'Doing the right thing' is getting harder and harder under Labour

The true test of Conservative poverty policy won't be fine words but whether David Cameron has the guts to take tough choices.  One of those choices is to deliver a fair deal for the one institution that does most to bind society together - marriage.  Mr Cameron's party conference speech suggests that the Tory leader has the right intentions but will he eliminate the marriage penalty that punishes the choice to marry?

The existence of that penalty is exposed (again) in today's Mail on Sunday.  New Tory welfare spokesman, Andrew Selous MP (a long champion of marriage), has highlighted the case of two newly-wed constituents.  They came to him after being told by their local Job Centre  that they'd be better off divorced.  Couples who live apart get £25 more, they were told - £1,250 a year.

That's the society Labour has created.  You're penalised if you get married or if you save or if you start a small business.  Taxes, benefits traps and red tape all make it harder and harder to do the right thing.

For information on the breakdown of the family under Labour and its costs see this week's Spectator politics column (by Fraser Nelson) and the Mail on Sunday leader.

Comments

[James Maskell]

I came across this article and wasnt suprized one jot as Ive known this for some time. Its nice to see a Government official admit this.

I dont think Cameron will go for this one though he will highlight it as a mess Labour has created. The promise he could make is to use the tax and benefit system to benefit marriages but that couldnt possibly fit in with the other policies he has announced.

[TomTom]

Doing the right thing' is getting harder and harder under Labour

So true !

href="http://www.jackiedanicki.com/?p=928">London

[ToMTom]

London

[EL Marberry]

Tim,

Your attempts to bring American culture war politics to Britain are boring and, if successful, a total disaster for the Conservative Party.

Do you think families split up for £25? If so you need to get out more. And similarly you are hopelessly out of touch if you fail to recognise that single parenthood *is* more expensive and for the sake of the children it is right that the state recognises that.

Your way would see the state punish the children for the sins of the parents. You'd make Gordon Brown look like a libertarian.

The Conservative Party tried your politics between 1997 and 2003 and it was a disaster.

[Cranmer]

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms EL Marberry,

Your analysis of the motivations of Mr Montgomerie is not only simplistic and superficial, it is crass. There is no question of importing 'American culture war politics' into the United Kingdom; it is a question of being permitted to express a political conviction which may have a foundation in standards of morality which may stem from religious conviction. Your learned sources can be nothing more than two-dimensional media sound-bites, rather than any knowledge of Locke or other such political philosophers who provided the foundations of Conservatism.

Mr Montgomerie acknowledges and seeks to actively engage with the Judeo-Christian dimension of British culture. This necessarily includes the institution of marriage, since this is a foundational building block of a cohesive society. Debate around such issues is not 'boring', as you state, but vibrant; and neither will it be 'a total disaster for the Conservative Party'; indeed, it may even herald a renaissance.

[Richard]

El Marberry,

There is tonnes and tonnes of evidence that marriage is better for children than alternative arranagements. This may not be a particularly nice fact but it is a fact.

[Deborah]

Well said, Cranmer.

The point is, El Marberry, why should couples be penalised for getting married???
Incidentally, the case Tim cited was two newly-weds with no mention of children. Try keeping to the point.

[Editor]

My starting point is Britain's Christian heritage but my support for marriage is very practical. The evidence points to the value of marriage - as highlighted by David Cameron in his party conference speech - and is also in tune with the aspiration to marry. 80% of young Britons want to marry. Conservatives support the aspiration to save, learn, start a business. The aspiration to marry is at least as socially useful. The least we can do is stop penalising marriage.

[Ted]

American Culture war politics?
"marriage is the best foundation for stable families" (Home Office, 1998
"We cannot say we want a strong and secure society when we ignore its very foundation: family life...This is a modern crisis. Nearly 100,000 teenage pregnancies every year...; children growing up without role models they can respect and learn from, more and deeper poverty; more crime, more truancy...” Tony Blair October 1997.

The state has moved from supporting the stability of marriage, through tax & divorce legislation to a position where it seeks to minimise through cash payments the financial impact of failed and single parenthood on children. We have had the failure of the CSA which exemplified the state's interest as a purely financial appraisal. The problem is that the preferred behaviour - stable families - cannot be rewarded as this is seen as unfair to the single parent. The idea of fault in any breakdown has been banished, the role of the father in parenting undervalued.

There is perhaps an unrecognised re-invention of marriage underway through desire for "common law" partnerships to have a legal basis through recognition of shared inputs and division of spoils on breakup - so the state reimposes the duties and risks of marriage on unwed couples with chldren.

[Tory Loyalist]

I want to see the state supporting and promoting marriage, by which I mean marriage of males to females.

I accept that we now have the civil partnership concept, but that should never be treated in the same way as bona fide marriage. In other words tolerance should not be confused with approval.

While I am not going to pretend that I approve of the way in which homosexual "marriage" gets the green light these days, there is something that annoys me much much more and that is the abandon with which couples have children out of wedlock these days, with their families apparently too frightened to express their disapproval.

On the very day - the Festival of Christ the King - that we believers celebrate the culmination of the Christian Year it is time that we reasserted Judeo-Christian values, starting with the Ten Commandments.

If we do not, a harsher religion will in time to come impose its own iron discipline on the loose conduct that is tolerated today.

[Erstwhile Tory Supporter]

Tory Loyalist, 15.28:

Hear, hear!

[Cranmer]

it is time that we reasserted Judeo-Christian values, starting with the Ten Commandments.

His Grace could not disagree with you more. There should be no question of 're-asserting' anything, and to do so would be antithetical to the traditions of liberal conservativism. Christ set us free from the curse of the Law; it is no law at all when imposed from without; it must be written on people's hearts, and that is far more likely to be achieved through love and compassion. Therein lies the Conservative Party's wisest strategy. Anything else is foolishness to the Greeks.

[Erstwhile Tory Supporter]

Tory Loyalist, 15.18 (the right time, in case there's any doubt):

My "Hear, hear" applied to your comments. You put it splendidly.

[ToMTom]

Christ set us free from the curse of the Law; it is no law at all when imposed from without;

He nevertheless reasserted the Ten Commandments in Matthew 22:34-40 but you Cranmer are quite correct in Mark 7:5-9

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honour me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

As for On the very day - the Festival of Christ the King - that we believers celebrate the culmination of the Christian Year

Sadly the Church in England has somewhat distorted Christian teaching, the Orthodox Church retains the importance of Easter as the main Christian Festival.................

many children are born, only one has been physically resurrected

[John Irvine]

"it must be written on people's hearts, and that is far more likely to be achieved through love and compassion. Therein lies the Conservative Party's wisest strategy."

If leading members of the Conservative Party are condoning the very sin and wickedness that was condemned by Christ, and by the Old Testament Scriptures before Him, which He upheld, what possible hope is there of anything being achieved in the way you suggest?

If you read the statements of great Conservatives of even the recent past it is obvious that they did indeed strongly uphold Christian moral values. The views of the late Lord Kilmuir (David Maxwell-Fyfe) and Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery come immediately to mind.

[Philip]

Surprised at “Cranmer’s” reaction against the idea of reassertion of Judeo-Christian values for 2 reasons:

1) All men and women are created by God, and therefore God’s laws are for the benefit of all, whether they are Christian believers or not – follow the Maker’s instructions. Therefore for the health of society and everyone’s benefit we should want the reassertion of Judeo-Christian values.
2) While the inner motivation and help to obey God’s laws comes from a deep and fundamental change in a person’s “heart” that can only be done by God, the Apostle Paul saw that the “law” still has a purpose to show us our need to turn to God to do that change.

Regarding Tim’s original piece, how excellent! Well said! Mr Cameron was quoted by the BBC News website on 29 June 2005 as saying “All the evidence shows that children benefit the most from having both parents – mother and father – involved together in (their childrens’) upbringing. And the evidence also shows that married couples have a better chance of staying together …. So a modern Conservative Party should support marriage. We should use the law, the tax and benefit system and other mechanisms to encourage families to get together and stay together”. It was largely this commitment that reassured me enough to vote for Mr Cameron. I hope he does take the courageous policy decisions to implement the whole of this statement. Otherwise, as Tim says, all the talk of concern about poverty will be just that – talk, and I think further damage to trust in politicians will be done. I think the work of IDS’s group is finding that family break-up and decline of marriage are one major cause of poverty.

[Rachel Joyce]

Thank you Tim. As usual you are spot on. It is commitment to marriage and the ethos of personal responsibility that is the key to improving the lives and chances of children born to deprived families (materially and socially deprived).
Government can do alot to make a difference here - and a Tory government should. This Labour government has not just penalised people financially for marriage but it is now not even fashionable to get married - people preferring to be in states of serial monogamy, with an unacceptable proportion of children hardly seeing their fathers, if at all. This must be an important priority for the Conservatives.

[John Irvine]

I am all for showing love and compassion to people whose lives have fallen below the high standards that most of us attempt to emulate.

But let's make it plain that we expect people at least to aim for those standards.

Children need a stable family background and that means a traditional family, not some kind of weird experimental relationship.

The vast majority of Conservatives do indeed live in such a background and it's our duty to recommend it to others.

[malcolm]

I thought the Tims point was merely that marriage should not be punished financially by the state as appears to be the case at the moment. I thoroughly agree with him.

[RobD]

As conservatives we should ensure that marriage is not financially second best for parents, however we should avoid preaching to the electorate. Although most would agree that on average the standard family set up is best for children, we should not look down on those who choose to live their lives in other ways.

[Mark J]

Whilst I agree with the majority of the views outlined above, I would like to point out that it wasn't Blair's government that created this, it's been the same rule for decades.

Worse is that Jobseekers Allowance was created under our last Conservative government with these rules.

As shameful as those rules are and they certainly are, Blair has simply left 'our' rules in place.

[Mark J]

Sorry also meant to say that:

his governmennt has of course undermined marriage in many other ways.

[Yet Another Anon]

And similarly you are hopelessly out of touch if you fail to recognise that single parenthood *is* more expensive and for the sake of the children it is right that the state recognises that.
It isn't about whether it is more expensive or not, it's simply that the state cannot accurately assess the difference and additionally all differences in benefits for different groups encourage people to lie, the simple solution is to assess benefits individually, the rate for couples thus should be what it would have been for each singly added together (this could mean increasing the amounts couples got or decreasing the amount single people would get) with non-fixed rate costs especially for things such as housing capped more strictly and done as a low interest loan rather than a benefit - repayable in a similar way to Student Loans now and at a low proportion of income.

Actually there has always been an element of penalising couples under welfare benefits while rewarding married couples under the tax system, in the 1980's with the creation of Income Support if anything the rates for Single People especially single parents were boosted significantly while couples rates were held back - with seperate taxation for man and wife the tax system was largely equalised though, the Tax Credits have spread means tested systems to cover ever larger numbers of people.

[Yet Another Anon]

Sadly the Church in England has somewhat distorted Christian teaching, the Orthodox Church retains the importance of Easter as the main Christian Festival.
Easter though in origin is a pagan festival, so is Christmas - they are not mentioned in the bible and the early Protestant reformers mostly banned celebrating them. Out of the Scottish Presbyterian denominations still only the United Free Church of Scotland and Church of Scotland recognise Christmas and Easter as religious ceremonies, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland still expels people for Idolatry for having Christmas Trees or Easter Eggs, Christmas cards are alright so long as they contain a secular message because in addition to Idolatry it is considered to be adding to the Bible, especially as not only are these festivals not mentioned but the Bible does not say exactly when Jesus was born. It is forbidden under The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 as well, I think the Savoy Declaration in the 1650's (Congregationalist equivalent of the Westminster Confession) also banned it; Carol singing and indeed Hymn singing were also forbidden and many to this day still ban the usuage of instrumental music in religious worship as being adding to the Bible (which is forbidden at the end of Revelations). Even the Church of England at one point banned Christmas, Easter, Dancing around Maypoles and what are actually continental mainly Roman and\or Pagan practices of ornamentation and carol singing.

[John Moss]

A simple pledge to eliminate the disadvantage in the current welfare system would be a start!

A simple allowance for each adult, topped up if you had children, transferrable between the two parents, with a "reverse income tax" if you didn't earn up to this - not a Gordo style "Tax Credit", a proper system which makes you better off if you work - would be a good way to kick this off.

And "married" shouldn't matter. People will not be pressured one way or the other and I suspect in those circumstances they will marry and the divorce rate will fall. However, whilst we must shout about the benefits of marriage, we have to remain financially neutral or the BBC and the Guardian will trot out the Peter Lilley clip again!

[Philip]

RobD (1821) says we should avoid preaching to the electorate. Of course - the Government and the State cannot change people morally, nor can any political party. That's not their job. However they do have a legislative role and have indeed passed laws on moral matters over recent decades - usually away from Judeo-Christian values. It just seems to be that it is only when anyone talks of making policy more in line with Judeo-Christian values, that accusations of "moralising" or "preaching" are made.

It's that what's right is right because it is what works best for society. I agree with John Irvine(1750) who said "Children need a stable family background and that means a traditional family", and I note the Ed pointed out in 1446 that 80% of young people aspire to marry, so why not support their aspiration.

[Tapestry]

It's not only in private life that the wrong things are encouraged by labour. In business too.

Work this out.

Run your business. Take risks. Save hard for years. And eventually you manage to make a return on your risk. Now, try paying yourself something. You get taxed through full payroll and NI taking away about 63% of the money earned.

If you lose it all, it's your loss. If you make it work, the benefit belongs two thirds to the government and Gordon Brown's blood suckers at the IR.

If on the other hand you sell your business, take the money and run, your CGT liability will probably be only 10%.

There is a massive incentive to sell a business rather than run it successfully, and dediacte your years to building it.

Where's the logic in that?

Pre Gordon Brown bonuses attracted only income tax. Gordon slapped employers and employees NI onto them. Net result people don't bother running businesses any more. They speculate. No wonder Britain has a piss-poor rate of R & D, and such poor morale about its industrial achievement.

To hear Brown gassing on about investment-friendly environments. He's destroyed all incentive - the great girl's blouse that he is.

[surely]

Oh, taxes, benefits, what do they matter?

It's all so much easier if your parents drop a quater of a million quid on your education, buy you a 2 million pound house and set up a trust fund.

[ToMTom]

Easter though in origin is a pagan festival, so is Christmas - they are not mentioned in the bible

Unfortunately you err.

Jesus was executed at Pesach known to us as Passover, which was not a pagan festival unless you consider Judaism itself, pagan.

Jesus was according to Isaiah a Jewish Messiah, although Jews claim he failed the five tests, however Resurrection is the basis of Christianity and without the acceptance of Resurrection it is impossible to be Christian.

YetAnotherAnon is too focused on human rituals and too little on Christian Theology.............

[Serf]

Your attempts to bring American culture war politics to Britain are boring and, if successful, a total disaster for the Conservative Party.

The culture wars were brought to our shores many moons ago by the left, not the right. Tim and Conservatives like him, would like to take back a little of the territory lost to the cultural marxists over the past few decades.

As defenders of our heritage we are not guilty for the conflict, it is the Cultural Imperialists of the left that are waging this war.

[Tory Loyalist]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(John 14:6).

What could be a more specific command to humankind than those ringing words?

If any political party - and that includes the Conservative Party - permits God's people to be led from the way of His truth as revealed through the teachings of His only begotten Son, then that party is guilty of pure wickedness.

Unless our committment to politics is presented within the framework of faith it is as worthless as dross.

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all that truly turn to him:

Come unto me, all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. (Matthew 11.28)

So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. (John 3.16)

Hear also what Saint Paul saith:
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. \\91 Timothy 1.15)

Hear also what Saint John saith:
If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,Jesus Christ the righteous;
and he is the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 2.1)

Who dares prioritise the promotion of petty political ideology above these great and sacred truths?

[ToMtom]

Nice to see you have a copy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer !

[Tory Loyalist]

I only attend "Prayerbook" services.

[Yet Another Anon]

Jesus was executed at Pesach known to us as Passover, which was not a pagan festival unless you consider Judaism itself, pagan.
Easter is not at the same time as Passover, besides which the whole point is that it was not celebrated as a festival in the Bible, in addition Easter Eggs are actually a Fertility Symbol - basically the Roman Church adopted a Pagan festival in the same way it did with Yule which was a festival to Odin.

[Yet Another Anon]

Passover is a festival recognised by the Bible, Easter is not.

[TomTom]

As you recall Palm Sunday is when Jesus rode into Jerusalem..........the city was crowded because of Pesach and The Last Supper was a Seder.

The symbolism of Christ being executed at Pesach and resurrected links with the blood symbol of Pesach itself and God's Grace towards the imprisoned Jews before they were brought to The Promised Land

It may be that missionaries later fixed festivals near pagan rituals - just as Brazilian Candomble has syncretic features with Catholicism, it does not change the fact that the Christian Religion places a higher importance on the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth than it does on a child born in Beit Lechem.

Tory Loyalist referred to Chrismas as the Festival of Christ the King - that we believers celebrate the culmination of the Christian Year

my point was that the Christian Religion places a higher emphasis on Crucifixion and Resurrection than on Birth..........funnily enough your Easter egg tradition YetAnother Anon is the pagan fertility goddess which was co-opted to reflect Resurrection

[Yet Another Anon]

it does not change the fact that the Christian Religion places a higher importance on the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth than it does on a child born in Beit Lechem.
And in Reformed Evangelicalism the death of Christ on the Cross atoning for the sins of the Elect was commemorated - just all the time not at a particular time of the year, after all it is central to the religion - in the same way the use of the symbol of the cross is not universally recognised by all denominations including many long standing Protestant ones, it doesn't say in the Bible to use the symbol of the cross indeed many denominations use the symbol of the fishes or reject all such symbolism.

Stained glass windows, Easter, Christmas, Crosses, Hymns - these were all things added later by the Roman Church.

Anyway increasingly over the past 150 years Easter and Christmas have been manipulated to become means of card manufacturers and chocolate companies pulling in more revenue - they have very little to do with religion at all these days unless you count Mammon and this seems to have intensified year on year.

Indeed abolish Christmas and you'd probably do far more for poor families wasting their money on cards and wrapping paper and various things they don't need than really quite a lot of other things could do.

funnily enough your Easter egg tradition YetAnother Anon is the pagan fertility goddess which was co-opted to reflect Resurrection
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:1, repeated in Deuteronomy - indeed I could mention the Golden Calf, God was not pleased by that.

In fact the only day that was held holy by the early Reformers was the Sabbath Day which after all in the Bible is the only day on which it is absolutely commanded to observe it, of course there had been some modifications in that the original Sabbath ran from sundown on Friday to sundown on Sunday and the Lords Day was moved to a day later and except for The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland who hold it from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday it is the calendar day of Sunday, that is an inconsistency.

[Sam Wright]

"Unless our committment to politics is presented within the framework of faith it is as worthless as dross."

Spot on Tory Loyalist and your comments before that

[leave]

Let's get a divorce from trustafarians, "Dave" and Gideon....