OK. I was at a conference last week on ageing and social
policy where Rowling's piece was being widely discussed.
Maybe it was the wrong audience for the piece on children's
homes. But the problem with the Orwell Prize winner is
that the policy implications are not exactly spelt out,
so we can't really see which party's policies would be
most useful for these obviously very unhappy children.
If you try and say that every child should receive what
is known as 'authoritative' (not authoritarian) parenting
from an early age, in order to develop social skills,
that may well be correct. But then you get accused of
wanting a 'nanny state'. And in any case I cannot see how
such a thing could be ensured. Whereas Rowling was pretty
clear about the policies she would favour (though I agree
that there is no party that offers this either).
--- On Sun, 18/4/10, Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling - Times Online, and related matters
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, 18 April, 2010, 21:59
> Clearly, John VW is sure!
>
> I was responding to Adrian Sinfield's choice of JK
> Rowling's article
> in support of the Labour Party (to which she has
> contributed £2m)
> which Adrian thought "provides more social policy comment
> than most
> electoral coverage" he'd seen, by juxtaposing another
> current article
> which has been nominated for the Orwell Prize, and which
> provides
> even more social policy comment than most electoral
> coverage that I
> have seen, and perhaps than he has seen. There doesn't
> actually have
> to be a point beyond, as with Adrian, giving list members
> the
> opportunity of reading something they may not have come
> across.
>
> It has been interesting, however, to read John's response
> which
> contains much criticism of the failures of the political
> party
> which Rowling supports, even if he also doesn't think much
> of Smith's
> analyses or of the Conservatives' perceived social
> policies.
>
> Paul Ashton
>
> --- On Sun, 18/4/10, Mel Bartley <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Mel Bartley <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling -
> Times Online, and related matters
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, 18 April, 2010, 19:58
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was not actually too sure what point Paul Ashton was
> making?
> Maybe he would elaborate?
>
> --- On Sun, 18/4/10, John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling -
> Times Online, and related matters
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, 18 April, 2010, 17:00
>
>
>
> Paul Ashton offers us Winston Smith's blog as social policy
> evidence. Smith wrote there mainly about disturbed children,
> but in a context which presupposes the existence of an
> amoral 'underclass' in a 'broken society', from which they
> come. Apart from the difference between Rowling who was
> talking about her own lived experience and Smith who was
> telling us about his views about other people, perhaps the
> wider social environmental context would not look so bad if
> richer taxpayers were willing to pay their fair share so
> that Smith's and other social services and public housing
> were not so starved of resources, and if governments at
> national and local level concentrated on building a better
> foundation for family policy for instance by creating a
> demand for as much unskilled paid labour as is needed to
> offer work at a living wage to Smith's clients when they
> enter the labour market, and all like them, instead of
> demonising them. But the prospects do not look good if any
> of the tax- and public-expenditure cutting parties get into
> power, and even less so if they give powers to local
> electorates to cut local expenditures on such essential
> services. Prevention of a 'broken society', if that is what
> we are meant to read Smith as telling us about [have I
> misunderstood him?], is better than cure.
>
> The place where society is broken is not between Smith's
> characters [if we even accept that he gives an accurate
> account of his impressions, which may not be the case if he
> is writing for literary effect -- this isn't research] and
> the rest of the incompetent, irresponsible or even dishonest
> people all the way through society and including those who
> run banks and businesses and the country [no, I didn't say
> they all were]. It is between those who want all the
> benefits of the Big [inclusive?] Society but refuse to pay
> their fair share of the costs -- and when it is suggested
> that they should because that is what they demand when they
> talk about rights and responsibilties, they squeal that they
> will leave the country. So much for a mature adult
> acceptance of responsibility!
> Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the
> harlot -- isn't that the quotation? And by a Conservative
> politician, so it has to be true -- doesn't it?
>
> When we see a good example of social and personal
> responsibility set by those rich and powerful enough to do
> so, then and only then have the preachers the moral right
> to demand similar standards from the poor and powerless
> clients of Smith, their families and those around
> them. Smith writes about 'a society that no longer enforces
> boundaries or instils discipline and respect'. That sounds
> as if it applies just as much to the Goldman Sachs mob and
> their likes as it does to Smith's clients. What's to choose
> morally between Ashcroft and them? [They all say 'I do it
> because I can do it' -- no sense of socially responsible
> boundaries to greed, no self-discipline about paying taxes,
> no respect for society and everyone's needs, not just their
> own wants.]
>
> Why this unceasing prurient obsession with wallowing in
> the sins of the poor and powerless without simultaneous and
> parallel consideration of the far larger sins of the rich
> and powerful? Some moral blindness to proportionality,
> surely?
>
> Of course it does help to sell the Daily Mail. Was Baldwin
> not referring to its then owner, among others?
>
> John VW.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> From Professor John Veit-Wilson
> Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
> Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
> Telephone -- office: +44[0]191-222 7498
> email [log in to unmask]
> www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson/
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy
> specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
> Sent: 18 April 2010 11:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling -
> Times Online
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 14/4/10, Adrian Sinfield <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >This provides more social policy comment than most
> electoral coverage I have
> >seen. Best wishes, Adrian Sinfield
>
> >token=null&offset=12&page=2" target=_blank
> >rel=nofollowhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?>token=null&offset=12&page=2
>
>
> and this one from the chalkface, nominated for the Orwell
> Prize, provides even more:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y4nszz3
>
> Paul Ashton
>
>
>
>
>
>
|