Having read Ed Balls' latest "attack" on David Cameron's tax policy for marriage I have to disagree. As the Prime Minister's most longstanding cheerleader in Cabinet and someone who favours stressing "dividing lines" between the Labour Party and Conservative Party he certainly brings home the point in his latest offering.
The socialist dogma underlying his words is misjudged. His basic premise is that Government should not support marriage because it makes widows, divorcees, single parents and their children feel inadequate. His logic seems to be that Government should not use the tax system to support what is best because fundamentally we all need to feel equal. I wonder, if you polled a thousand 16 year olds - as they stand on the threshold of adult life, and asked them what they aspire to I doubt many would say - to get divorced, or to have a series of failed relationships or to be widowed or bring up children on their own. Our natural aspiration is to aim for happiness in our personal lives, to find stability and contentment in a lasting relationship. It seems to me that the State should acknowledge these aspirations and do all it can to support the institution of marriage, both as the best place to bring up children but an excellent place to live a contented life.
Of course one acknowledges that relationships are tough at times and that for some marriages will sadly not last. However, the notion that just because it doesn't work out sometimes for some people Government should give up on the encouraging the best outcomes is ludicrous. It represents a logic that has its roots in a very low regard for the capacity of citizens to find fulfilment. It represents a dogma that prizes making no judgement on any personal choices (good or bad) and seeks to ensure the State provides in all circumstances. For 13 years we have had a Government that has thrown money at everything, making no hard choices on the basis of what is best. Our public finances are now in a mess because of their profligacy.
We need a Conservative Government that is not afraid to take tough decisions. We need to be a Government that is prepared to say - Yes we are in favour of marriage and we are prepared to demonstrate this by spending money supporting it. If we are fearful of the Balls attack (that by inference the non-married are disadvantaged) we miss the point. Government is about allocating scarce resources wisely, encouraging the best outcomes. The policy does not "stigmatise" children of the unmarried, it merely gives some encouragement to the institution that gives children the best outcomes in life.