<% ballot="207741" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

I think that the government had better get involved in the "family". As the institution responsible for introducing all of the various pieces of liberal to the point of being half-baked legislation that has brought the "family" to the parlous state it now occupies in our society, the government has an awesome responsibility (and an impossible task) in trying to sort it all out.
Tony Hague, UK

Family values are at the core of society so of course they sould be a concern of our government. I find it comforting that the government are taking on board the problems faced by families in Britain and trying to alleviate some of the stresses and strains of everyday life. For too long we have been caught in a downward spiral brough on by the "every man for himself" philosophy, so hopefully if the leaders of our country show some interest in creating a society where we do care for our fellow men, we can get back to basics with some good old fashioned values and work together to improve our own standards of living and that of our peers.
Angela Dundas, UK

Yes, it is the government's role. There should be legislation enabling official monitors to enter any household selected at random. These monitors would assess living conditions, ensure no unwholesome activities are taking place by seeking out and removing evidence such as cannabis, erotica etc. They should also carry out physical examinations of minors and question them to ensure no abuse is being carried out. All financial statements should be checked to ensure household expenditure is compatible with the provision of a material standard of living that meets community standards. Any home PCs should also be checked for any dubious files. The householders should also be checked against the electoral files to ensure they have voted. Come on, this is society you are hankering after, stop pussy footing around - go for it.
Tom Bowshall, Australia

The government is there for issues that affect the whole community, and to provide a framework in which we can live with a fair degree of freedom. However, heavy-handed intervention on an individual scale is bound to have little positive effect for the price of invading people's privacy.
A far more useful response would be to provide a service to not only help aid a family unit (of whatever type) which is in trouble, but to also help a failed family unit to be dissolved with as little negative impact on those involved as possible.
Keith Walker, UK

I agree with Valerie Riches except that this interference is not fascist, but typically socialist in its desire to interfere with and regulate private relationships. We are seeing more and more of the real Blair behind the mask of reasonableness, and the real Blair is a socialist.
Aidan Langley, UK

There are enough problems in the country such as crime and the economy without the government taking on the role of "protector of the family". The government was elected to deal with basic issues such as reforming welfare and investing the money saved into education and a public transport system. It continually seems to be side tracked by other issues eg cool Britannia as well as families, perhaps as these are less politically difficult for the Labour party to deal with.
Grant Kelsall, England

I grew up under Harold Wilson, whose government paid a scholarship to send me to a public school, and otherwise kept out of my family's life. New Labour wants to abolish school choice, and interfere in family life. I would never have thought that one day I would miss Harold Wilson.
Jon Livesey, USA

It is not the government's place to legislate on what is the correct sort of family, single parents, for example. However help and advice for potential parents and for those intending to get married can only help. Help and advice will always be more useful than legislation and should be welcomed. It is important that these initiatives are not coercive in any way otherwise nobody will trust them and no one will benefit.
Jenny, UK

Parenting is a learnt skill, not an innate ability, and consequently good parenting skills are either learnt as a child in a good home or must be taught (in schools). As it is the government's role to supervise teaching in schools the government has a duty to ensure that all children are taught good parenting techniques. In view of the fact that modern families are more dysfunctional than in previous generations the government should take action to ensure that most children leave school being able to become good parents.
M. Wright, England

Marriage preparation and parenting courses are long overdue. They are the most important things we ever do, and in these days of NVQs in sneezing and ironing, shouldn't we all be trying to do things better? Who is arrogant enough to say their relationship is perfect, or that they are an ideal parent? I've recently led - and experienced - a parenting course - one of the best decisions I ever made.
And as for marriage preparation, my husband and I did an 'Engaged Encounter' weekend, on which we learned all sorts of things about ourselves, each other, and the dynamics of our relationship. I believe our marriage to this day is better as a result.(We have been married for six years and have two small children).
S Talbot, England

Government should have a hand in influencing the nurturing of "good" families. Social norm and universal moral values should qualify what a good family mean. If families are well managed the society and the nation would also be on sound footing. However, how a family is managed is subject to family members to decide. Thus, government is not interfering in family life.
Harry, Malaysia

I think everyone will agree here that this government is having too much control, they like to dictate to us! I mean they're starting to sound like a communist government now!! Telling people how to lead their lives, families, health, education and so on. Talk of nanny-state-extremism. It probably won't be long before we get shot for not getting married before the age of 30! All in the name of "society"_ the problem with our society is how much we take this crud from the government.
If Straw wants to eliminate teenage pregnancies 100%, he could have a new law that says anyone pregnant under 20 with no financial security has to have a immediate abortion by law. I know its harsh, but hey_ someone's got to be tough! Just how many teenagers want kids anyway_ is it really "that cool"??!
Jim, UK

Unless a child or spouse is being abused, or either party requests help, the government has no right to force themselves on families and DICTATE how children should be brought up.
Gail Goodwin, UK

The Government has a responsibility to parents to provide guidance and advice, but it is heading too far in the direction of meddling in the lives of individuals. One has to question whether the Government has any moral authority to suggest these proposals when the cabinet included an adulterer who married his mistress, a Home Secretary whose son used drugs and a minister currently embroiled in a personal scandal.
Ross Hall

Beyond intervening where abuse or neglect of children is suspected, and perhaps providing resources to assist parents raising problem children, relationships and the family are no business of the state. Why should the government support the institution of marriage, especially where children are not involved? What benefit does it bring to society? The only argument I can see is a moral one and I refuse to accept that marriage is morally superior to most other forms of relationship.
Murray C Park, England

My God! I find myself agreeing with Valerie Riches! Of course the government shouldn't interfere in family life, but it must support people who are experiencing difficulties in bringing up children whether they be in "normal" families, single-parents or gay couples.
Christopher Anton, UK

The government have every right to introduce measures that help families, but marriage doesn't define the concept of family. By targeting their aid at married couples only, and not families in general, they are making a moral judgement against people who have chosen a different lifestyle. This is divisive.
Government should aim to build a society where the full breadth of people's lifestyle choices and aspirations are supported. Government should keep out of people's private lives, just as they would like the press to keep out of theirs.
Richard, UK

Government has got a role in supporting family and has always had a role. Government provides a stable economy supported by effective policing, medical care and pragmatic support for local government. Until recently, successive British Governments have done this reasonably well, in a sort of bureaucratic, slightly heavy-handed way. Where government is least effective is when they involve themselves with the individual and try to regularise. As in this case, where they are seeking to regularise the family. This sort of response is dangerous and subversive.
I would not want to invite government into my home, I don't think that it is emotionally suited to such interventions. Families are under such intense stress today detracting from the pleasures of family and community life. When the economics of life demand that both parents work, when threats are posed by insubstantial policing and where social services are inundated with the peripheral burden of the political migrant and single parents, the family becomes an endangered species.
Malcolm Turner, UK

In as much as families do remain the predominant base units of our society, then a government has an obligation to take a view on how they can support families. Family credit, child benefit etc. are all valid ways a government can do this. However, only too often do we see a pious politician preaching the virtues of family life only to be caught with his secretary or taking an unhealthy interest in late night excursions around London's parks.
John B, UK

Part of the government's job is to protect us, all of us. That includes children and it includes our mental and physical wellbeing. Good relationships are essential to human happiness and health. Care for the family is certainly an area for government interest.
Chris Jackson, UK

I'd really like to know where the evidence comes from supporting the government conclusions. Much of the report seems to be based upon opinions of civil servants. Lets put it another way. Find someone out there who has been divorced or who is the child of a divorced couple. Has that person been questioned? Are their opinions counted? I suspect, the whole report is based upon the minority of cases that require the intervention of social services.
Barry, UK

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©