Perhaps instead we should call a spade a spade, which in its origins is about a digger. However, recently some mistakenly question racial connotations and so, ironically, the phrase is rarely used. Plain speaking, so essential particularly when a topic is of real significance, is under severe threat, and restraint from plain speaking may mean real problems are left unattended.
Freedom of speech, and to cause upset, to disagree and respect with tolerance the disagreement, with no subject off the table, are common themes of concern in Sherbhert and commentators in the UK press. Plain speaking is part of free speech and when used respectfully can avoid misunderstandings and understatement of importance. Sherbhert considers below some issues being neglected perhaps as a result of fear of calling a spade a spade.
DOES NUCLEAR FAMILY LIFE MATTER?
The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel De Souza, published recently her independent review of contemporary family life in England. The report was commissioned on the recommendation of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities which had concluded that family life is a key factor in many disparities among children. The review stresses the benefits of the family, and by no means denigrates any particular type of family including single parent. A background fact is that today, for the first time, more than half of children born in England are to unmarried women. There are today fewer married couples, while more couples cohabit without marriage.
On the one hand some argue that marriage does not matter. But the review clearly shows for the first time that the classic family structure has a protective effect. Are all forms of parenthood equally effective from a child’s point of view? Certainly not according to statistics but noting that each family is unique and must be regarded individually. According to Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times “countless studies…show that, incontestably, children have the best outcomes when they are raised by their genetic parents who are married”. Apparently, cohabiters are 5 times more likely to split in the first 3 years than married couples. Is it not the case that the cohort who statistically fare worst are children with single parents, 90% being women? Children in these circumstances are more likely to live in poverty, more prone to drugs and alcohol. Apparently single parents receive on average 66% of their income from the State. Is such dependency healthy? Does every person have a right to have or sire as many children as they like, when they knowingly have not the means to raise them?
It is essential not to victimise single parents. However, should it be asked whether mothers are having children knowing that from day one they cannot support them? Do people have children to ensure housing? How many absent dads contribute fully financially, and otherwise, to their children’s upbringing? For example, according to the Observer of 7 August, of the 164,500 absent parents who use the Collect and Pay scheme run by the Child Maintenance Service 37% paid no maintenance in the first quarter of 2022; 60% of single-parent families living in poverty would escape poverty if they were paid the money they were owed. The biggest users of food banks are single parents, followed by single men.
A quarter of children in England live in single parent households, twice the European average. What has caused this here especially? Is it a coincidence that Indian and Chinese children perform better at all levels in school than white children, and a greater percentage go to university, and that Indian and Chinese families are typically nuclear families of genetic parents?
According to the De Souza review and bare facts, the nuclear family is better for children. Why has so much been done to discredit the family, and protect the single parent, with little incentive to marry? Might more plain speaking on this topic produce better results all round?
ARE OUR TEACHERS GOOD ENOUGH? OR ARE SCHOOL OUTCOMES AS MUCH ABOUT FAMILIES?
Following on from the family discourse, consider this from the Daily Telegraph of 7 September “Only 58% of native English speakers at the end of Primary School met the expected overall standard in reading, writing and maths in the last academic year, compared with 60% of those pupils whose first language was not English”. There was a record drop in Standard Assessment Results in England after the pandemic understandably. But results pre-pandemic were not that much better.
As observed above in relation to Indian and Chinese families their children perform better academically. But is it perhaps the case that immigrant families are better at supporting their children than native English? Do they understand better the need to work to succeed? Putting comparatives to one side, in any event are the absolute results acceptable? Surely not, and it seems astonishing that the level of basic skills in school leavers is as low as it is statistically. There are many good schools and good teachers no doubt. However, is the accepted standard of teaching, the quality of teachers, high enough?
The proportion of children with special needs seems forever growing. There is an emphasis on ensuring those with special needs meet the same standards as those without, and so the attention dedicated to them has to be even greater to fulfil that worthy aim. Inevitably the application of resources which are limited influences overall outcomes for both categories. But is not the real challenge understanding why so many children seem to have special needs? And then taking steps to counter the causes? The stability of families and the support their children get to learn, and study could be factors here? The debate is so often about funding, when perhaps more attention is needed on the fundamental but hard to talk about issues.
DO PEOPLE NEED TO GRAFT MORE?
Liz Truss, the new PM, was criticised by her opponents for suggesting that perhaps some people in the UK need to graft more. Is there perhaps at least an element and perhaps far more truth in her suggestion than anyone dare admit? Especially if people want to improve their standard of living. Around the subject of working from home, but of relevant application too in the actual workplace, there have been several journalists writing about “the quiet quitters”. In some writings they were even spoken of with some admiration for their skill at their art. A quiet quitter is an employee skilled in doing the bare minimum, exhibiting just enough traits of productivity while doing as little as possible, and avoiding criticism and being fired. While there will always be some, could it be that in the UK there are too many idlers, whose work ethic is non-existent, or who spend more effort and time to avoid work rather than doing or hunting it out?
Of course, some work may be perceived to be or is actually dull; and some workers are unappreciated. The term “human resources” is arguably somewhat denigrating. Some employers generate no loyalty and the working environment can be a “them and us” place, management versus non-management. To improve all these negative factors a huge responsibility rests with owners and leaders and managers of businesses and public services and other organisations.
However, it is notable how often the work ethic of immigrants, for example Eastern Europeans or Asians, is admired compared to that of local Britons. That so many job vacancies are today unfilled is a mystery in the UK, although there seems a general acceptance that some people simply would prefer no work to the graft of outdoor farm jobs or in the leisure industry, eschewing the wages as too low but happy to accept state funding. But if it is felt that perhaps there are people who do not and do not want to graft enough, that needs to be talked about.
The tributes following the death of Queen Elizabeth refer to many qualities as an example to her subjects, one of which was the ethic of hard work. See Sherbhert article THE DEATH OF THE QUEEN.
THE OVERWEIGHT PANDEMIC
“We shouldn’t be pretending its fine to be fat” (The Times Comment section of 20 May) and “How “Deliveroo culture” made Britain lazy and fat” (The Daily Telegraph Features section of 5 May ). “Moves to end the anti-obesity strategy will have incalculable health costs” by Dr. Rachel Clarke in The Sunday Times of 18 September. These articles address some simple facts, remedies for which seem to be being pushed into the long grass. First Boris Johnson suspended the progress of what were very limited new laws designed to reduce sugar intake. Reports suggest that the Government under Liz Truss is not keen on imposing controls and measures to reduce obesity leaving it as a matter of personal choice. To some degree the retreat from the nanny state and state interventions, and the reemphasis on personal responsibility and taking the consequences, if it happens, will be most welcome and perhaps is core to restrengthening the UK.
However, as Britain fast becomes the fattest country in Europe, a “first place” hardly to be cherished, the adverse consequences for the country become more profound. The personal and public cost of obesity are undisputed See Sherbhert articles BALANCE AND FOOD – PEOPLE, PLANET, PLANTS AND PROCESSED and NON FOOD OBESITY AND MORTALITY – TIME FOR A NATIONAL DIET STRATEGY. Obesity can be caused by genetic history, but surely it is caused to a large degree by personal choice, made by adults for themselves and, even worse, for their children. Children fed to become fat become fat adults, and perhaps, in turn, their children do the same. Obese people die earlier, are more prone to debilitating illnesses, heart disease and strokes, diabetes and lower immunity. Does obesity give rise to mental health issues? Does it cost the NHS a lot of resources? Are obese people often less productive? But talking in plain language about obese people is generally thought in some circles to be unacceptable, insulting. The day is fast approaching when obese people will outnumber the rest. This is a hard trend to reverse. But surely it must be in the interests of people themselves and of the country to do so, and straight talking would be a good start.
Highly processed food and drink is the real culprit. Supermarkets and food delivery companies and take-away businesses which serve up such food are doing customers no favours. The cries of care for customers from those who promote such produce are of course, to call a spade a spade, lies. That 4 out of 10 children are obese or overweight when they leave primary school should bring tears to eyes: that the current generation of adults should so disable the next generation knowingly is surely close to criminal.
For years the tobacco lobbies resisted controls to educate the public on the dangers of smoking and to restrict sales. Eventually some governments, including the UK, recognised that the public interest of reducing the damage caused by tobacco outweighed the need not to nanny and unnecessarily restrict freedom. Is not poor nutrition showing itself to be a far bigger danger? It must be on the policy making agenda. The proposals of the Boris Johnson government were a possible start, but no real urgency has been shown. To get healthy diet top of the agenda a massive, sustained education programme is urgently needed. It must pull no punches. It needs to be full of plain speaking.
If the NHS is seeking to move to preventive care rather than just treating the sick, it must surely be a daily vocal advocate against obesity. Unsurprisingly, obesity is more rampant among deprived people than the wealthier. The NHS should work with schools and parents. Again, the nuclear family is key here. If this Government wants growth and improved productivity, attacking obesity should be a central policy, calling obesity what it is, a killer.
Promoting transparency within freedom of speech principles requires plain speaking, even if sometimes painful, and to address deeply difficult problems requires an end to the beating around the bush.
