To think if it was a white Tory rather than a black Labour poli...

[OldMumsy]

re the smacking thing, this would have been big thing on MN, being all socialist and all that, bunch of hypocrites. Imagine if Boris or Dave had said smack your children you would have been screeching, but Lammy, nothing, nada...

He's an idiot.

Smacking can work with children when conducted calmly, without anger, but of course this is very rarely the case as most parents smack when at the end of their tether.

However, even if you support smacking, I thought the consensus was that it works well only with young children. As the child, ages, smacking becomes less effective, more likely to damage the parent/child relationship, and more likely to instil the instinct that physical force is a good way to get your own way.

I grew up in a generation where smacking was quite routine and nothing to be ashamed of. I was smacked myself, but never from the age of 4 onwards and it was about this age I believe that most of my friends' parents stopped smacking too.

I don't smack my own and never have.

Worraloadabollox. If you're an adult of whichever class and the only way you can keep control of your small children is by hitting them then you have FAILED.

It does bear pointing out that Lammy says he initially thought this viewpoint was a load of bollocks, but has gradually come round to it after listening to his constituents.

So whatever you think of the remarks he's making, he's just doing his job as MP and representing the views of his constituents.

Hmm. Well some of them, at least. How would they work if they wanted all immigrants to go home?

In fact given that he has a constituency with a huge number of immigrants, how would what work if he was deluged with white working class constituents demanding that all immigrants went home? Would he be quite so prepapred to speak on their behalf about their feelings?

Sorry I meant 'how would that work'

'Smacking can work with children when conducted calmly, without anger,'.

That is far worse, in my opinion, than doing it when parents are feeling angry or emotional.

Hilly Given that he has a constituency full of immigrants that's unlikely. But I can't speak for how Lammy would respond if that was in fact the case. Obviously MPs have to be selective in the issues they raise on behalf of their constituents, but if he was initially against smacking but has changed his view based on listening to his constituents then the representations to him on the subject must have been numerous and vocal.

Personally I think it's courageous of him to make a statement like this that goes against the general inclination of his party. Whatever you think of smacking we could do with a few more conviction politicians and a bit less focus grouping and spin.

Abra1 that's my gut feeling as well, which is why I don't do it, but the psychological research shows that smacking works best when done without anger and as part of a range of punishments, just as time-outs are supposed to be done unemotionally. When carried out with anger, it apparently increases the fear experienced by the child as well as making it more difficult for the child to see the justification for the punishment (they remember the fear and the pain, but not the reason for it). Research has also shown that parents massively underestimate the amount of force they put into a smack when they are angry and are more likely to judge it right (i.e. not hard enough to leave a red mark) when calm.

As I say, I am anti-smacking personally, but I wouldn't presume to judge other parents for using smacking unless I felt it had crossed the line into abuse. With older children I simply think it is inappropriate and ineffective. The time to establish authority over your DC is when they are young.

I'm a 'raging lefty' and so are many of my friends - I suspect that's why my facebook and twitter feeds are full to the brim of people berating Lammy. And yes, I joined in, because I happen to think that exposing children to violence does nothing but normalise it and gives the message that hitting people is ok provided they're too small to hit back.

I think it's interesting (and refreshing) to hear a left-wing politician challenging the elite liberal left-wing consensus. Generally this only happens from the right - for example Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively on how elite liberalism is in fact often disastrous for poor/working-class people - but just gets ignored as standard right/left argy-bargy.

I'm a lefty and am appalled by his comments. I have just written o him to say as much.

INteresting, Sunshine, about the research. I tend to agree that if you haven't established authority with children by the time they leave primary school, you've got a struggle on your hands! Actually, you'll probably have one, even if you have established authority, sigh.

OTheHugeManatee--yes, Theodore Dalrymple is very interesting on this subject. I think it's true that some behaviours originally exhibited by the upper and middle classes do not translate well to poor/working classes. Divorce, for instance, is pretty grim for all families, but far worse if there is a lack of money. My SIL's alcoholism wasn't quite so unbearable for her family when they had more money and could push off on holidays without her occasionally, and send their children away to board to give them some respite. Wrong way round, perhaps, but at least their sons had a break.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there; not suggesting alcoholism was emulated by poor/working class people, just that it is even worse in families where you can't escape because there is no money.

Lammy also seems to be implying that this is a 'black' issue when I recall that there were a lot of white rioters when I watched it on TV.

I think Lammy has got to that stage in life when he is looking back on his childhood through rose tinted glasses.

I bet he wasnt so keen on a few licks to the back of the head when he was a kid.

Hang on. When did they change the law, anyway? Wasn't it in about 2004? So... the "kids" who were rioting, would have been of the "normal" age range for smacking (I'm guessing??) before the legislation changed. By the time that came in, they'd have been what, 8, 10 plus? It's only really 12 year olds and younger who should be running around all lawless if their parents somehow think that they're unable to discipline them now, surely?

i am a lefty and debated this with friends yesterday (who are mainly to the left but not all)

i disagree with what he said, the colour of his skin has nothing to do with me not agreeing with him

i think smacking is wrong for me it is a total lack of respect for your child at that point in time, of course i understand how frustrating it can be at times but it is still a choice and a not a choice i shall or will be making

The colour oh his skin has nothing to do with any of us agreeing or not agreeing with him, but he is somehow implying that the colour of his constituents skin and the level of their income makes a big difference to whether they should be allowed to hit their children, as though those children are incapable of learning any other way. For that, I think he has let them down and patronised them horribly. But of course the OP is right. There would have been far more frothing and berserking about this if a white Tory has said it.

I am disgusted by the sugestion that people are rioting because they were not smacked enough

You take the words right out of my mouth!

I never smacked my now 20-year-old and he has NEVER rioted!!

Abuse in children just teaches them that abuse is o.k. in adulthood FFS!!

Colour of skin?

My son has a lovely one cos his dad is black. Hey Ho

Hey Ho

What does that mean?

Are we supposed to be shocked or concerned that your child has a black parent?