Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Wasted years

There are a couple of hot topics in the media this week - apart from the bullying row - which, for me, underscore the failure of progressive liberalism as a political doctrine. The first is the row over compulsory sex education and an "opt out" for faith schools while the second is the perennial argument over immigration.

The argument that educating children about sex will lead to fewer teenage girls becoming pregnant is laid bare as false by the government's own admission that a pledge to reduce teenage pregnancies by half has failed miserably. The argument is based on the misguided belief that sex education has worked in foreign countries such as Sweden and Holland. Although, it's true to say that sex education is commonplace in those countries there is no evidence to suggest that that was the reason why they had lower incidences of teenage pregnancies.

The reality is that the social norms of those countries differ significantly from our own as there is still a massive social stigma attached to being a teenage mum in those countries. Furthermore, teenage, unmarried mothers do not receive the kind of state support and benefits that they do in this country. In fact, in the case of Holland, the burden of financial support falls entirely on the parents of the teenager.

The even more damning evidence comes from our own country. Before we had sex education and before we had such a socially liberal attitude towards sex, abortion and unmarried motherhood - in other words, when our social norms were similar to those of Sweden and Holland today - we didn't have a major problem with teenage pregnancy.

There is only one possible conclusion from that and, just like they did when they abolished the working part of our education system and expanded the failing part, the progressives got it completely wrong. However, instead of admitting their failure they are going to throw even more of our money into a failing policy - this is the way they work.

On immigration, the big revelations recently have been that Labour deliberately set out to import millions of foreigners into this country for "social objectives". The suggestion is that the intention was to "rub the noses of the right" in diversity and multiculturalism - but the only ones who ended face down in a pile of muck were the progressives because the society they envisaged did not materialise, but the society they were warned about did.

Not only did they import huge numbers of foreigners, they also imported a massive wave of organised crime - as they were warned about. Not only did they impose massive cultural changes on towns that didn't want them, but those cultural changes have made those towns into divided and confrontational societies - as they were warned about.

And they did this while smearing anyone who opposed the policy as "racist" - although what can be more racist than a policy deliberately aimed at undermining the culture of white British people?

This time they appear, on the face of it, to have realised their mistake and are making claims that they are working to cut immigration - what with new border forces and points based schemes. It's nothing but a fig leaf. They have no intention of changing the policy - but they are, once more, throwing a huge amount of public money into pretending that they are.

Wherever you look you will see evidence of the failure of progressive liberalism. Do not be fooled into thinking that a Conservative Party will be any different - because they follow exactly the same doctrine. If anything, Cameron is even more of a social liberal than Brown is. A victory for the Labour Party at the next election will be a disaster for Britain - but a victory for the Tories will be an even bigger disaster.

Why? Because it will enable the doctrine of progressive liberalism to limp along for another aimless decade. The Tories will survive as a party - just - because they will have demonstrated that they can, just about, still win elections - even though they will collapse as a government inside one term. And it will give the Labour Party enough breathing space to recover some semblance of capability and credibility as an opposition which it does not have as the party of government.

There is no easy way forward for Britain. The next ten years are going to be tough - much tougher than most of us imagine - but if we don't rid ourselves of the yoke of progressive liberalism they will be ten more wasted years before we can really begin our recovery as a nation.


English Pensioner said...

Personally I believe sex education increases the risk of pregnancy amongst children.
With every other subject taught at school, children are, in effect, urged to use their newly gained knowledge; here the are taught a subject but told not to use this knowledge! You can't have it both ways.

Stan said...

Not a bad theory, EP - particularly when you consider that in education these days children are encouraged to "discover" the knowledge themselves rather than being taught anything. With that in mind I can see where you are coming from and I can see why it would be confusing for young children who might misunderstand the messages (i.e. by teaching them about sex they might think this is an implied message that it is ok to have sex).

opsimath said...

Good point, EP - and an equally interesting comment from the blog-owner.

I don't have anything of any value to add, but thanks for the clarity of thought - a rare thing indeed these days.

Anonymous said...

This is true, I lived in Holland for some time and the attitude is totally different. A young girl getting pregnant is regarded by her peers as a fool for being so careless and there is nothing stronger than peer pressure to a teenager. As you said there is also no State housing or benefits for teenage mothers. If the pregnancy is continued the parents are expected to take responsibility. I cannot however, see how we can replicate that here now until our whole welfare system collapses under the weight of it's costs.