paper on promoting family units, setting the scene for an election battle for the parental vote.

Since 1997 Labour has directed resources at children rather than their parents, fearing voters would see attempts to shore up the declining traditional family unit as discriminatory or judgmental. Ed Balls, the schools secretary, now admits the strategy was a mistake. “Because we knew it was complicated we ended up not talking about families and talking about children instead. One of the things that we lost a little bit is that actually, while supporting children is very important, adult relationships are very important too,” Balls said.

Speaking to The Sunday Times ahead of the launch of the green paper, he announced that his department was “changing the direction and face of [family] policy”. “In the past I think our family policy was all about children. I think our family policy now is actually about the strength of the adult relationships and that is important for the progress of the children,” he said.

Labour’s change in policy comes amid concern over the number of children brought up in broken homes. One in four now lives in a single-parent family, compared with one in 14 in the early 1970s. Almost half of children are born outside wedlock. Married couples became a minority in Britain this year for the first time since records began.

While Labour will stop short of saying marriage is “superior” to other committed relationships, the new policy will highlight how much better children fare if their parents stay together. Balls, who is married to Yvette Cooper, the work and pensions secretary, said: “One of the big signifiers of whether children do well is if there are strong adult relationships in the home. We want to look at what more we need to do to support and nurture family relationships.”

In compulsory sex and relationship lessons to be introduced from 2011, children from the age of seven will be taught about the “nature and importance of marriage and stable relationships for family life and bringing up children”.

The green paper is expected to suggest more resources for marriage counselling services such as Relate and to propose a change in culture in public services away from “mother and baby” to “mother, father and baby”. Balls is particularly keen to find ways to prevent partnerships from collapsing during the weeks after a baby is born.

Balls admitted that he backed marriage: “Yvette and I are married. I personally think it is better but I certainly would not say that to other people.” He has been consulting a panel of “agony aunts” about how the government can reduce divorce rates and help children whose parents are splitting up. There will be no softening of the government’s opposition to tax advantages for married couples. Ministers say this would discriminate against the 4m children brought up by non-married parents. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has pledged to recognise the importance of marriage through the tax system.

David Willetts, the party’s family spokesman, said: “It is extraordinary that after more than a decade in which Labour has focused exclusively on children, the penny is finally dropping. “All the evidence is that marriage is strongly linked to greater stability for the child.”

SOURCE

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6968507.ece

There are 161 comments worth reading.

“It is extraordinary that after more than a decade in which Labour has focused exclusively on children, the penny is finally dropping.

That 'focus on children' has been to separate them from Fathers. Make no mistake about that. 'In the best interest of the children' has been enormously damaging to all.

The blatent hypocricy is astounding.

**Marx** · 28th-December-2009

Sadly for them, as long as they employ that man-hating cretin known as Harman, this effort is too little too late. I'll never vote for them while that sick bitch has any power.

**outdoors** · 28th-December-2009

soon as they get back into power(???) they will say this was all a mistake and will continue the destruction of men and marriage.

**outdoors** · 28th-December-2009

Percy-both links u provided are 404 errors

**nivek** · 28th-December-2009

One of the comments on this article -

Phill McCavity wrote:
I heard the other day that my brother and sister-in-law are pretending to have split up. why? - because they have children, and will be far better off pretending to be split than together. All thanks due to browns earlier misguided interference in the benefits system. He's like the anti-midas, everything he touches turns to dust.

I know of quite a few couples who either “pretended” to split or who's decision to split was made easier due to the financial benefits.

soon as they get back into power(???) they will say this was all a mistake and will continue the destruction of men and marriage.

Your right Outdoors, and i really hope people can see that simple truth, otherwise, if they get back in, they will just hit post victory reset and pick right up where they left off.

**Percy** · 28th-December-2009

Both links work for me.

**Yan Yan** · 28th-December-2009

Quote from Percy

Both links work for me.

Me too. And yes Percy the comments were worth reading.
So who actually votes Labour then? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Balls is particularly keen to find ways to prevent partnerships from collapsing during the weeks after a baby is born.

Balls? So, when a couple is blessed with a new child, when the mother has fulfilled her destiny and nurtured a new life, when the father begins to dream of a dynasty that will survive him - that's the most likely time for both of them to say 'F**k it! We can't be bothered'??

I'd be particularly keen to know why any couple would have that attitude.
Could it be anything to do with Labour policy?

**ftumch** · 29th-December-2009

Me too. And yes Percy the comments were worth reading.
So who actually votes Labour then? It doesn't bear thinking about.
Quote:
Balls is particularly keen to find ways to prevent partnerships from collapsing during the weeks after a baby is born.
Balls? So, when a couple is blessed with a new child, when the mother has fulfilled her destiny and nurtured a new life, when the father begins to dream of a dynasty that will survive him - that's the most likely time for both of them to say 'F**k it! We can't be bothered'??

I'd be particularly keen to know why any couple would have that attitude.
Could it be anything to do with Labour policy?

Balls.. I would guess is Ed Balls.. a labour cabinet minister and (allegedly) twat

"So who actually votes Labour then? It doesn't bear thinking about."

i don't. Haven't voted since 87 in fact. It only encourages em.

**Kargan3033** · 1st-January-2010

Hey Precy my good man I have read some of the coments made about this horse shit and it seem that the wids of revalution are starting to pick up speed, I tell you if brown nose and his gang of thugs gets voted in this time around I would not be surpised if the few right thing people over there take up arms and overthrow these fucking loonie assfaces.

**Celtic Druid** · 1st-January-2010

Phill McCavity wrote:
I heard the other day that my brother and sister-in-law are pretending to have split up. why? - because they have children, and will be far better off pretending to be split than together. All thanks due to browns earlier misguided interference in the benefits system. He's like the anti-midas, everything he touches turns to dust.

Quote from nivek

I know of quite a few couples who either “pretended” to split or who's decision to split was made easier due to the financial benefits.

Similarly I know of a few couples who had to pretend to be apart - to ironically keep their family financially solvent. It's practically criminalized being a family. Make no mistake, this is something deliberately orchestrated by radical elements within the Labour party to undermine the institution of marraige.

And now they conveniently change their minds just before an election, after they've allowed feminists to undermine every aspect of marraige for 12 years. Piss off! Any person that would ever seek a stable and long-term meaningful union within marraige should oppose these socialist wreckers.

**ftumch** · 3rd-January-2010

Phill McCavity wrote:
I heard the other day that my brother and sister-in-law are pretending to have split up. why? - because they have children, and will be far better off pretending to be split than together. All thanks due to browns earlier misguided interference in the benefits system. He's like the anti-midas, everything he touches turns to dust. Quote:
Originally Posted by nivek

I know of quite a few couples who either “pretended” to split or who's decision to split was made easier due to the financial benefits.

Similarly I know of a few couples who had to pretend to be apart - to ironically keep their family financially solvent. It's practically criminalized being a family. Make no mistake, this is something deliberately orchestrated by radical elements within the Labour party to undermine the institution of marraige.

And now they conveniently change their minds just before an election, after they've allowed feminists to undermine every aspect of marraige for 12 years. Piss off! Any person that would ever seek a stable and long-term meaningful union within marraige should oppose these socialist wreckers.

just remember.. marriage is a PATRIARCHAL institution intended to enslave women

socialism is a totalitarian ideal which inherintly requires loyalty to the state.. above and beyond religion or "normal" ideas of social status.. hence, loyalty to a husband=evil, loyalty to the state=good

interesting to note: all socialist govts have been middle class... one middle class man who saw through it, though was a through n through socialist, was... Eric Blair....

**johnkimble1** · 3rd-January-2010

Quote from Marx

Sadly for them, as long as they employ that man-hating cretin known as Harman, this effort is too little too late. I'll never vote for them while that sick bitch has any power.

You can't blame everything on Harman, yes she's the worst of the lot, but the Labor party is absolutely full of women with exactly the same misandric views. She's merely a symptom of a far wider problem - I could easily name ten off the top of my head who clearly hate men with a passion and you'll find very few man hating feminists who don't support Labour.

The whole ethos and identity of party itself is fundamentally rooted in sexism against men and boys. If Harman left it would barely make any difference, almost the whole of the party needs to change fundamentally.

It's the sort of thing that takes a generation to achieve, perhaps longer for Laobour as there's not even a recognition of the problem yet and no signs of genuine improvement.