It
is suggested that at present some 25% of children are in "lone
parent" families. A figure for this
is not easy to calculate with certainty and to it might be added those in
changing partnerships and circumstances.
The implication is that this is modern type of family situation and
departs from the "norm" of most children being in a nuclear family
with two parents.
Back
in the 1890's my four great grandmothers at the time were often all lone
parents. Two were young widows and the
other two were both married to merchant seamen who were more away than at home. Trawling around Census Returns from 1841 to 1911
this was far from unusual.
The
number of families disrupted by mortality, disease, events and very often the
requirements of work was very large. We
know from reports the many street children left to wander as well as the numbers
being brought up in institutions because of family collapse or crisis.
In
the 20th Century in the UK in the second and third decades the losses of the
First War and other problems meant many lone parents and then in the fifth
decade and after for a period the same happened again. So the idea of a continuing nuclear family
living in a reliable and self funded way seems to have been a short phases in a
particular time of relative prosperity.
It
is possible that the ideal for family has not been achieved in the past as
often as we think and in until recent times came nearer to it because of an
unusual situation where in the developed world health provision, incomes,
housing and work structures enabled more families to survive in a relatively
benign environment. This may be over now
but we are still attempting to live with the basic assumptions of recent
prosperity.
A
lot of this is to do with housing, property generally and the connected systems
of welfare benefits. Compared with the
past we have granted ourselves astonishingly high levels of expectation, credit
expansion, ideas about entitlement of space and facilities and benefit support
from the state, central and local.
One
effect of all this, allied to much changed cultural and social thinking has
been to tip the scales against the nuclear family and the idea of continuing
support in marriage. For many the
default is not marriage or wider family for many of us but the state system of
benefits and social services. Add all
the "rights" legislation and law and their application this has
racked up demand and entitlement to a high level.
At
the same time the way the property market has worked has had perverse
effects. At the rich end of the scale
persons with wealth live in properties in small numbers that once might have
housed quite a lot of people. As you
move down the scale and allow for ageing as well there is a lot of space in a
lot of properties.
Then
there are all the second and third homes, holiday homes, holiday lets that are
rarely let out of the family and the consequence is that quite a lot of people
today are taking much more room compared to the past. Very recently money flight into the London
and the South East has resulted in boosting prices and costs and often taking
more space out of ordinary use.
When
one time workers two or three bedroom small terrace houses are coming in at a
million or more then something is very awry with the market. Yet politicians win more acclaim and favour
for wanting to make matters worse using funny money and racking up debt than
trying to get things back to a more sane and responsive market.
The
collateral damage is impacting on many aspects of our lives, culture and social
structures, never mind finance, tax and spending. But one major area is families and how they
do or do not function and sustain themselves.
The
signs are that increasingly many are not and never will be if we attempt to go
on like this and another crash or economic contraction will not be the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment