The result is that it will be easy for people from a different outlook to criticise the summaries in a manner that says – oh well, you’ve ignored this evidence or that evidence, without aknowledging that the evidence may well be referred to in the course of the more detailed report.

What is very interesting about the analysis in the reports by the Commision for Social Justice is that most commentators who have read them think that they are a detailed and careful addition to the discussion – and this includes people who would never think that they could ever agree with a single word that IDS and his Commission would write.

The narrow point that I have been making in this thread is that it appears that some people would prefer to insult than to engage – to belittle rather than explain – and to shout rather than listen. I suspect that we all would like to see improvements – we disagree about how that can come about, but unless we engage, explain and listen probably we will never progress.

I don’t think you can reasonably criticise anybody for forming an opinion based on a 111 page “executive summary”. In my line of work, an executive summary is one page. A 111 page document is a report. If you can’t clearly set out your position in 111 pages, God help you.

There are considerable shades of opinion between the Liberal views you seem to have and Sarah Palin though. That the state actually discriminates against marriage and encourages abortion as a means of contraception is not something I approve of . Also it is not “moralising “ to suggest that choices concerning irresponsible conception have a moral dimension which has been forgotten or to question the assumption that teenage parenthood did not involve an individual making a choice rather than an bit iof duct blown whiever way “Policy” directs them.

E

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will disgaree with some, if not much of the analysis, but at least you are reading it, rather than making assumptions about it.

Where you disagree, get in touch, explain why you think they are mistaken and why you think that they’re mistaken.

Executive summaries of think tank’s papers tend to be glib, slick and simplistic – and that goes for all of them, not merely those that I agree with!

Because there is no limit to demand for free goods . There are in fact plenty of homes but they are not at the right price or in the right place , the hosuing shortage is a market issue not primarily a building issue . Of course there would be some effect if you kept on building millions upn millions of houses but on house prices , not the queue..

High points for the “Indebtedness” emphasis and the invention of the word “Dadlessness” was kind of cute, but this is a shiny, slick but fairly low grade set of policy suggestions.

Seeing as Thatcher sold most of the council houses off 25 years ago, the waiting list is going to get very long indeed.

All those Tory private Landlords complaining about people scrounging off the state while at the same time recieving high rents paid by the tax payer to put people up in private housing and bed and breakfasts.

Living off the state, It’s the Tory way. Just as long as it’s for me, and not for thee.

And yes its a masterclass in rebuttal.

Just what I was thinking. IDS in particular seems to me to be sincere in wanting to improve society for the worse off. He’s not quite bright enough to have figured out that conservatism is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, but I think he’s well-meaning enough. What, if anything, can we do to encourage the Tories to take action that is pragmatically effective, as they did for a while with HIV/AIDS?

On the civil liberties side, there’s an effort to engage with potential allies within the Conservative party: is there something similar that can be done to build broad-church support for practical, effective action on problems associated with teenage pregnancy?”

As someone who is a Conservative candidate, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that if you continue to slag Tories off you won’t get to ‘build’ the consensus that you appear to want to.

Stop assuming that we Conservatives are idiots … stop making assumptions and interpretations from the data that fit your own political perspective … and stop telling us that the problem is all the fault of the ‘forces of Conservatism’ …

Ignore the parts of the right wing that tell you the same thing as you tell it and start engaging with what is actualy being said and written by the Conservatives and the groups that do engage with the issues and think about them and write about them. Talk a look at Breakdown Britain – and actually read the report, rather than the reports about it; and, if you possibly can, ignore the title and read the text … then take a look at BreakThrough Britian and read the text of the reports. You can find these at the Centre for Social Justice website – http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk.

If you continue to start from the perspective that ‘He’s not quite bright enough to have figured out that conservatism is part of the problem rather than part of the solution’, you won’t even get heard – but if you start from the perspective that we’ve got a problem that we need to find solutions to, and I am prepared to read what others say and take it in, rather than reject it as daft, stupid of the half-baked ideas of someone who hasn’t the intelligence to understand what is really important, then you won’t engage at all!

Real Conservatives are looking at systems operating elsewhere that are making a difference to teenage pregnancy rates – for example, using mentoring schemes that pair up teenage mothers with older mothers from their communities to give them support, advice and so on.

Conservatives are not, contrary to the myths perpetuated on this site, against the availability of condoms. We’re not against sex education for minors. Most Conservatives in the UK that I know are not in favour of moralising for the sake of it and of restricting access to abortion – although, of course, I am aware that there are some in my party and outside it who desparately want us to adopt attitudes that are akin to those approaches of the so-called Christian Right in the US – attitudes that I personally find bizarre and, frankly, laughable.

Just what I was thinking. IDS in particular seems to me to be sincere in wanting to improve society for the worse off. He’s not quite bright enough to have figured out that conservatism is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, but I think he’s well-meaning enough. What, if anything, can we do to encourage the Tories to take action that is pragmatically effective, as they did for a while with HIV/AIDS?

On the civil liberties side, there’s an effort to engage with potential allies within the Conservative party: is there something similar that can be done to build broad-church support for practical, effective action on problems associated with teenage pregnancy?

Yes, so clearly this state of ours is failing in its duty. Glad we’re agreed on the basic premise of what that is, though. ^.^

The problem is mainly that our taxes are too low, because middle class scroungers who largely wouldn’t

..and your theory is that more free houses will reduce the queue ? Does anyone see a flaw in this assumption , anyone ?…anyone ?

I sure do!

Pray elaborate. I confess that I fail to see how more houses would fail to provide more space for those currently waiting.

..and your theory is that more free houses will reduce the queue ? Does anyone see a flaw in this assumption , anyone ?…anyone ?

I sure do!

Uhuh. Things were far worse back then. That’s why you need the state to assist the poor, and can never depend upon charity alone.

Even the most rabid right-wingers don’t believe that girls get pregnant and then have an abortion in order to jump the housing queue and live on benefits.

Abortion is a health issue, single parents are a social and economic issue and collapsing both into debates around conception just confuses matters.

“thoroughly pwned by actual stats” SRSLY? “pwned”?! What is this, a “constructive debate” or a l337 hax00r’s conference? I barely mentioned statistics in my original post. I’ve made one throwaway comment on the subject and then retracted it. I’m perfectly happy to accept that some reduction was made to the teenage pregnancy rate – but as I wrote before, returning to the levels of the mid-nineties is clearly not enough, and there’s been almost no change in the stats in the past 5 years, and we should be aiming to at least be moving closer in line with the Eurozone rates. You say that ‘long term solutions’ are needed. Last I heard, James Purnell was talking along similar lines to IDS, about how welfare reform was needed, the current system isn’t working, and we should be looking at the role of families when we’re trying to solve the issues.

Discrediting a single sentence of my post is a pyrrhic victory – you’ve ended up arguing about a percentage point and a throwaway sentence, while ignoring the actual debate on the nature and scope of benefits and welfare. It’s partisan politics at its worst. Whilst other commenters are actually furthering the debate, you’re simply wandering in and taking potshots. You’re not, to use a tired old expression, seeing the wood for the trees.

“You’re simply echoing the failed right-wing policies and ideas of yesteryear.” Not at all. All I have written about is why I think a high teenage pregnancy rate is a problem (I’d be interested to know why you think it isn’t), and why I think the current welfare system removes incentives to succeed. I’ve been open and honest about where those opinions come from, I’ve explained my logic and understanding in detail. Nowhere have I said that we should go ‘Back to Basics’ *, nowhere have I made a ‘moral’ case against teenage pregnancy nor said people should get married before they have children. I said I thought IDS has put forward some interesting ideas, but I was also deliberately guarded in how far I would take them: I said there was merit in “the idea that parents with aspirations will have aspirational children. That the spiral could be made an upward one instead of a downward one”. Would you disagree with that sentiment, or the intentions behind it?

You’re either misreading me, misquoting me or misunderstanding me – although I’m not certain which, nor whether it’s accidental or deliberate. Wouldn’t it be nicer to concentrate on the areas we agree about and build on them, rather than just assuming everyone not on your side of the debate is pure evil and only wants to cause harm?

* And, for the record, I have never voted Tory.

Which 10 to 15 years , was it by any cyhnace over the same period as the introduction of the Pill?

The record of abstinence education in America has been very poor despite the millions of $ that have been poured in by the Federal Govt. Pregnancies rising in back wood , red states.

The Right want a return to the sweep it under the carpet hypocrisy of the Victorians.

We have a major problem with a massive percentage of poorly unskilled and semi -skilled people in this country. Being a teen age mum greatly increases the difficulty in obtaining the skills required for a well paid job and invariably means the children are brought up in stressful environment. Bringing up children in a stressful environment can impede their development. This is why the children of uneducated unskilled parents are falling behind the children of middle class parents by the age of three. I cannot understand why if people consider the inequality in this country is unacceptable, that uneducated unskilled teenage unmarried mothers is anything other than a catastrophe . As there is free movemment in labour, many employers are happy to employ skilled foreign workers for unskilled and semi skilled positions rather than unskilled and semi-skilled Britons, thus maintaining inequality.

We have had 65 years to address the lack of education and skills of the unskilled working class-how much longer will it take? The problem is that a large proportion of the unskilled working class do not want to change.- you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

You mean like the last three times? That ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ didn’t go so well did it? But then chavscum, I’ve never accused you of having a good handle on reality.