Can David Cameron resist Iain Duncan Smith's marriage proposal?

The Daily Mail has advance sight of a 300,000 word report into 'Breakdown Britain', written by Iain Duncan Smith and his social justice policy group.  The report estimates "the cost of family collapse including the burden of welfare benefits on the taxpayer, the amount of debt incurred by single parents trying to survive, and the price to society of coping with associated problems like drug abuse" at £20 billion every year.

Peter Oborne dedicates his column to the report and writes that it will show that while Britain has never been more prosperous, "a new underclass has emerged over the last generation and is growing with terrifying speed and menace.  Drugs are an endemic problem, while drunkenness has now reached a scale not seen since Edwardian times.  Social mobility has ground to a halt and educational failure is normal.  Duncan Smith argues that none of these issues can be understood until the collapse of the family is taken into account."

The 'Breakdown Britain' report does not contain policy prescriptions.  They will come later.  This report is squarely focused upon the scale of the problem.  Oborne concludes with the implications for Project Cameron:

"For while there have been undoubted successes during his first 12 months in office, the new Tory leader has been constantly open to the charge of lurching towards conventional thinking and an already over-populated centre ground.  The policy implications of Duncan Smith's survey demand that Cameron takes a leap in the opposite direction.  His decision about how to react may well determine whether his leadership of the Conservative Party succeeds or - like Duncan Smith before him - ultimately fails."

My own belief is that David Cameron will take that leap in the opposite direction.  Marriage was a centrepiece of his October party conference speech.  He recently identified absent fathers as a cause of violent criminality.  There will be some Tories like Tim Yeo who will continue to resist the overwhelming evidence that strong families underpin social justice but these words from David Cameron suggests that the Tory leader does 'get it':

"Marriage is a great institution, and we should support it.  I'm not naïve in thinking that somehow the state can engineer happy families with this policy or that tax break.  All I can tell you is what I think.  And what I think is this.  There's something special about marriage.  It's not about religion.  It's not about morality.  It's about commitment.  When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something.  Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important.  You are making a commitment.  You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore.  It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin.  That really matters."

Related link: You can't beat poverty without supporting marriage, says IDS

Comments

[Denis Cooper]

£20 billion pa is less than 2% of GDP, and I suspect it's a gross under-estimate.

[Jorgen]

Of course we should support marriage. But why do marriages fail? It wouldn't by any chance often be because they have trouble making both ends meet because of direct and indirect taxes. The answer to this and many other problems is small Government and low tax.

[HF]

I do not see it as an either marriage or not providing we adopt an approach that encourages people to make the right decisions.

At present state benefits and taxes encourages the wrong decisions.

1. End the penalties on co-habiting. Think of the billions saved through encouraging stable relationships for children. Many people get around this anyway through deceit and illegal behaviour which is not the right thing to encourage.

2. Have transferable tax allowances for married couples. Reward stability. Finance is a large factor in marriage break-ups, so the State should alleviate some of the pressure. It would be paid for from the billions saved through having people grow up in stable families.

[Sally Roberts]

I am afraid I am cynical about marriage (and hold some pretty un-Conservative views about it as well!)probably as a result of my own bad experience of it. It is absolutely true that children do better in a committed two-parent family and it is also true that married partnerships are more "stable" (however "stability" is measured). However, could this perhaps be because those who enter into conventional partnership arrangements, i.e. marriage are those whose personalities incline them towards stability anyway? I think in any event that often the most enduring marriages are amongst those who treat it like a business arrangement - i.e. as if their partnership is a limited company - and not as something romantic! Those who go into marriage with rose-tinted spectacles are usually the ones disappointed!

[Old Hack]

Marriage is too 'traditional' a Tory theme for a party that is in the process of 'change'.

So we'll probably get more wishy-washy claptrap instead.

Hug a Daddy?

[arthur]

Of course we all know how successful the marriages of Tory Party politicians are... don't we!

[Martin Bristow]

Jorgen the answer to marital breakdown is not purely economic.We are talking here about a much deeper malaise unleashed by the prevailing "social liberalism " of recent decades.

This has produced an attitude which ignores personal responsibility in favour of hedonistic concerns.In this climate relationships and their crucial worth in nurturing and protecting society has been lost.

A whole generation has now grown up without the informal social taboos we once operated to protect society at large.

We should confront these issues head on.Ian Duncan Smith's paperis an excellent starting point.

[Jorgen]

Martin, there are a number of reasons for marriage breakdowns. I fully agree that that "social liberalism" is a very important problem too, but money troubles was a major reason for many breakdowns in the "good old days" and undoubtedly also now. Troubles with paying the bills paired with normal marriage glitches, can result in a "to h*ll with it all" attitude.

[Richard]

"but money troubles was a major reason for many breakdowns in the "good old days" and undoubtedly also now"

Agreed. Now that many women have more financial independence they have less need for a husband whereas in the past they would undoubtedly have taken this factor into account.

Unfortunately, dealing with the decline of marriage on the cultural level is very tricky. Pregnant single girls and the fathers no longer feel the need to get married because social stigma has declined. Trying to reintroduce such stigma would be electoral suicide so how else can we bring about a change in values?

The only sollution I can think of is to massively shrink the welfare state, although this once again is based more on financial incentives. Furthermore cutting off benefits for teenage mums wouldn't automatically lead to them marrying the fathers, who would probably be off impregnating someone else.

Marriage should certainly have our support but we have to think carefully about how we can effectively encourage it without coming across as too moralistic. No matter how right we may be, people just don't like being preached to. Especially if the preachers turn out to be hypocrites.

[Martin Bristow]

I think the issue is deeper.I do take the point that people don't want to feel that are being preached at.However the battle of ideas and a challenge to prevailing wisdom is central to a truly democratic and healthy Society.

The mores of society are not fixed and just because it is difficult does not mean we should not challenge.Life is about choices and the more we have the better but with every choice we make we have accountability for the outcome.

In practical policy terms such an analysis does lead us towards a rebalancing of welfare and benefit policy and fiscalsupport for families.This must also be accompanied by a much more proactive and positive moral teaching in schools.The cult of moral relativismmust be reversed.

[ToMTom]

Now that Brown is taxing pension fund income and has reinforced the policy of compelling pensioners to buy annuities when they hit 75 at a very low rate of interest because Gordon borrows through PFI rather than the open market through Gilts......................he has now decided to tax the pension pot upon death at rates of 76-82%.

The only way to avoid this is for pensioners to divorce...........if a man buys a joint-life annuity it lowers his pension because women live so long.

The best way is to divorce and each buy an annuity or to have a sole-life annuity and let the widow claim on the State.

It is hard to see where marriage is economically viable

[Martin Bristow]

Obviously Tom Tom this is a ludicrous anomaly Brown is creating which a Conservative Government would remove.However the crux of the Duncan Smith analysis emphaises and quantifies the impact of marital breakdown on society and children in particular.

The drive for a more harmonious productive society at peace with itself does have a social dimension. Economic change alone will not solve these problems.Decisions concerning whether or not to marry ought not to be wholly economic.The emotional stability provided by a traditional marriage is invaluble.It is the best way of nurtturing,protecting and socialising the next generation and our policy should argue and reflect this.

[RodS]

"Marriage is a great institution, and we should support it. I'm not naïve in thinking that somehow the state can engineer happy families with this policy or that tax break. All I can tell you is what I think. And what I think is this. There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment."

Fine words from Cameron - I hope he means them. What has undermined marriage , like so much else, is the Big State. It has taken away the will and ability of local social structures to regulate themselves through stigma and disaproval. Self-regulation and a vigilante culture kept marriages together, controlled crime, ensured ethnic integration - even though the consequences for some were harsh.

The Big State has usurped the self-regulaing role of organic communities and now is reaping the consequences.

[sjm]

Martin has pretty well said it all. I would just like to add that a destabilising effect on society has been brought about by the huge amount of 'choice' offered both by the increasing affluence of the last 40 years, and also by the contraceptive Pill.

What seems to have happened is that the huge number of life-style options on offer has not resulted in settling on one way of life and trying to make it work - instead, there have been two generations (at least) wanting to 'have it all'.

So we have a society that is endlessly and restlessly seeking novelty, instant gratification and material luxuries, without giving thought for the future and the nurturing requirements of children.

[Sean Fear]

Interestingly enough, the number of divorces fell by 8% in 2005, which coincides with the virtual abolition of legal aid for divorce work by solicitors. Typically, a solicitor working in that field will charge about £200 an hour to a privately paying client, which does concentrate the mind wonderfully.

I think this is a useful example of how the existence of a state benefit can encourage behaviour which is both harmful to society and not in the long term interest of the person receiving the benefit, and its withdrawal can do the reverse.

[Peter Coe]

The problem with IDS's assertion is that his central premise is wrong: it is not marriage in itself that is a great institution - it is *successful* marriage that is great, but then so too are successful, loving, unmarried partnerships.
I'm sure that IDS does not think that failed marriage, with perhaps one partner cheating on the other and the effect their destruction has on the children is a great institution.

My starting point in this is that the current position in respect of marriage and civil partnerships is illogical and problematic.

It it is inherently wrong that heterosexual couples cannot benefit from legal benefits without marrying when gay couples can; but it is equally wrong that homosexual couples now can have the benefits but not the equal status of married couples: the state is by definition defining gay partnership as lesser than heterosexual marriage.

Let me be clear that my argument here is not about whether you or I believe that to be the case but whether it's the State's business proclaiming this. As a libertarian I passionately believe it is not.

From that, it seems to me that the problem is not marriage or civil partnerships in themselves but the involvement of the State in both.

Therefore, I believe we need to separate the legal/state aspects of marriage from the spiritual/moral/personal virtues of marriage: notably the public commitment two individuals make to each other and the stability strong relationships bring to the upbringing of children and the happiness of the couple. Again, the issue here is whether you believe it is marriage in itself that does this or the commitment and maturity of the couple. I believe it is the latter.

I would prefer all couples, regardless of gender, to be able to get legal benefits of partnership upon application (and potentially some evidence of bona fides) - no ceremony, no marriage nothing (call me an old romantic if you will!).

Marriage should then be the sole preserve of whichever institutions want to offer it: if particular religions want to define marriage in one way, that's a matter for them. From a different perspective, if some institutions expect some measure of commitment to be demonstrable before they marry, or want to make it harder or easier to divorce then again, that's a private arrangement between consenting adults - I may not personally approve but as long as I'm not obliged to sanction this (as I must currently do because of the State's definition of what marriage is and isn't) it's none of my business.

That way, there's a level playing field for all in respect of rights, benefits and duties provided to couples and families, and the debate about gay marriage, or any marriage is removed from the political arena.

Marriage should surely be about freedom and liberty, not about Statist oversight, rewards and sanctions.

[Peter Coe]

Sean, my issue with your argument is its implicit assumption that somehow it is better that this 8% who are now not divorcing who otherwise would are making society better by staying unhappily together, simply because they cannot afford to legally separate. All it means is that poor people are not divorcing, while wealthy people are blissfully unaffected.

Indeed, they may be separated anyway, just unable to start their lives again because they remain married.

How is this statistic in itself a demonstration that the State has benignly improved society's lot?

[Sean Fear]

Marriages have their ups and downs, Peter. The fact that people are no longer provided with a subsidy to get divorced, but rather have to put their hands in their own pockets, and decide whether this really is something they want to do, is surely a good thing.

The withdrawal of legal aid in these circumstances therefor ensures that people act more responsibly, surely something that any libertarian would welcome.

[Denis Cooper]

As on previous occasions I think it's crucial to distinguish between policies for adults and policies for children. However much we as adults may have messed up our lives and those of others, we should try to give the next generation the best possible chance. If it's a policy to encourage childless adults to form long term bonds, then that's beneficial insofar as it strengthens the overall social fabric, and in many ways it doesn't matter whether the relationship is sexual or asexual, and if it's sexual whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. But if the policy is essentially intended to help ensure that children grow up to be better members of society then that's a different matter. Perhaps this distinction should be acknowledged by amending the traditional marriage vow to say "until death us do part, or failing that at least until all our children have grown up".

[Denis Cooper]

As on previous occasions I think it's crucial to distinguish between policies for adults and policies for children. However much we as adults may have messed up our lives and those of others, we should try to give the next generation the best possible chance. If it's a policy to encourage childless adults to form long term bonds, then that's beneficial insofar as it strengthens the overall social fabric, and in many ways it doesn't matter whether the relationship is sexual or asexual, and if it's sexual whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. But if the policy is essentially intended to help ensure that children grow up to be better members of society then that's a different matter. Perhaps this distinction should be acknowledged by amending the traditional marriage vow to say "until death us do part, or failing that at least until all our children have grown up".

[Martin Bristow]

Freedom and Liberty do have a social dimension.Choices freely excersised ought not to be allowed to be impact adversley upon society as a whole.Where an individual is in error he or she is not a victim.The consequences of such actions should be borne by that individual not society at large.Fostering an environment built upon this precept would fundamentally change the way the individual views the world.

[Graeme Archer]

I read the Daily Mail article this morning (I know!). I am sort of struggling to understand why the Mail or anyone else would think that what the estimable IDS is likely to have to say about social breakdown - and its consequences - will not "fit" with the Cameron message. He has been clear in his support for marriage from the start, and yet manages to do it in that charming non-exclusive type way. I think we're on the brink of something wonderful here - Conservatives are going to be able to talk about the sort of society we would like, and how we're going to help bring it about, and it will be in almost total opposition to the joyless world of state-control tinkering presided over by Brown. Cameron is the first Tory leader we've had in ages who, fairly or unfairly, will be able to advance an agenda that promotes stable and legal marriage for the benefits of everyone who lives here. And IDS really is to be congratulated on focusing so strongly for so long on these important issues of social justice - I thought him a terrible leader but a real visionary on these issues.

[Graeme Archer]

I've just read my last comment there again. "I thought him a terrible leader". That's the trouble with this site. Because you can print what you like, as it occurs to you, you tend to get terrible delusions of grandeur (by "you" obviously I mean "me"). I'm quite sure that my opinion of IDS' leadership will not keep him lying awake at night, gasping with the famous horror :-0).

[Annabel Herriott]

Graeme. IDS is a statesman. That quality does not neccesarily equate with leadership in a particualar moment in time. IDS did not resonate with his time as tory leader. He would have been perfect for the Macmillan era. I guess DC is lucky, IMO in that he does resonate with the current zeit-geist.

[Editor]

Peter Coe:" "The problem with IDS's assertion is that his central premise is wrong: it is not marriage in itself that is a great institution - it is *successful* marriage that is great, but then so too are successful, loving, unmarried partnerships."

Two responses, Peter:

(1) IDS is no defender of unsuccessful marriages. He works closely with Refuge, for example, who campaign against domestic violence and some (although a disproportionate small proportion) is found within marriages. IDS is currently talking to the Home Office about legislating against husbands who drive their wives to suicide. IDS is no blind defender of marriage. See this ConservativeHome definition of "Healthy marriages" for more.

(2) It's not good enough to say that because some cohabitating relations are better than some married relationships then public policy should be uninterested in promoting marriage. Some high tax countries are more prosperous than some low tax nations but does that make high tax a good thing? Some countries with lenient attitudes to crime are more ordered than those with tough approaches. Does that mean we should be soft on crime? Public policy has to work on general truths - not personal anecdotes. The advantage of the CSJ's approach is that is it empirically based. Cohabiting relationships are much less likely than married relationships to provide stability for children and wider stability for society. Key to understanding that is, I think, the quotation from David Cameron above. There is something special about a public declaration of commitment to one another: "You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters."

[Tabman]

Will the member for North Wiltshire be commenting on it?

[Jorgen]

I think Peter Coe has it just about right.

Signing an agreement that brings about a whole lot of legislation regarding the marriage will certainly say that it is now "us".

The public declaration of commitment we have at the moment do not seem to make a whole lot of difference.

[Jon White]

Small point but one worth making I think:

We are always told about 'absent fathers'. The under-lying implication being that the male is the party at fault.

Fathers are often absent BECAUSE the state automatically assumes that the female is the better parent. Not always a valid assumption. Many fathers are absent BECAUSE mothers won't allow them access to their children. Marriage breakdown is not always because of the male 'playing away' or leaving. It can be the fault of the female too.

(Are you aware, for example, that under English Law the father of a child born outside of wedlock has NO right of access to that child, in the event of the relationship with the child'd mother breaking down? It is entirely in the hands of the mother. The father does, of course, have a duty of financial contribution. This smacks of taxation without representation to me).

I only make these points (and I am not a member of the Super-Hero dressed Justice for Fathers campaign!) to try and redress the balance a little. The father is nearly always assumed to be the 'guilty' party, leading to the broken home. It ain't always so.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Well done everybody today, I think if you string it all together that is a pretty good analysis and probably mixed in there is the answer, i.e. what hte best policies would be (see HF's post right at the start) as well. Denis, yup, the cost is far greater than 2% of GDP. Have they counted "cost" of truancy, crime etc?

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am somewhat late in the day I know, but Christmas intrudes!

There is another influence, I think on the habits of people in society and I would suggest that the young are more vunerable to this than older people, and that as per usual, I mean my usual bete noir is the media, most especially TV, which serves up a constant diet of 'musical chairs' and constant change in terms of personal relationships, and this has an effect on ordinary people's opinions and decisions. I hope nobody is going to post that TV does not affect people's decisions and behaviour(that was a comment that used to be made, but research has proved otherwise I believe).

Anyway that is another part of the equation I think!

[Jorgen]

You are right on the mark, Patsy! Add to this the media stories about the scandals from famous politicians, pop musicians, actors etc. perhaps it is not surprising that the youth lose their values early.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6165833.stm

[Peter Coe]

Just a response to Tim's reply to me at 15.36.

I was not arguing against marriage - it's none of my business what consenting adults choose to do with their lives (nor is it yours); just that the State should not be in the business.

As a result of civil partnerships, we now have the State telling us that:

- married people deserve to keep more of their money, get more favourable tax rates and allowances than being single solely because it believes that married people are morally superior to single individuals

- enshrining in law that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality because heterosexuals deserve the status of marriage and gays do not (ironic, given that the whole point of CPs was to give gays more rights!)

- bizarrely, that homosexuality is superior to non-married heterosexual partnerships because gays can have their legal rights protected whereas heterosexuals cannot (that of course is not the intent, but it is the consequence)

You make the point about low tax being preferable to high tax - I agree, but why is that? It isn't because high tax is de facto bad - if government was actually better at spending our money than we are then high tax would be a good thing, but of course government isn't.

I would argue that it is because low tax gives people greater freedom and obliges greater individual and communal responsibility. Exactly the same applies in respect of marriage - the more politicians attempt to socially engineer, the worse the results will be.

Look; the State isn't responsible for the decline of the traditional family; evolving social attitudes are. Bemoan that all you like but you can't change it, and this absurd contradiction that many Conservatives hold: that the State should be small when it comes to tax, but huge when it comes to personal morality appears strongly in your reply, Tim.

In quick response to Sean, do you seriously believe that people used to discover that legal aid was available for them to divorce and said "ooh, what a great whizz, that'd be great fun to take advantage of".

You haven't explained how people being prevented from getting on with their lives after a failed marriage because they can't afford a divorce is helpful for them, any kids they may have or for society either.

You also haven't addressed my point that the withdrawal of legal aid only affects the poor - I'd suggest that if you want to make it uniformly more difficult to divorce you should argue for changing divorce law rather than stacking the system against the poor.

I don't agree with that because I don't believe government should be in the business of marriage - and if it isn't, it can't really be in the business of divorce, can it?

[Richard]

"I hope nobody is going to post that TV does not affect people's decisions and behaviour(that was a comment that used to be made, but research has proved otherwise I believe)."

It depends on the person. I was only influenced by TV was a child and they had adverts advertising toys. Indeed I often find myself opposed to the message being given on many tv shows. Conversely there are some people who are complete zombies.

"Look; the State isn't responsible for the decline of the traditional family; evolving social attitudes are"

I would argue it's a combination of the two. James Bartholomew's The Welfare State We're In addresses the influence of the state but I don't agree with his implied thesis that the state was entirely responsible for the change in social attitudes.

"Bemoan that all you like but you can't change it, and this absurd contradiction that many Conservatives hold: that the State should be small when it comes to tax, but huge when it comes to personal morality appears strongly in your reply, Tim."

It's only a contradiction if you're a fully fledged libertarian. Conservatism is a broad ideology that includes libertarians and statists, most of whom are selective in their statism. It is perfectly possible to argue for a small state when it comes to the economy so as to promote efficiency while supporting a more paternal state for strengthening morality. I'm not saying I support that view, merely that it isn't illogical to hold.

[PW]

Peter Coe: "the State isn't responsible for the decline of the traditional family; evolving social attitudes are. Bemoan that all you like but you can't change it, and this absurd contradiction that many Conservatives hold: that the State should be small when it comes to tax, but huge when it comes to personal morality appears strongly in your reply, Tim."

Two points: 1) "evolving social attitudes" are fed and encouraged by opinion-formers, and by State actions such as discriminating against marriage in the tax and benefits systems.

2) Yes, the State is certainly not small when it comes to personal morality - it has been very instrumental in recent decades by legislation, policy and pronouncements in undermining the traditional norms that underpin a healthy society. Governments have been very much in the “business of marriage” - undermining it! It seems that it is only when a politician talks of making policy more in line with traditional moral values, that protests are made that personal morality are not the business of government or state.

[Kevin Connors]

Every child deserves both a mother and father. Some new evidence indicates that non-traditional marriage have may a serious harm on the upbringing of a child. We should not be changing something that has worked for thousands of years.

Also, weakening the institution of marriage has a profound impact on the number of traditional couples marrying. Look at mainland Europe, where couples -- hetrosexual couples -- no longer marry in large numbers.

[Jorgen]

I agree fully, but it looks like we are out of touch or - more likely - that the Government has lost it:

A child's need for a father will no longer be a consideration when a woman seeks fertility treatment, ministers will say this week.

Telegraph

[voreas06]

I agree largely with what Peter Coe is saying, there should be no special status for marriage, I don't think marriage itself encourages stability. I feel that when a couple discovers that the woman is pregnant they should be informed of the financial advantages of co-habiting(tax breaks, actual figures), and the loss of those advantages and penalties (Child suport, actual figures) if they split up. Then they should sign to say they understand this and are bound by it. I also believe that the tax breaks should only apply for the first four children.

[TomTom]

In quick response to Sean, do you seriously believe that people used to discover that legal aid was available for them to divorce and said "ooh, what a great whizz, that'd be great fun to take advantage of".

Funnily enough Legal Aid was introduced by the Attlee Govt to help returning soldiers divorcing their wives, many of whom had children by other men and had written Dear John letters to their husbands overseas.

[ToMtom]

I agree largely with what Peter Coe is saying, there should be no special status for marriage, I don't think marriage itself encourages stability.

Typical Conservative ! It is wacko ideas like this that make them unelectable.

There should be NO special status for anything except marriage. People who have children without being married should provide for themselves and finance it themselves without using my taxes.

The woman should be obligated to fund her child from the father or his parents, but not have any claim on the state or the taxpayer.

I feel that when a couple discovers that the woman is pregnant they should be informed of the financial advantages of co-habiting(tax breaks, actual figures), and the loss of those advantages and penalties (Child suport, actual figures) if they split up

What tax breaks do couples with children get not available to single mothers ? Why should any man wish to have 18 years of obligation to a woman he is not committed to ?

This is absurd. Women should take their chances. If they cannot bind a man into a relationship before getting pregnant they are terribly stupid and should consider sterilisation.

Any fool can get pregnant but it is a binary process, and if she makes herself available for another's amusement, more fool her...........life is hard.

[alqueda]

UP THE CHUFF< KNOBS AND KNOCKERS!