Labour's neglect of the family

Many Conservatives anxious to put clear blue water between us and Labour think of lower tax as one policy option that Gordon Brown will never embrace.  Support for marriage is another such policy option and indifference to the family is a leading reason why Labour is failing in its social exclusion agenda.

A new report from the Fabian Society will, this week, recommend new ways for Labour to get back on track with its child poverty targets.  Today's Independent previews some of the report's likely recommendations:

• "higher state benefits for pregnant women on income support;
• a 50p top rate of tax on the rich;
• targets for schools to close the "qualifications gap" between poor and better-off pupils;
• a shift away from tax credits towards high-quality, state-funded child care;
• higher child benefit, such as bigger payments for second and subsequent children;
• a more generous minimum wage;
• back-up for pregnant women to be concentrated on the disadvantaged;
• one year's paid parental leave transferable between parents; and
• a shake-up of inheritance tax so that it hits recipients rather than the estate of the deceased."

There is nothing new in these recommendations.  It is a typically left-wing, big state view of the world.  Every idea involves an expansion of the power and size of the state and no recommendation addresses the importance of marriage and the family.  The family - and marriage, in particular - is the greatest weapon society has against poverty.  Before last year's General Election this is what the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to all of Britain's political leaders:

"The crime problem has a lot to do with a growing number of young people who are severely emotionally undernourished and culturally alienated. Ask anyone who works with children or young people in any city. The climate of chronic family instability, sexual chaos and exploitation, drug abuse and educational disadvantage is a lethal cocktail. To call for more public support for stable families and marriage is not in this context a bit of middle-class, Middle England nostalgia; it’s life and death."

This Labour government remains almost wholly indifferent to the health of marriage, however.  David Cameron has pointed out that "the average taxpayer now contributes at least £570 every year to the direct costs of family breakdown, but only 21p is spent on trying to save troubled relationships".

The Fabian report looks set to call for more targets despite the evidence which shows that such targets distort the behaviour of professionals.  Targets are part of the measurement culture and the welfare state neatly fits into this culture.  Bureaucrats can measure the number of people receiving benefits and the amounts they receive. The care provided by the family and the other 3D institutions of the welfare society - friendship networks and local charities and churches - is almost impossible to measure and therefore gets neglected by the central planners.  As they increase the resourcing of the poverty-fighting instruments they can measure - all those things identified by the Fabian Society - they are taxing and sidelining those superior institutions of the welfare society - the output of which they cannot easily measure.

Until our government directs a comprehensive policy to reward and uphold the still popular aspiration to marry we will not tackle the root causes of major public policy challenges - like the growth of crime and the booming demand for new housing.

Comments

[Mark Fulford]

Rewarding families misses the target. What’s important is good parenting, not family structures. There may be a link between parenting skills and ability to hold a family together, but forcing families together doesn’t create better parents. A far more direct reward for good parents would be to pay parents who get their children to school on time, for example.

[Editor]

Mark Fulford: "What’s important is good parenting, not family structures."

I would say both are important, Mark.

All of the evidence suggests that marriage is a much more stable arrangement than cohabitation.

Noone is talking about "forcing families together" but we should eliminate the marriage penalty and we should reward the aspiration to marry - in the same we reward other socially-constructive aspirations like saving and learning and starting a business.

[True Blue]

How about giving everyone who stays married until their youngest child is 18 £10,000, assuming they are still cohabiting? That way many more people would stay in wedlock until their children were adults.

[Richard]

"How about giving everyone who stays married until their youngest child is 18 £10,000, assuming they are still cohabiting? That way many more people would stay in wedlock until their children were adults."

Because I don't see why I should fund someone to do something that ought to be a product of their own free will and common sense.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/familyMain.php - the first port of call for statistics on family issues.

[Mark Fulford]

All of the evidence suggests that marriage is a much more stable arrangement than cohabitation.

I don’t dispute that marriages generally last longer than cohabitation, but marriage is a product of a stable-family mentality, not the cause. You can’t affect family stability by fiddling with marriage – the link doesn’t work in that direction.

[True Blue]

Because I don't see why I should fund someone to do something that ought to be a product of their own free will and common sense.

Precisely. Tax breaks and other perks are just a way of giving people your money. My comment makes that relationship obvious, and shows how silly the idea of providing financial incentives for getting married, or remaining so, are.

As to the civitas figures; these make the fundamental error in causality. For example to suggest that single mothers are poor because they are single, rather than single because they are poor is a nonsense.

Getting married does not somehow compensate for an impoverished background. If you are going to do statistical analysis of this sort, it needs to be adjusted for social class and other factors.

Mark Fulford is correct.

If you have a data sample of cohabitees, amongst them will be a proportion of people who consider marriage the ulimate form of commitment, and yet choose not to marry their partners (ie they are not as committed to the person as they could be). Another group will consist of people who genuinely want to stay together. The first group will distort the family cohesion figures of the second if you treat them in the same way as you treat the figures for married couples.

[1AM]

"As to the civitas figures; these make the fundamental error in causality. For example to suggest that single mothers are poor because they are single, rather than single because they are poor is a nonsense."

Are you implying that poor people are just so feckless that they can't hold relationships together... what do you suggest? Of course they are single because they are poor! They have higher running costs (no one to share housing costs with) and only one income, and they don't have the support a partner provides (for example if they want to go to study to try to help better themselves - they can't rely on any other money coming in).

The fact that we have a welfare state which actively encourages people to be single (as the Editor pointed out), and the fact that unless we want children in dire poverty we have some kind of welfare system (unless we force the poor to have an abortion unless they can afford the child) is to be ignored I suppose? Thus, we need a welfare system which does not work against marriage.

Marriage works best for bringing up children - at the very least a stable long term relationship. The more people are married and in stable relationships the less the government needs to spend on trying to ensure the children of single parents aren't in dire poverty, the less crime there will be in future, the better that child will do in school etc etc.

Finally True Blue - I have to wonder how Blue you Truly are... pro mass immigration, against policies for strengthening the family... you sound like yet another libertarian piggybacking on Tory popularity...we may not be in power yet but try founding a libertarian party and seeing how many votes it gets...

And before you launch into an anti Daily Mail reader tirade I should point out I am a gay 23 year old agnostic. I don't argue for supporting the family because I am a bigot, but because in my extended family I have seen first hand what happens when family structures break down and just who loses out (the children).

Just how many people do you know who are poor and single, or have you ever known?

[Sean Fear]

"For example to suggest that single mothers are poor because they are single, rather than single because they are poor is a nonsense."

Surely, either can be true. Two people who get divorced, for example, are almost certainly going to be poorer than if they remained married.

[James Maskell]

Im single and practically destitute.

[1AM]

I accept that - but I think that people are more likely to become poor because they are single rather than single because they are poor... which is the issue of causality True Blue raised.

[True Blue]

1AM, you appear to have misread me, particularly if you think I am a libertarian. I am a little suprised by your ad hominem attack.

I am pro-managed-migration. There are strong economic arguments in favour of net migration. These are good, right-wing arguments. I think the obesession with immigration in our party is unhealthly, and does not support our election prospects. However, this is not the thread for that discussion.

I am in favour of marriage. I think a stable two-person relationship is the best environment for bringing up children, and I am sorry that the dream of a perfect family did not pan out for you.

I do not think that a marriage held together by a financial incentive is worth saving. I can't think of anything that the state could do to encourage marriage which does not punish the poorest and most disadvantaged.

Social class (and wealth) is the biggest predictor of the likelihood of getting married, so it would make sense to bring people out of poverty and educate them well.

What could the state have done to stop your family's problems? What should it have done?

I'm not really a great believer in anecdotal evidence, so I'm really not sure why my bona fides should depend on me personally knowing poor, single mothers, in exactly the same way that your sexuality should not preclude your support for marriage.

If it makes a difference to you, and apparently it does, I live in Brixton, and send my child to the local state school where there are many such people. We had one such mother and her daughter round for tea the last week. The father of her child was under an exclusion order not to come near her. Is that sufficiently "street" for you?

On the basis of your comments, David Cameron should be excluded from being Prime Minister because he went to Eton.

[Editor]

True Blue: "I can't think of anything that the state could do to encourage marriage which does not punish the poorest and most disadvantaged."

In answer to your challenge, TB, I would suggest healthy marriage courses of the kind run by the Bush administration - specifically targeted on low income families. They encourage healthy marriages and don't disadvantage the poor.

And, Mark, I do think that there is something intrinsically different from marriage as opposed to cohabitation that goes beyond the type of people who choose the different arrangements. In this article for The Times, Mary Ann Sieghart (hardly an authoritarian) explains, from her own experience, why cohabitation is less stable than marriage:

"in my experience, cohabitation almost always has a contingent quality to it. You think to yourself: “I’ll stay in this relationship as long it makes me happy/as long as I’m still in love/as long as things are going well.” You know that you can always leave if you feel like it. As a result, your time horizons are much shorter. When I was cohabiting, I never thought about growing old with my boyfriend — it was all I could do to think beyond the summer. Marriage feels quite different. Yes, of course, divorce is available, but it is an absolutely last resort. You have promised to stay together for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health. If I were unhappy in my marriage, I wouldn’t just leave; I would try to do something about it within the marriage."

The article explains why Ms Sieghart believes that cohabitees should not enjoy the same rights as married couples. She fears that such an attack on the specialness of marriage would cause fewer people to enter the married relationship.

[True Blue]

In answer to your challenge, TB, I would suggest healthy marriage courses of the kind run by the Bush administration - specifically targeted on low income families. They encourage healthy marriages and don't disadvantage the poor

State subsidized marriage guidance counselling? For example, means-tested Relate sessions?

Would these be compulsory or voluntary? Would you permit childless couples to get the free counselling? Non-married couples? Gay couples with children?

Ms Sieghart got married because she found the right person, and will probably stay with them for that reason. Her attitude to cohabitation speaks more about her relationship with her then boyfriend than the state of marriage in general.

I think if we "encouraged" people to get married, what we'd end up with is more divorces.

[johnC]

Two things which Cameron could agree to do are:

a) Restore mortgage interest tax relief to help first time house buyers

b) Restore the married person's tax allowance and make it transferable between married partners.

Bet he doesn't do either.

[Annabel Herriott]

Ive ben thinking about this thread all day. How my job as a Health Visitor has changed over the decades since 1960 when I started with a "Patch" Knew everyone, knew where the family supports were, or not, Ran open access clinics for 0 -5 yr olds, post natal groups, antenatal groups, mothers clubs.... Nowadays, if you want to set up a new venture such as the ones Ive mentioned, nulab- nu NHS demands firstly, a BUSINESS PLAN. How daft is that. Its human being we are dealing with here, not 2pence off the price groceries. The latest thing I have heard, is a notion to privatise Health Visiting services. How are you going to pick up on Post natal depression early in those circumstances? You need to be around, and to be available, and to be approachable. PND is a potent source of relationship break up, as the couple cant figure out what on earth is going on. Many lads just shove off. Cant handle it. Thats because the community help is not around like it was. Sure start is making a difference where it is available. There is a wonderful centre at the east side of Hudddersdield that incorporates that and Hv services, and mums club etc. But I also get told that in some places, the norm is one visit after the midwife has finished if you are lucky. We as a perty could do a lot of good if we did a quiet survey up and down the country to see what is going on, then we could formulate policies that would truly help. Health Visiting has gone from !the patch" to Attachment to a GP, where several HVs would be visiting in the same street, and I am not sure where the ball has been kicked to nowaday, but I do believe the numbers are falling. If they do away with HVs, they will only have to reinvent them again!

[Margaret]

I agree that the married person's tax allowance should be restored, and making it transferable between married partners would be a good move. Politicians should be encouraging mothers to stay at home and look after the kids, not go out to work and put them in a creche, that was what the communists did in Russia. It is ridiculous that some mothers go out to work and then spend practically every penny they earn paying for childcare.

It is said that children brought up by mothers at home are better adjusted and are less likely to become anti social.

Parenting classes would be preferable. Some people just shouldn't have children, and girls should be encouraged not to have kids until they are at least in a serious, steady relationship, preferably married.

[1AM]

I apologise for any personal elements to my attacks True Blue. I can be unfair sometimes.

But I still maintain the thrust of the political argument - that stronger families are important and that the Government should encourage people to form stable relationships to support children

I will attempt to illustrate what I mean:

Fortunately my parents never divorced - they came close once, but they sat down and talked about a lot of things and then worked them through, and are currently very much in love (indeed, nauseatingly so). Marriage is about communication and I think that therefore what the Editor is proposing is an excellent idea. My parents are articulate and well educated people. Without being sneery or patronising, other people can find it harder to work through relationship problems, particularly those who are less articulate and have never had good rolemodels to learn from. Do you really think that spending on this area is not worth it when you look at the problems that family breakdown can cause?

Further, my aunt, who has a child from a previous (disasterous and abusive) relationship, wants to move in with her (new and much better) partner. If she does then she will actually be worse off than if they live separately and he gives her money cash in hand. So they live apart because she is the minimum wage and can't afford to move in with her partner. My father works in benefits and he says that he knows of cases where benefits advisers have told people that they shouldn't marry or even live together as they will be worse off. I think this is insanity.

This is the result of thinking:

"I can't think of anything that the state could do to encourage marriage which does not punish the poorest and most disadvantaged. "

The poorest and most disadvantaged are NOT static. That has to be the key to understanding how socialism and conservatism work. Socialism says you are poor and you will always be poor. Conservativism says you are poor - how can we stop you being poor? My aunt, like most single parents, does not want to be a single parent forever, it is a huge struggle for her. The Government should support her aspirations to find a stable home for herself and her family, not assume she will always be single and design policies accordingly. This may mean that the poorest are not helped instantly quite as much. But it is the difference between keeping a drowning persons head an inch or two higher and actually getting them out of the water.

[1AM]

I should say that I disagree with Margaret that mothers should necessarily stay at home. I and my brother were raised by my father for the first four years.
But parents should be encouraged to look after their children for the first few years I agree. On the other hand, you can't stop women from going out to work just because they have children - we have a low enough birthrate as it is.

I do agree parenting classes are a good idea though.

[True Blue]

Politicians should be encouraging mothers to stay at home and look after the kids, not go out to work and put them in a creche, that was what the communists did in Russia.

Politicians should be supporting a womans's right to choose whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mum or work for a living. I notice that you don't apply the same standards to men. Stick "fathers" in your sentence and see how ridiculous you sound.

The best thing the government could do to get children brought up properly is to give mothers who have been abandoned by their fathers the money such scumbags owe them. The CSA is a disgrace. If you want to help families, that's where you should start. If fathers know that they cannot avoid their obligations, they are less likely to leave mothers to it.

Studies of succesful families show that the most important contribution that a father can make to a family is to support the mother emotionally and financially.

[True Blue]

The Government should support her aspirations to find a stable home for herself and her family, not assume she will always be single and design policies accordingly.

What policies do you suggest? Either you are talking about a financial incentive to be married (even if you are on benefits), or a disincentive to be single (resulting in penalties for the poorest people in society)?

[1AM]

I do believe that you shoud have a financial incentive to be married (even if you are on benefits).

I agree 100% with you True Blue on the need for a better version of the CSA as well. Indeed, I think that the government should spend no more or less on any child than any other.

So what you would have is fathers (or absent mothers) paying heavily for children if they split up, and even so, mothers (or absent fathers) probably being a little worse off than if they stayed together. Tough, yes. But on the other hand, fair - otherwise you are subsidising people's decisions and encouraging family breakdown in the process. Most people, as I have indicated, I think want to reform a stable family if their original one (sometimes through no fault of theirs) breaks up.

"Politicians should be encouraging mothers to stay at home and look after the kids, not go out to work and put them in a creche, that was what the communists did in Russia."

I have read this a lot in certain Hefferlump type articles. No one ever points out that the Fascists took away the rights of women to work. Both are equally unpleasant and totatlitarian.

[1AM]

(Both forcing parents out to work, as current policy does or forcing them to stay at home I should point out, are equally foolish).

And to say women should have to do either is I think a mistake. Though I do think a parent (which will probably end up being a women) should stay at home with any children for the first few years.

[Rob G]

TrueBlue: What policies do you suggest? Either you are talking about a financial incentive to be married (even if you are on benefits), or a disincentive to be single (resulting in penalties for the poorest people in society)?
Actually there is a third approach--to reduce the current tax credit and other benefit advantages of being single rather than married. That would not make single people worse off than married ones--the aim would be to remove (or, at least, significantly reduce) the current financial disincentives against marriage and stable co-habitation.

I concede that this is easier said than done--but it ought to be possible to produce policies that go a long way in the right direction.

[James Maskell]

Arrrggghhhh, italic attack!

[True Blue]

Sorry, I opened an italic, but didn't close it. That should do it.

[Richard]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684863855/104-3334248-4071904?v=glance&n=283155

I confess to not having read this book but it sounds interesting. It highlights how marriage and traditional families are the best bulwark against state power.

On a different note, it is notable that the decline in traditional families over the past few decades has gone in hand in hand with a rise in crime and social breakdown. I know this sounds like a Daily Mail editorial but it strikes me that there's more than coincidence surrounding the way the crime and illegitimacy rates have increased at the same time.

[Geoff]

Maybe it won't, True Blue.

It's probably (David Cameron / Francis Maude / Michael Heseltine / Andrew Flintoff)'s fault: bloggers today should delete as appropriate according to current state of inebriation or prejudice.

[James Maskell]

You need to be inebriated to blame Cameron or Maude?

[malcolm]

No James,Flintoff!

[Sean Fear]

"The best thing the government could do to get children brought up properly is to give mothers who have been abandoned by their fathers the money such scumbags owe them. The CSA is a disgrace. If you want to help families, that's where you should start. If fathers know that they cannot avoid their obligations, they are less likely to leave mothers to it"

Fair enough. But the Government must also ensure that such fathers aren't treated like dirt at the whim of the mother. That means not just looking the other way if the mother decides to deny the father access to the children.

Our basic problem is that the marriage contract is the one contract which it is possible to breach, and then be rewarded by the State for breaching it.

[Editor]

In summary, I think these should be the basic ingredients of a modern compassionate Conservative family policy:

1. Gradual elimination of the well-documented unfairnesses in the tax and benefits system that PENALISE the decision to marry.

2. A step increase in investment in relationship support services. These services should be provided by voluntary organisations and should not be compulsory but would support the popular aspiration to marry.

3. More action against fathers who don't pay for the financial care of their children. Other countries do a lot better than the CSA.

[Editor]

I've also turned the italics off... TrueBlue doesn't just have dodgy views on the family he's also a thread vandal!

[Mark Fulford]

I'd agree with all of that summary, but with clarification of PENALISE...

The decision to marry should be cost neutral in terms of benefits. As has been pointed out, single parent families have higher costs per person. Those families need greater support to achieve the same disposable income. Children of single parent families face greater challenges, so it is especially important to make sure that they are not additionally disadvantaged financially.

[Sean Fear]

Well now I think we come to the nub of the matter Mark. The Editor believes that marriage should be fiscally neutral. You, if I understand you correctly, believe that income must be redistributed to ensure that single parents have the same standard of living as those who are married.

That's what is wrong with the current system.

[Richard]

The best way to encourage marriage is to shrink the state.

An interesting viewpoint: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1766

[Mark Fulford]

Sean, you understand me correctly (although I'd like to clarify that I'm talking about families reliant on benefits and my concern is mostly for the children).

That's what is wrong with the current system.

Sorry, I don't understand which bit you're referring to.

The best way to encourage marriage is to shrink the state.

I'd agree with that, but I've never been able to see a way to achieve it that doesn't involve uncivilised abandonment.

[Richard]

"Sorry, I don't understand which bit you're referring to."

I expect he is referring to the fact that single parenthood is made more desirable due to the tax-funded subsidies it gets. Surely we should be discouraging this trend? I do not want my tax money used to subsidise a disastrous social trend. I would rather the money was used to encourage marriage.

[Ted]

I agree with Sean Fear's conclusion but in area of choice between co-habitation and marriage.

The problem is though that a policy of supporting marriage rather than co-habitation sounds like a moral judgement and with such a large proportion of couples choosing co-habitation (even the Prince of Wales for a period) it's a difficult proposition to sell in today's Britain. But its a proposition we should support.

People who choose to co-habit should make that choice in full knowledge that it doesn't have same legal protections and benefits, that it is more likely to result in family breakdown and disadvantage to children. There are exceptions but some smokers die of old age, those exceptions don't prove smoking is not a bad decision to make (as I light up another...)

There's a good article from last years Times on the benefits to society of marriage over co-habitation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1471297,00.html

Single parent families (usually women) are different from co-habiting couples. They can arise from widowhood, divorce, break up of co-habiting couples or a passing relationship. It's difficult for state to make a moral judgement;i.e" we'll support widows but not feckless girls" and that means treating single parents families differently. I fully support the objective of ensuring fathers take responsibility to support their children. I also have sympathy with the proposition of joint custody as the norm rather than maternal custody. Too often a parent will use the children for revenge or view the child as primarily theirs.

[Editor]

Mark Fulford: "As has been pointed out, single parent families have higher costs per person. Those families need greater support to achieve the same disposable income. Children of single parent families face greater challenges, so it is especially important to make sure that they are not additionally disadvantaged financially."

This is dangerous territory, Mark. The logical conclusion of believing that the state should start compensating for every disadvantage that certain children face relative to others will be massive redistribution of income and wealth.

[Richard]

What results in the greatest social cost? The decline in marriage or lack of subsidies for single parents. I would argue that it is the former. Therefore, if the latter helps the former, the former should be discouraged. Does that make me a utilitarian?

[Richard]

Sorry, that should be if the absence of the latter i.e the existence of subsidies helpes the former.

[Ted]

Editor
Support doesn't only mean fiscal support but even with some additional state support single parenthood isn't really that attractive or planned for in the vast majority of cases. It is most often the result of failed relationships and supporting marriage should result in less failed relationships and resulting problems.

There is hope though in the YouGov Spectator survey which showed more support for marriage in the 1980's onward generation to that in 1970's - hopefully a reversal that will continue.

[Richard]

What we have to accept is that the decline in marriage has also been brought about by changes in society and the economy. Some might argue that the growth of the state has helped bring about some of the social change (and therefore it can arguably be reversed) but the fact is that we are unlikely to return to the days when 90% of births were in wedlock. Well, at least not in the foreseeable future.

[True Blue]

1. Gradual elimination of the well-documented unfairnesses in the tax and benefits system that PENALISE the decision to marry.

This would have to be extra money rather than money taken away from the poor. So we'd need to get tax money from somewhere if we were to do this. I think that a cohabiting married couple and a cohabiting non-married couple should pay about the same amount of tax.

Many single mothers will get a larger proportion of tax credits and assistance, not because they are single mothers but because they are poor and often find it hard to work and get child care. This is nothing to do with the state's support for marriage.

2. A step increase in investment in relationship support services. These services should be provided by voluntary organisations and should not be compulsory but would support the popular aspiration to marry.

If it was available to any couple, I'd support this. It wouldn't cost that much, and although I don't think it would make much difference,

3. More action against fathers who don't pay for the financial care of their children. Other countries do a lot better than the CSA.

I agree. Do an attachment of benefits or earnings through the tax system if necessary.

One other point - despite the pleas of Fathers4Justice and the Daily Mail, mothers very rarely breach access orders, while men are far less likely to to uphold their responsibilities, that is, providing money and looking after the kids once in a while.

[Editor]

Thanks True Blue. We're not quite on the same page but I think we've at least identified some areas for the beginning of detailed negotiations for another time...

[Mark Fulford]

This is dangerous territory, Mark. The logical conclusion of believing that the state should start compensating for every disadvantage that certain children face relative to others will be massive redistribution of income and wealth.

Danger is my middle name!

My argument isn't is a slippery slope. The consequences of turning our backs on disadvantaged children are terrible in both human terms and direct costs. There’s not much that the state can do to compensate for the unlucky deal to some children, but we can make sure we don’t worsen to it. A policy designed to put single parents in a worse financial position would be abhorrent.

If the balance is correct, 1AM’s father will be advising his aunt that getting married will make no net difference financially, but will make life hugely easier by being able to share childcare.

In society’s interests, the state should promote good parenting and teach the value of being in a stable relationship before having children. There's not a causal link from marriage to stable relationships and it’s not the state’s job to promote marriage per se - i.e. there certainly should be no benefit just for getting married (with no children involved).

[Rob G]

True Blue: I think that a cohabiting married couple and a cohabiting non-married couple should pay about the same amount of tax. It is early in the morning-for me-so maybe I'm not thinking straight. But isn't this already the position?

Editor/Mark: I don't think the argument is as polarised as you are suggesting. It is possible to believe that the state may need to provide extra support to children in low income single-parent families, because of the extra costs of living on your own, without setting out to achieve absolute parity with children in two-person families--setting a floor rather than aiming for equality of outcome. And it is possible to reach the conclusion that the current additional state support for single-parent families is too great and puts married couples at too great a disadvantage and should be reduced without concluding that the extra support should be eliminated altogether.

[Annabel Herriott]

Relationship support services??? and they should all be voluntary?? Rum way to describe the community health services! All you chaps are sitting there, posting about money. Essential? absolutely. The end of the matter? I dont think so. So you have your allowance. It is adequate for your needs. The dad is not interested.(that needs a bit of legislation, if anything ever did.) You are sittine there, in your warm home, having been discharged from the hospital after 24, or at best 48 hours, having had a normal delivery of a normal healthy baby with a perfect apgar score, breast or bottle feeding allegedly well established, and it all starts going wrong. OK. Who do you call for help? Has the NHS free at the point of delivery service packed up totally yet? The acute shortage of midwives and the expected redundancies could mean that the lass doesnt get a visit for days. The health visitor normally arrived at 10 days, and visited and helped for as long as needed. Will this go on under Nulab??? The worst case scenario is by the time someone comes, the baby is losing weight, the mum is depressed, she didnt want the nosy neighbour shoving her oar in... Mere money wont solve this lot. And its happening on a street near you. I still get told things, even if it is 6 years since I hung up my baby scales and .the box of tissues Mums desperately need to debrief themselves, and they want to stay home while they do it, not go looking for the voluntary relationship support services! Sorry Editor, you sounded just like nulab yourself, and caused this well informed rant. AND we tories HAVE to sort it out. The first thing we have to sort out isan established and mandatory course in human relationships at school. Girls need to know absolutely that if they behave like the school bike, they will be treated like the school bike. Boys need to know and fully understand the consequences of their lust. But as in all the centuries that have gone before, it will always be up to the girl to say no! So much breakup, heart ache, lived destroyed, poverty, comes from this one simple fact. I'm not preaching, I am speaking from experience . The days of the shot gun wedding are well and truly over. My sister managed to break up with her chap before she did the pregnancy test, but we all mucked in. Jules now age 21, is doing a 4yr degree course in Nursing. But that only about 50% of the outcome. How many of the other babies born in those circumstances end up in care ? If all you posters are up to speed, you may know the current outcomes of that.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I think we need to bear in mind that it is OK to say that people should be allowed to run their own lives and families and a completely different thing to say that the state should interfere in marriage. Where did all the small state conservatives go? No incentives for social breakdown, no incentives to marriage. No incentives period. There are some places the state should not go and marriage is one of them.

[True Blue]

Annabel, if you are suggesting that boys and girls need sex and relationship education, that boys should be taught to respect women, and women to respect themselves, I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

In countries where teenage sex is not dealt with moral panic, where there is a more healthy and open attitude to sex education, where adolescents are treated as a growing asset, where sex is not just taught as biology but as part of healthy relationships, the teenage pregnancy rates are lower, the abortion rate is lower, the average age of first intercourse is lower, and the incidence of sexually transmitted disease is lower. You only need to compare the US with France and Germany to see this.

This is the best way to deal with the problems you pose.