Ed West, in his latest post, comments on the values of Old Labour and harks back to the days when
"most shops were shut by law on Sunday, the Biblical injunction not to spare the rod was implemented in the (single-sex) schools, sex education was non-existent, abortion and homosexual practice illegal. It was shocking for an unmarried couple to sleep together and a disgrace to have a baby out of wedlock. Divorcées would not be considered for the honours list or the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. Violent young criminals were birched, older ones were flogged, and murderers were hanged. Two years’ National Service was compulsory for 18-year-olds. Small children sat in rows in the classroom and were caned if they misbehaved."
Quoting John Cruddas who has written for the Catholic Herald, along with Julian Brazier for the Conservatives and Sarah Teather for the LibDems, West raises some interesting thoughts. Was what could be considered an age of austerity and innocence that bad? Was it? Was two years National Service bad for youth? Was it? On a personal level I would make the point that I attended a boarding school where, like National Service, I learned a form of discipline I would never have experienced at home; due to 'lack of freedom' imposed by school discipline, come holiday time I appreciated my 'freedom' and likewise appreciated my parents and family life.
Food for thought?
While not wishing to highlight the 'holes' in the articles by Brazier and Teather - and not wishing to be accused of being 'irreverant' - I wonder if there was a 'typo' in Teather's article. She wrote ".... to participate in making His Kingdom come." In common with her Labour and Conservative opponent, did Sarah not mean "to participate in making EU's Kingdom come"?