Mike Priestley: North of Watford

But it isn't, always. Two parents who are in harmony and pulling in the same direction for the benefit of the whole family are the ideal. They can support each other and share the responsibilities of parenthood.

But when there aren't always able to be two parents, for a variety of reasons, one can sometimes do a reasonable job of raising a family - particularly if there's back-up from grandparents.

However, I doubt that it's right to put the sort of gloss on single-parenthood that Jackie Anderson did this week.

Mrs Anderson is president of the Girls' Schools Association. She told members of the association, which represents 220 fee-paying schools, that traditional family life had been "idealised" and society should accept that children could be raised just as well in a broken home.

There's no disputing that. Given an exceptional single parent, some children can travel through a problem-free childhood and grow into well-balanced adults. But others can go terribly astray because the parent who is raising them alone isn't up to the job and the youngsters are unable to cope with the pain of their family break-up.

Jackie Anderson, looking at the situation through rather genteel middle-class eyes, sees single-parenthood in terms of divorce. But that isn't the big issue in more down-to-earth circles. It's teenage single-parenthood with young girls who can't cope having babies from casual relationships and the taxpayers footing every bill for the raising of siblings who in too many cases don't share the same father.

If ever there was a recipe for a confused, alienated and disruptive new generation, that's it. The estates around every city and town offer plenty of evidence of that.

So it probably isn't wise for people in the public eye to make well-meaning statements about how well single parents cope.

In too many cases out here in the real world, they simply don't.

Who's left with egg on his face now?

In a way, it pains me to spring to the defence of the TV cook Delia Smith. She comes across as condescending and schoolma'am-ish. But there's no doubt that she can cook.

Her latest TV series has been criticised for being a little too basic on its journey back to the ground rules of cooking. But I'm with Delia on this one. In her first show she served up nauseatingly sloppy scrambled eggs - a sight which was received at Priestley Towers with cries of "Yerrrk!" and "Arrrgh!" and the sort of hiding behind cushions which is generally reserved for televised operations. But it obviously didn't put people off eggs. Just the opposite, in fact.

The proof of Delia's popularity has been revealed this week in the announcement that since her new series was launched, egg consumption in Britain has gone up by 1.3 million a day. What power! And what a remarkable productivity achievement by the nation's hen population to meet that increased demand!

Good for Delia, though. Too many cookery shows are entertaining without being instructive. They assume a certain basic knowledge that many people don't possess.

But there are some who don't understand the difference between a dessert spoon and a tablespoon and who think a rolling boil is something you get on the back of your neck.

There really are people who have no idea how to boil, poach, fry or scramble an egg. Some don't even realise that when you warm up a tin of beans you should do it slowly to just below boiling point to preserve the flavour, rather than going at it full blast until the tomato sauce is spitting out all over the cooker top.

An assumption of basic knowledge is the bane of most methods of instruction, be they TV cookery programmes, computer manuals or car maintenance books. If you don't know how to switch on your computer and log in, how on earth are you expected to find your way on to the Internet? If you don't know the whereabouts of your spark plug or your oil filter, how can you tackle your service?

Cookery is no different. Once you've mastered the basics then you can go on to try the imaginative concoctions dreamed up on Ready Steady Chef. But until then, best stick to what you can buy from the freezer and bung in the microwave.

So carry on being basic, Delia. You're making cooking less exclusive, and that can't be bad. But in future, do try not to be so condescending.

Hard men who need all the public support they an get

What do EastEnders actor Ross Kemp and the Prime Minister's official spokesman Alastair Campbell have in common? Apart from a public image as a hard man, that is?

Kemp (pictured right), for those who don't regularly watch the BBC1 soap, plays pub landlord Grant Mitchell, a character who has given his name to a style of close-cropped haircut now favoured by many men who, like him and me, are follicly challenged (it's a style I'd try myself had it not been vetoed by my co-resident of Priestley Towers).

Keighley-born Campbell (left) is the man responsible for ensuring that the Government's message on its various policies gets across to the public in the best possible light, and is reputed not to suffer fools gladly (the definition of "fool" in this case meaning any journalist who questions the official line or fails to report it faithfully).

But the jobs of these two men actually do have quite a lot in common. For a start, they both depend on continuing public support. If the viewers go off Grant or EastEnders, Ross Kemp could find that his career goes into decline. If the voters go off New Labour, Alastair Campbell will be out of work along with that nice Mr Blair.

But the main linking factor is that they are both paid with public money - to the tune of £120,000 a year in Kemp's case, while Campbell, it was revealed this week, earns "more than £90,000 a year".

Kemp's cash comes via the money the BBC brings in through TV licence fees. Campbell's comes from the taxpayer. So in theory both should be answerable to the public. Kemp is answerable, to some extent. If he upsets the viewers, he could be in trouble. So his whinge this week about not having a fat-enough pay packet is unwise, given that he's not likely to win too much sympathy among the licence-paying public, many of whom earn less in a year than he does in a month.

But what about Alastair Campbell? If the public want to get rid of him, they must first get rid of Tony Blair. Otherwise they must resign themselves to paying the wages of a man who, far from being answerable to them and on their side, has a job which is to ensure that they find out only what the Government wants them to know.

As EastEnders characters say only too often: "Wos goin' on?"

Smile and the world scowls with you!

I have a lot of sympathy for the American supermarket check-out women who are opposing their company's rule that they must smile at customers and make eye contact with them.

Apparently some men are misinterpreting this as a come-on and are harassing them sexually. Some years ago, during one of my ill-fated campaigns to make the world a kinder place, I vowed to smile at every opportunity. It came to a halt after I smiled my way up to the bar in a pub and asked the barmaid for a pint of bitter.

She looked it me with a suspicious frown and demanded "What the 'ell are you grinning at?" That wiped the smile off my face.

A price well worth paying

I'm a fan of Centenary Square. I really appreciate this open space in the heart of the city. And so do lots of other Bradford people, judging by the huge numbers who turned up for the Christmas lights switch-on.

It was a joy to see central Bradford packed with so many families enjoying themselves at this spectacular, fun event. The huge queues for the buses afterwards, with many people carrying bags from the various shops and stores, was like a scene from a booming Bradford of years gone by.

Is it right, though, for the city to spend money on an event like this when there are cuts taking place elsewhere? I don't know just how much Council taxpayers' money went into it (there were a lot of sponsors) or has gone into providing the lights.

On balance, though, I think it's worth it. Treats like this cheer people up and create a much-needed "feelgood factor". If it brings people into town and encourages them to shop here, it could more than pay for itself in the long term.

Enjoy Mike Priestley's Yorkshire Walks

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.