I write in reply to Richard Leppington's letter in the Review, headed 'Time for change'.

 With unreserved apologies to those who enjoy a truly happy, balanced marriage, I dispute Mr. Leppington's claim that marriage is the firm bedrock of British society.

It seems to me that many, many marriages hold precariously together. Marriage, like the parenting and family systems within them, are modelled by previous generations, some gaining unrealistic identity through fiction, advertising and the media.

Although many marriages now have both parents working, it is more often than not the case that the wife still does the lion's share of housework, decision-making and child-rearing. And, although attitudes and behaviour are changing slowly, many husbands admit to being emotionally absent yet nevertheless hold authority and dispense punishment whenever the children (and sometimes wife) step out of line.  

Across the class divides, there was never an equal status quo in marriage and there still isn't. Whilst the issues underpinning this are many and complex, I fail to see how liberal political policies cause marriages to erode. Mr Leppington's return to a "traditional male role model to bring discipline and respect for authority" would brook no challenge for change. Indeed it would perpetuate the status quo.

Mr Leppington seems to believe the last 30 years of political policy is responsible for society today having little respect for marriage. As pointed out marriage is modelled by the married. (And in any case, I feel sure the corrosive effects of consumerism, driven by insatiable greed and unrealistic expectations lies at the heart of marriage and societal breakdown. But that's another argument.)

I am 51 years of age and my parents divorced in the early 80's. Both their parent's marriages were strained, confined to archetypal wife/husband roles with an unbridgeable emotional gulf between both their parents, which they experienced inwardly, and, being children could not understand nor question, so took to be the norm, thus repeating the pattern.

Theirs is not an uncommon illustration of marriage and family life. Though, by dint of the fact that we sanctified marriage and childhood  questioning them can be taboo, so it is little wonder that the real truth is seldom faced let alone told.

My grandparents and great grandparents experienced two wars and 'Empire'. The industrial revolution created what we now term Great Britain, but it is a myth that marriage during this time had roses round the door. Religious fervour, inequality, divorce law, fear of neighbour and relative's scorn, and poverty held many together, though many suffered appalling break-down. And, because they did not necessarily break up, children often suffered within them, later going on to unwittingly repeat the pattern. I am not by any means saying this was every marriage story, but a significant number to set a trend in scocietal thinking and expectation.

I lost faith that marriage could work for me which saddens me. I raised a son alone whilst being self-employed for 25 years. I was the sole supplier of our income and our home. I saw him through boys grammar school and he left with excellent O and A level grades. He is happy, out-going, law-abiding, honest, working, settled and active in his chosen sport. I did not have a male partner to "bring discipline and respect for authority". It remains to be seen how he fares in relationship.

I am not against marriage. On the contrary I believe it to be the best situation in which to learn about compromise, tolerance and respect, but especially in which to have and raise children.  I don't advocate single parenthood; I know first hand how tough it is for parent and child. But I do not believe in the marriage myth that Mr. Leppington espouses. I think it erodes equality and thus respect and then integrity in marriage.

Mr Leppington believes liberal political policy doesn't only affect marriage in our social framework. He believes liberal attitudes are responsible for eroding discipline in schools, depriving the police of their male role and identity and softening our judicial system also. I cannot agree with this.

In my view the absence of earned respect, not liberal attitude, is the reason for breakdown in our institutions and why people, especially the young voting generation, does not engage well with politics with many choosing not to exercise their right to vote.

A child learns that its parents are authority; later, schools, church, police, government, banks and business. When government assumes a parental role in society asserting authority to maintain it, like any societal institution, success depends on its ability to act with self-discipline and integrity.

Just as in a successful marriage, integrity requires all parties to develop emotional maturity. That is, ability to admit their frailties and failings, accepting ownership and responsibility for all aspects of themselves without projecting them onto another, and willingness to experience shame's discomfort and learn from it. This is what develops strength and integrity. They engender respect to the same degree that self discipline enables them.

Respect is earned by showing a willingness to discipline ones self, not just others. These qualities are fundamental to any good relationship and essential for good politics. In families when such abilities are absent its systems become dysfunctional. The same can be said for government, but it seems to border on heresy to suggest this.

I think another parallel can be drawn here between marriage and government. Modelled well, with thought, tolerance and fairness, discipline can have the power to transform. Conversely, when handed out reflexively, punitively, rashly and probably physically too, it only serves to engender anger, resentment, frustration and a troublesome negative response. Unlikely to achieve the respect the position of spouse, parent or government needs.

Mr. Leppington's response to the three main parties is to 'give them the boot'. Interestingly, his UKIP associate Mr. Guynton in his canvassing leaflet for May's elections proposed "kicking them in the ballot box".  A quite violent and offensive euphemism I thought. Both of them seem to imply a frustrated and aggressive stance towards their opposition. In my opinion this is neither emotionally mature nor likely to engender respect.  

Indeed, for me, there are unpleasant murmurings of the BNP heard here; ones which echo again in his words "....mass immigration destroying much of our historical national identity and transforming large areas of our country into places that no longer look or feel British".  The word "jingoism' comes disturbingly to my mind. It is as though Mr. Leppington and UKIP, cannot accept that different people have different ideas on what constitutes the look and feel of Britain.

This attitude issues from the a political mind that aspires to place authority and discipline in the home, but where in the same mindset discipline to accept difference is not tolerated and the distinction between authority and authoritarian not understood. Hardly a good position to argue for marriage as  bedrock for society, I'd have thought

– Vicky Hampton, Ruardean.