Letter: Family values, political peccadilloes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Mark Lawson ('You don't say 'family', we won't say 'bimbos',' 30 December) questions what he describes as the 'prissy syllogism', that 'if a man would cheat on his wife he would cheat on his country' because, he states, Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter were strong husbands but weak presidents. But syllogisms do not work in reverse: someone who drinks and drives cannot be trusted on the roads but not everyone who cannot be trusted on the roads is a drunken driver.
Mr Lawson argues for a deal between voters and leaders - that leaders should not foist moralities on the public through 'legislation pertaining to the family' in return for journalism which does not probe their private lives. The problem here for the Government is that its 'family values' programme is not simply a moral addendum that can be lopped off, it is an integral part of its economic strategy. It wants families to meet the cost of: taking back erstwhile hospital patients with mental disorders; accommodating grown-up children who have no jobs and cannot now claim benefits; providing free creche facilities so that young mothers can go out to work. The cherished family is supposed to carry much of the burden hitherto borne by the welfare state.
Yours faithfully,
GARY SLAPPER
The Law School
Staffordshire University
Stoke-on-Trent
30 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments