"There is no welfare scheme in existence that fights poverty better than a two-parent family."

The report from Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group is covered widely in this morning's media and there is a warm welcome for its findings from traditionally Conservative newspapers.  Interestingly leader-writers at The Independent are also supportive and they dismiss yesterday's nonsense that IDS was being negative about gay families.  Most attention has been given to the report's findings on family breakdown but the report identifies five major paths to poverty.  A blog posting cannot do justice to the findings of a 300,000 word report but posted below are a few salient facts for each of the report's paths to poverty:

• Alcohol consumption has doubled in fifty years and by 15 per cent in the last five years alone. Alcohol is more than 50 per cent cheaper than it was in 1980. Young women have doubled their consumption in the last 10 years.
• 8.2 million people in the UK have an alcohol disorder and over a million children are living in homes with alcoholics. Over 45 per cent of 14-15 year olds have consumed more than five drinks on a single occasion in the last 30 days. Between 3,000 to 4,000 young people aged 11 and over were admitted to hospital for alcohol related illness in 2004.
• Around 1.5 million children are growing up in substance-abusing households – over a million with parents abusing alcohol and around 350,000 where there is drug-taking.
• Nearly three million of the adult population have some form of alcohol dependency and 8 million have an alcohol use disorder.
• Respondents with a history of drug or alcohol addiction were more than twice as likely to have experienced personal debt than the general population.
• Iain Duncan Smith's conclusion: "Britain is experiencing an explosion in addiction.  The current scale of prevalence of alcohol and drugs is historically unprecedented in its combined presence in the population. Young adults are engaging in a new culture of intoxication."

• Through means testing and tax credits, Labour has prioritised shifting those just below the poverty line to just above it. However, this policy has led to more families dropping back to below 40 per cent of median income, widening the social divide.
• Much of the reduction in unemployment is due to individuals moving into jobs with short hours and low pay, meaning that they must rely on tax credits to avoid poverty.
• In their 2001 manifesto, Labour boasted of one million children lifted out of poverty. By 2005, Ministers were claiming two million. In fact, the official 2005 figure was 700,000.
• Iain Duncan Smith's conclusion: "It is not enough just to keep people from falling into the abyss of absolute poverty. To remain one nation, it is essential we should all have the chance to climb the ladder, but to do so with a sense of togetherness."

• Despite huge increases (in funding), this country has one of the highest levels of educational inequality in the Western world and the attainment of our lowest achievers has not improved significantly since 1998.
• Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are five times more likely to fail academically compared with their peers.
• Children who have suffered family breakdown are 75% more likely to suffer educational failure.
• 55,000 pupils miss school without permission every day.
• Iain Duncan Smith's conclusion: "New Labour’s strategy may be good for middle class children, but it is bad for society. There has been very little done to tackle the most ingrained forms of educational failure."

• Some 10.7 million people in Britain suffer relationship problems as a result of debt.
• Personal lending has now reached £1.25 trillion, the equivalent to an average debt per household of £50,000.
• A recent Bank of England survey estimated that nearly 6 million people felt they were currently struggling with their finances.
• Iain Duncan Smith's conclusion: "An energy crisis, a recession in the US, a global terrorist incident or a substantial fall in house prices could change the economic climate plunging many more people into a severe debt crisis."

• The dissolution of cohabiting partnerships is the main driver behind lone parent family formation in  the UK. Nearly one in two cohabiting parents split up before their child’s fifth birthday, compared to one in twelve married parents.
• Three quarters of family breakdown affecting young children now involves unmarried parents.
• The impact on crime is illustrated by the fact that 70% of young offenders come from lone-parent families and levels of all anti-social behaviour and delinquency are higher in children from separated families than in those from intact families.
• Family breakdown represents a significant economic burden. The cost to the country is now ell over £20 billion per annum.
• Iain Duncan Smith's conclusion: "We reject the comfortable mantra that policy can or should by wholly morally neutral on the grounds that this is unworkable in practice. Although moralising is to be avoided, committed relationships are essential for the social ecology of the family, the community and the country. Families which are formed on the basis of these should therefore be encouraged."

***
David Cameron has welcomed the report as "powerful and convincing".  It's a big day for the Tory leader as he embraces a traditional conservative belief in the family after distancing himself from some other traditional Tory beliefs in his first year as leader.

Few will question the social justice policy group's finding that family breakdown is a driving force behind social injustice.  More controversial will be IDS' suggestion that the erosion of marriage is the driving force behind family breakdown.  Radio 4 Today reporter Norman Smith produced a good analogy this morning.  Explaining the report's findings to Jim Naughtie he said that Mr Duncan Smith hoped to question society's indifference to marriage in the same way that society's unquestioning acceptance of multiculturalism had been overturned in the last year.  This report is a statement of the problem - solutions will come in the SJPG's report later in the year.  But if you want a summary of the solution see the clipping on the right from Fraser Nelson's column in yesterday's News of the World: "There is no welfare scheme in existence that fights poverty better than a two-parent family."  Absolutely true.

Related link: American compassionate conservatism can still teach us a thing or two

Comments

[TomTom]

Children of alcoholics tend to try to control their environment, keep secrets, and have a constant fear of things going wrong - as I discovered when dating the daughter of an alcoholic - obsessed with 'complexes' which someone from a normal family cannot understand.

On the Web are sites dedicated to children of alcoholics; the volatile behaviour of the drinker make it hard for children to calibrate emotion because the swings between fawning affection and violent outbursts don't seem connected to any rational plan; so the child grows up uncertain and walking on eggshells................this undermines adult relationships too.

[arthur]

Can we therefore take it, that Mr Cameron will remove the Conservative whip from any MP who does not behave with the utmost propriety. Perhaps he could start with Boris Johnston and James Gray.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I see no harm in a bit of moral neutrality...
- if married mums got the same as single mums (i.e. more for the former, less for the latter);
- if there were a flat rate of child maintenance for all absent Dads (so divorced Dads, who have at least given it a shot, pay less and "deadbeat" completely absent dads pay more); and
- if assets were split 50/50 on divorce (or as otherwise agreed in a pre-nup) and no maintenance were payable to ex-wives (unless otherwise agreed) making marriage less of a gamble for men;
Then the whole thing would run a lot more smoothly.

[changetowin]

Can we therefore take it, that Mr Cameron will remove the Conservative whip from any MP who does not behave with the utmost propriety. Perhaps he could start with Boris Johnston and James Gray.

This comment shows why I fear the way in which this report is being spun. Are we in danger of giving our opponents a stick to beat us with every time one of our MPs misbehaves? We all remember Back to Basics and it was a pretty miserable time. The danger is that the press will use this as a green light to investigate the private lives of all our MPs. The focus on marriage and IDS's gay gaffe may be unfair in the context of a 300,000 word report, but modern politics is as much about presentation as substance. I am sad to say IDS's presentation doesn't seem to be much better then when he was leader. (and anyone who saw him on the Politics Show will have heard that he still has the difficulty with his throat).

Putting my quibbles about the presentation of this report's findings to one side, I look forward to reading the report to evaluate its substance. On first glance it looks to me like a serious attempt to get to grips with some very serious issues. Make no mistake - these issues are the central ones in modern British politics. They may lack the media appeal of terrorism or the disastrous Iraq war. But the fact that our country's social fabric is unravelling is of the greatest importance to all of us. The horrible murder of Tom ap Rhys Jones is a terrible example of what happens when children lose hope.

We should all welcome a report which focuses on these important issues. And we should all welcome Mr Duncan Smith's conversion to social justice. But the proof will be in the policies that result from this report and how well they are presented. We are clear that stable families are important. But are we any clearer on how the state can encourage people to stay married?

[Jorgen]

Two solutions DC could look into:

1. why do so many have an addiction? Perhaps bad economy due to high direct and indirect taxes and dissatisfaction because of the seemingly uninhibited immigration etc. etc.?

2. the business sector needs a boost to create more and better jobs through low tax and low public spending.

[TomTom]

why do so many have an addiction?

Brain Chemistry - Personality Disorder _ BPD, ASPD, Addictive Personality, Bi-Polar - or simply all combined

[Jorgen]

Yes, that explains some of them, TomTom. However, I would guess that for the majority, the reasons are the reasons I give.

[bee]

"Alcohol is more than 50 per cent cheaper than it was in 1980"

This is a disingenuous statistic that stinks of the left's attitude that we should be taxed back to the stone age, and that rising GDP (i.e. progress) must be reflected in rising taxes - the Gordon Brown mode of taxation.

Here's the truth behind the stats fraud:

"UK prices of alcoholic drink as measured by the Alcohol Price Index, have increased considerably more than general price increases. Between 1980 and 2003 the price of alcohol increased by 24% more than prices generally.However, households’ disposable income increased by 91% in real terms over thesame period, making alcohol 54% more affordable in 2003 than in 1980"

Equally, you could probably argue that roast beef or smoked salmon is probably 100% more affordable (whatever 'affordabke' means), and we all need lots of nanny state taxes to stop people eating too much of it.

[More to the point]

I don't know which of Changetowin's two modes I enjoy more, the hysterical shrillness, or, this morning's condescending smugness: 'we should all welcome Mr Duncan Smith's conversion to social justice'. Whatever IDS's faults, failing to talk about social justice isn't one of them.

[malcolm]

'And we should all welcome Mr Duncan Smiths conversion to social justice'-Changetowin. Is that what you really think Changetowin? That IDS has 'converted' to a subject he wasn't previously interested in? I really would just for once like to see your evidence before you insult a fellow Conservative.

[Mark Fulford]

Return to Basics

We all know that sequels are never as good as the original – so why do we think this one going to play-out any differently?

Yes, two parents are probably better than one, but it’s wrong for the State to attempt to prescribe and deliver a family formula. Not only will it backfire, every time that the State takes on more roles and responsibilities, it reduces local roles and responsibilities.

Responsibility for keeping a family together, and for supporting it if it falls apart, should lie with the couple, their families and the communities around them. As soon as the State steps in and says “this is our job”, everyone else steps back.

Wherever we look, we see the same thing happening. Local residents powerless over their local roads, schools, planning decisions, etc. Community spirit is so important to a healthy country, but what’s the point in a community if it’s powerless? The State has got to do less and return powers it shouldn’t have in the first place.

[RodS]

To echo Janet Daley in The Telegraph

" OK. OK. OK.We know all this. We have heard it over and over again. For the love of God, when will any political party decide what needs to be done ?"

She rightly suggests three immediate corrections to the tax and benefit system - restoration of married couples allowance - stop penalising lone mothers who lives with(or marries) the father - and stop encouraging single mothers by prioritising them in the housing queue.

It is so blindingly obvious.

[Mark Wadsworth]

RodS, your comments are sort of the other half of what I suggested at 10.15.

[Michael McGowan]

Perhaps Janet Daley could add to her list the following:

Clamping down on the judiciary who have (i) turned a blind eye to many mothers abusing access arrangements with absent fathers; and (ii) created huge financial incentives for one party to walk out of a marriage and then hold the other party to ransom indefinitely, regardless of fault. In the Kafkaesque world of matrimonial law, (ii) is described as "fairness" by the senior judiciary. They are foisting the same concept on gay couples who are in registered civil partnerships and want to foist it on cohabitees too.

[changetowin]

'And we should all welcome Mr Duncan Smiths conversion to social justice'-Changetowin. Is that what you really think Changetowin? That IDS has 'converted' to a subject he wasn't previously interested in? I really would just for once like to see your evidence before you insult a fellow Conservative.

Really didn't mean it as an insult! I thought it was a fact that Duncan Smith converted to the cause of social justice while visiting council estates in Glasgow. I was merely welcoming this. If you thought I was implying that this report marked the beginning of the conversion then I am sorry for not making myself clear. I've watched Duncan Smith talk about this many times, so clearly didn't think that.

As for evidence, the Editor of this site linked to an article in the Times about IDS a few weeks ago. He described how in the article "Helen Rumbelow and Alice Miles give IDS a lot of room to explain his compassionate conservatism". In this article they describe how IDS's "Damascus moment happened on a road in a Glasgow estate, when, caught up in the political maelstrom of his leadership, he happened to meet a local woman."

I think Duncan Smith himself has made speeched about how his experiences in Glasgow converted him to a life dedicated to fighting for social justice. So when I welcome this conversion I am doing the very opposite of insulting him (unless you think social justice is a bad cause of course)!

Maybe it would be more interesting to debate the substantive points, rather than playing semantic games?

[Richard]

"We all remember Back to Basics and it was a pretty miserable time. The danger is that the press will use this as a green light to investigate the private lives of all our MPs."

Then maybe our MPs should behave themselves! Nobody is perfect but there are millions of people in this country who don't commit adultery or indulge in other scandalous activities. I don't see why MPs can't be expected to do the same.

"Responsibility for keeping a family together, and for supporting it if it falls apart, should lie with the couple, their families and the communities around them. As soon as the State steps in and says “this is our job”, everyone else steps back."

Agreed. Unfortunately the state has tended to step in to replace the family, usually by taking the place of the father. I suspect the the withdrawal of the state might actually encourage the growth of two-parent families. However, encouraging marriage is a different thing.

[Londoner]

I share some unease if this is spun, or painted by opponents, as "back to basics". We know where that led. Cameron's remarks in his Party Conference speech lauding a commitment to one another (marriage or civil partnership), when combined with this report on bringing up children, do leave us vulnerable. In this respect I agree with changetowin that the tabloid press are no doubt dusting down their files on the MPs with irregular private lives as we speak.

I therefore think it is very important to make a distinction between the virtue of parents committing themselves to (try to) stay together by getting married before (or when) they have children and lauding faithful relationships between adults per se. Personally I see little point in marriage contracts (i.e. registering with the State ones personal adult relationship) other than the religious one (which is no concern of the State) or to protect third parties, i.e. children. Of course unfaithfulness can break up marriages but I suggest that one reason so many marriages break up is because of unrealistic expectations of fidelity. For me a committed partnership bringing up children together is what marriage is about; relationships between adults can and do take many forms, inside and outside marriage, and always have. The State should have a view on the former, but none on the latter.

The trouble is that Cameron's Conference remarks about commitments between adults (including the linkage with civil partnerships which, IDS is right, have little to do with bringing up children) is bound to get mixed up with this sensible stuff about children, thereby: (1)opening us up to charges of hypocrisy when the next News of the World expose comes out, (2) implying that unmarried people, people in unconventional relationships etc, are somehow less worthy than, for instance, gays in civil partnerships (which in my view is not only illiberal and wrong, but likely to be a big turn-off the party for some of these people) and (3) giving an excuse for the State to further concern itself about how people live their lives in areas which are none of the State's business.

Having said that, I agree with changetowin's critics that his remark about IDS's "conversion" is nauseating. Where was he when IDS was leader and was demonstrating exactly these concerns? I wonder if he was amongst those undermining him by saying that he was off the point and not connecting with the public?

Finally, please God, don't let this be another pretext for the next Brown tax hike, this time on booze (whiskey excluded no doubt, to please the Scots). If the country becomes better off, it will probably consume more alcohol. I know I drink wine more often at dinner now I am better off than I was. That is not addictive behaviour but it has contributed to the statistics.

[Londoner]

On two posts which "crossed" with mine. Changetowin - explanation accepted. I think your original post did imply that this report was the "conversion".

Michael McGowan - absolutely agree. The immediate financial incentive to one party in an economically unequal marriage to seek divorce is very high (sometimes the reality, after a few years, is rather less attractive for such initiating parties, but often they don't realise that). Combined with the immediate "trigger" of infidelity, because of the hyprocrisy that people claim to expect married people always to be faithful, this has huegly inflated the divorce figures. Ironically the "incentive" is seen as all the more if there are children. I think the point applies mostly, however, to the middle classes and above.

[Richard]

"Combined with the immediate "trigger" of infidelity, because of the hyprocrisy that people claim to expect married people always to be faithful"

Why is it hypocritical to expect this? Millions of parents don't commit infidelity, primarily due to the seemingly old-fashioned but nevertheless noble notion that an act of such betrayal isn't a very nice thing to do.

[malcolm]

If I have been unjust to you Changetowin I apologise.

[Denis Cooper]

"Few will question the social justice policy group's finding that family breakdown is a driving force behind social injustice."

I would certainly question the extent to which the current social problems either themselves represent "social injustice", or reflect underlying "social injustice".

If I knew who has been treated "unjustly", then I might change my mind in those individual cases. But I won't accept the old "we are all guilty" line, because not only is it untrue but it's also insulting to those who have made the effort to avoid the various pitfalls which fortune will inevitably put in their path.

[kingbongo]

This I feel must be the defining area of policy for the Conservatives. The left, with the silent acquiesence of many of us, have destroyed the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. Just as it always has the cohesiveness of society needs solutions rooted in Conservative thinking.

I was really pleased by the Sun's reaction to IDS report - I really don't think there'll be a serious comparison with Back to Basics - Clive James and Nigella Lawson both dismissed John Hutton's feeble attempt to make this link yesterday on Andrew Marr.

People can see the broken society that Liam Fox talked about in his leadership campaign and IDS is showing the detail - I fully expect DC to take IDS's work and turn it into radical action. If he doesn't then the COnservative party will have forgotten it's principle purpose - to help people help themselves and do so through the smallest sized state commensurate with a cohesive society.

[Denis Cooper]

This may be of interest to some here:

http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/About/join.asp

Members of parties other than the Labour Party can only be Associate Members, but it would still provide an opportunity to interact with like-minded people.

[changetowin]

If I have been unjust to you Changetowin I apologise.

Thanks Malcolm. As Michael Howard would put it, injustice makes us angry! ;-)

[Mark Wadsworth]

Michael McGowan 11.51, I think I already had your suggestion (ii) at 10.15.

[Esbonio]

Hi Denis

Thanks for the suggestion of Associate Membership of the Fabian Society. In any event I will pass on the opportunity as the The Fabian Society has by its own description "played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre." I do not think they are "like minded" with me but you may well get some other takers from the visitors here.

[Michael McGowan]

Thanks, Londoner....and I also agree with your point about infidelity, which I do not read as an endorsement of infidelity.....just a recognition that it happens. I do dissent a bit on your last point. We are now faced with judicial rulings authorising massive expropriation of income and assets on a no fault basis. Some of the decisions have been blatantly sexist. This is an especially extreme form of taxation without representation. Indeed, apart from the state confiscation of the assets of traitors (or Catholics in penal times), it has no precedent in the recent history of this country. How many middle class people do you know who have the resources to withstand this kind of judicial onslaught?

[Peter Coe]

No, no, no! The State should NOT be weighting taxes in favour of married couples or against them: it should be removing unfair advantages single parents appear to get at the moment but in a move to level the playing field, not to re-stack it in favour of some other group, however virtuous you or I might find them.

For those of you who still don't get why there is such a backlash over clumsily-given interviews (regardless of the fairness of that backlash) it's because there is still a large section of the Conservative Party who believe in shrinking the State just small enough that it fits in all our bedrooms.

The State is not fit for purpose as a moral arbiter.

It is not (primarily) because of the State that British society has changed in ways that have positive and negative outcomes (and if anyone wants to challenge that, perhaps you could prepare a comparison between the scale of poverty today versus that of the slums of Victorian England)- and it is not within the State's means to correct it.

It is laughable that anyone believes that doshing out tax breaks to married couples will transform society. To have what I presume to be the desired effect of getting more people who otherwise wouldn't consider marrying to marry they would have to be of such magnitude as to be unaffordable.

I always thought it was the left that believed in the State as a tool for social engineering; now in its dash to appear more Labour than Labour this appears to be the central tenet of Cameron Conservatism.

At least with Labour we know they're trying (not too well) to redistribute it to the less affluent: here the idea is to tax poor and wealthy people who happen not to be married just to bung it to a group regardless of their economic circumstances or how much they deserve it: regressive taxation at its most grotesque.

That's a real shame, because I think people want a choice between a tax and waste government and an Opposition offering greater freedom and greater personal and communal responsibility.

Instead, here we've got a Conservatism offering just to meddle in a somewhat different, but no less unreasonable way - both are offensive. And being egged on by the wing of the Party that lost the last three General Elections. Bravo.

[Denis Cooper]

That's what I thought, esbonio, there are those whose ideological capitulation seems so complete that they might be interested in joining the Fabian Society and developing their ideas further. I was just trying to be helpful, as always.

[Esbonio]

I have some experience both professionally and privately of divorce proceedings and ralted matters. I am not sure infidelity is a tipping point for divorces although I am not saying it does not play a part.

We are just about to enter a busy period for family lawyers as the stresses and strains of Christmas create an upswing in demand for their services in the post Christmas period.

Incidentally most divorce petitions are started by women (surveys suggest men are much better off from physical and mental perspective when married) and the most d=common grounds I believe is unreasonable behaviour which is pretty hard (but not impossible) to disprove.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Denis 13.18, spot on, I liked your idea of saying "social cohesion" instead of "social justice". If a measure promotes social cohesion, it's well worth considering.

Measures taken willy nilly to promote "social justice" without, as you rightly say, anybody being able to say that there is some "social injustice" in the first place seem to be doomed to failure.

That said, I do visit Fabians website every now just to remind myself how not to do it.

[Jonathan Mackie]

The danger is that we use the findings from this report and the empirical evidence from many others to call for greater state action to correct society.

Many of the problems we face today of broken and delapidated neighbourhoods and multiple dprivation are as a consequence of the actions of the state.

Government and the welfare state have robbed people of the need for independent action and responsibility. It is easier to be addicted to something - alcohol, heroin, etc if the state will support your habit and you don't have to think for yourself.

Our education systems is a total shambles because it is state controlled. Parents don't have to take decisions over which school their kids should attend or whether they are attending at all.

Our benefits system taxes people who are defined as being in relative poverty. It encourages people to move onto and stay on sickness benefit leading to a cycle of deprivation.

Our criminal justice system is a joke. Sentencing policy is lax and anti social behaviour is too often understood rather than erradicated.

It is far far too simplistic to look at these problems through the prism of marriage. Marriage is not a panacea, individual responsibility is. That requires the state to step back and allow individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, have a stake in their neighbourhoods and communities and not simply depend on the Government.

We have created a culture where people look to the Government first and themselves last. That must be addresses and that is what I would want to see from any conservative government. Radical reform of thw welfare state.

[Tory Loyalist]

Can we therefore take it, that Mr Cameron will remove the Conservative whip from any MP who does not behave with the utmost propriety. Perhaps he could start with Boris Johnston and James Gray.
_______________________________________________________________

Gray is being deselected by his association and Howard - quite rightly - went out of his way to show that Johnson was out of favour.

To use those extremely uncharacteristic words of John Major, it's time we listened a little less and condemned a little more.

IDS was (eventually) quite clear in his statement this morning. Co-habitation has negative results. It is old-fashioned marriage that the party should be promoting.

So let us be quite clear about this. We as a party DO have the right to make moral judgments in the public interest, and in return for that right we have a duty to maintain high moral standards among our own people.

Those who stray should be warned once, perhaps twice, and then removed. There should be no exceptions.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Jonathan at 14.48, how about this for a fine example of BSE ("Blame somebody else")?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6168285.stm

[Sean Fear]

Absolutely, Mark.

The report fails to uncover *actual* racial prejudice on the part of teachers, so has to invent "unwitting" racial prejudice.

It is a pretty peculiar form of racial prejudice that sees Indian and Chinese pupils outperforming white pupils by some margin, in schools.

[Denis Cooper]

Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that "marriage is an honourable estate" and that it's in the interests of society as a whole that it should be recognised and honoured as such. That's as opposed to people shacking up together for a few months, describing that as a "long term relationship", and in the event of a child being conceived either killing it or depending on others to help raise it.

I'd rather see some of my taxes being used to provide real incentives for marriage, especially of course if there are children involved, than have the same money or far more wasted on struggling to deal with the adverse social consequences of the chaotic personal and family relationships which have become common.

What's more if certain people or groups claim that support for marriage would be unfair to them, or an unwarranted interference in personal affairs, or no business of the state, I'd remind them that they are probably paying taxes to deal with the multiple problems which have been exacerbated by politicians foolishly deciding that the state should be "neutral" on marriage, not to say downright hostile to it, and they're just as likely to suffer the consequences of those problems.

The only question in my mind is the best way to give marriage the recognition and honour which it merits, and there I think that perhaps increasing financial benefits with the duration of the marriage would be a useful principle.

[TomTom]

Can we therefore take it, that Mr Cameron will remove the Conservative whip from any MP who does not behave with the utmost propriety. Perhaps he could start with Boris Johnston and James Gray.

Ideally he would remove the Whip completely and abolish him.........these MPs represent Constituency Parties and should be censured by that local party

[Londoner]

"We as a party DO have the right to make moral judgments in the public interest, and in return for that right we have a duty to maintain high moral standards among our own people." says "Tory Loyalist". Sure, Loyalist, a party has that right: it's just that not many of us want to exercise it thank-you. And the fear is that it might be being exercised for us, with us all (or all actual and potential public representatives) being hung for it. "Judge not that ye be not judged" is a very suitable Tory text in the area of sexual morality in my view.

Michael McGowan: you have slightly misunderstood my previous point about the incentive to divorce only affecting the middle classes. I was absolutely agreeing with you that there are incentives to the less economically well-off party in a middle class (and above, if there is an above) marriage to get divorced, because of the batty divorce laws on the split of assets etc. My qualification was only that in a marriage where there is very little materially, then the economic incentive to divorce may not be there (because half of nothing is usually in fact a smaller nothing each). One of my cavils at civil partnerships is the wish not to visit on a whole new raft of people (i.e. gays) the same State-imposed draconian powers to rearrange assets, including those that had nothing to do with the relationship (e.g. inheritance).

To Denis Cooper: I would agree with you if you restricted your wish to see a bias towards marriage to marriages with children. I think it is very difficult to see the public benefit of marriages which do not involve children; about the only one might be fewer households helping the housing shortage, but childless couples are probably more likely to have second homes due to higher disposable income - so I am not even sure that that applies totally. And this is before one adds into the equation ones distaste at the State telling adults how they should best organise their personal lives.

But children yes - anything that reinforces the truth that the least you can do for your children is to commit to try to stay together to bring them up by marrying, I would support. That is why actually I have more of a problem with couples who are together, have children and don't bother to get married than I do with genuine single mothers from the outset who might have made a very courageous decision after a mistake to let their child be born rather than to have an abortion. Deliberate conception, with no intention of being married, is the social evil that I think we should be addressing.

[Tory Loyalist]

That is why actually I have more of a problem with couples who are together, have children and don't bother to get married
_______________________________________________________________

I utterly, utterly detest this tendency, far more than any of the other fashionable
"lifestyles" which which we are deluged these days.

Nor do I understand it. Maybe someone else will explain why these people behave like this.

[Mark Fulford]

Maybe someone else will explain why these people behave like this.

Easy. My wife and I chose to have a child before we were married. Apart from costing me about 15 grand (which would probably have been better saved for my children’s education) the decision to marry was totally trivial compared to the utterly life-changing decision to have children.

I am absolutely confident of my love for my wife and of her love for me. If it turns out that our confidence is misplaced, a piece of paper or a tax break isn't going to change anything.

What we should really be seeking is for both parents to understand the commitment and dedication a child requires. I would love to be a politician but can not because it would take more time than being a parent allows. In my eyes, politicians put their careers above their family and therefore I am highly resentful of any lecture from any politician about making a good family or parent.

[Michael McGowan]

Thanks, Londoner....in that case, I agree with you entirely.

[Lex]

Report sounds bang on - So was IDS on the Today Programme.

[Rachel Joyce]

As Cameron & Maude have said, we should tax the bad things & reward the good. At the moment there are clear financial disadvantages to being married, and this needs to be remedied.
However, it is not as simple as that. It is no longer considered necessary to get married, or even to have a partner before having children. A sensible, informed public debate, improved education, and social policy (not just fiscal) that support marriage are clearly needed. I look forward to reading IDS's policy suggestions.

[Esbonio]

Mark Fulford refers to marriage as "a piece of paper"; I suspect I know what he is getting at but it really is more than a piece of paper as anyone who has been divorced can tell him.

He is right of course to note how important having children is which is why the legal consequences of fatherhood under the Children Act can be so onerous.

[Denis Cooper]

Londoner, it's still the case that most married couples without children eventually become married couples with children, and personally I wouldn't wait until a child is born before giving public recognition and honour to the marriage, and nor would I withhold it if the marriage proved childless, or withdraw it once any children had grown up. And to be clear I would not withhold the same public recognition and honour from same sex civil partnerships. Where is the public benefit in stable childless marriages or civil partnerships? Apart from anything else, in promoting stability, providing strong and durable links within the fabric of society. But of course nobody need commit themselves to formal marriage or civil partnership if they don't want to. I only suggest that rather than being constantly derided it should be seen as an "honourable estate", but certainly not compulsory.

[Ted]

Mark
- there is a difference between the general as against the specific. In general marriage is much better for children - that little bit of paper plus the public avowal of partnership creates a stable platform, and one in which the partners put their individual wants needs below those of the partnership. In specific cases many marriages (not the majority) fail for all sorts of reasons, some co-habitations last a lifetime.

In deciding to have a child you are jointly making a committment, why is it so difficult then to recognise that a public demonstration of this committment in which you both promise to put the other and children before self and provide a huge committment to stability for the children is as important.

I agree with comments that the law should put the father & mother on equal footing as regards children, both in custody and in giving unmarried fathers legal rights to match their legal obligations. But simplest way to gain these rights is through marriage.

[Mark Fulford]

The statistics show that married families are most stable. However, it’s not possible (and probably not accurate) to infer that marriage causes stability. A far more likely explanation for the stability statistic is that people who marry are inclined to stable relationships.

In preaching “family” we are preaching the wrong point while missing the right one. It’s absolutely possible to say that children with two parents do better and that both parents have responsibility for their children and the human cost of failing them.

The State should be concentrating on parenthood, not marriage.

[matt wright]

I think we are running ahead of ourselves here. IDS has launched a report for discussion which will lead to policies. The review seems to be largely in the right direction and DC has welcomed it. Some of you again seem to be taking sides before we know what DC will actually use from the report and how. So far so good and clearly supporting the family is vital and a key part of addressing social problems,

Matt

[Tory Loyalist]

Easy. My wife and I chose to have a child before we were married. Apart from costing me about 15 grand (which would probably have been better saved for my children’s education)

______________________________________________________________

If you really think it's necessary to waste £15,000 on a wedding, that possibly says even more about you than the fact that you deliberately set out to have a child out of wedlock.

Let's hope your child grows up to appreciate your "right-on" approach to such matters. I certainly wouldn't have done had I learned that my parents were unmarried at the time of my birth, but then "coolness" isn't my forte, as you've already gathered.

[TomTom]

The State should be concentrating on parenthood, not marriage.

Then civil partnerships will have to be extended to all so brother and sister functioning as surrogate parents have legal protection and comments like The State should be concentrating on parenthood, not marriage.

suggest families are now to be subject to Gordon Brown's close attention..........that is not the view of what used to be called Conservatives but as Sir Wm Harcourt said We are all Socialists now

[TomTom]

agree with comments that the law should put the father & mother on equal footing as regards children

Impossible in a country which allows tax-payer funded IVF for Single Women and Lesbians

[Tory Loyalist]

Then civil partnerships will have to be extended to all so brother and sister functioning as surrogate parents have legal protection and comments like The State should be concentrating on parenthood, not marriage.

________________________________________________________________

As we now seem to be saddled with the Socialist policy of "Civil Partnerships" this would be the fairest way to proceed.

In an age when housing development is one of the greatest menaces our country faces it will encourage "house sharing" along the lines of car sharing.

It will also make "sexuality" a non-issue in this sphere. Most Tories - myself included - don't hate homosexuals; they simply believe in the principle of "don't ask don't tell".

[Mark Fulford]

that possibly says even more about you than the fact that you deliberately set out to have a child out of wedlock.

Pseudonyms throwing insults. How cowardly has this country become?

[Londoner]

Mark Fulford - I do not come on here to criticise another individual's life decisions and the arguments you put forward are common. But if couples making your decision are unlucky enough to hit a rough passage in their relationship when children are very little (not unusual I would suggest bearing in mind the stresses and intrusion that young mites are), I believe (all other things being equal) that the public and legal commitment of marriage makes it more likely that couples persist and work it through.

It is precisely because I agree with you that the commitment of having children together, if properly understood, is greater than a marriage commitment that it seems little to ask in the interests of the children for the parents to make that commitment. Incidentally, even under the present law it adds risk not to be married if, for instance, you fail to make a will, have pension arrangements that favour widows/widowers, or have a house that puts you into Inheritance Tax.

I also agree that there is no need to spend £15,000 on a wedding. In my observation, the more lavish the wedding, the shorter it tends to last. £2,000 all in can buy a nice dress, allow a small ceremony for closest family and friends and buy a nice lunch afterwards. You can always have a big party, church blessing or renewal of vows etc. (if that's your thing) on the 5th or 10th or any other anniversary and have that big party then if you want. The children can even enjoy that without wondering why you didn't bother to get married before.

So I look forward to proposals that encourage parents (and prospective parents) to get married. I would not even mind a State-sponsored "marriage lite" - perhaps called a "Children's responsibility partnership" if there was a demand for it. But I do not look forward to any political postering regarding situations not involving children, least of all, as mentioned above, politicians lecturing adults on the joys of making personal commitments to each other (gay, hetero, bi-sexual or anything else!).

[Mark Fulford]

An unmarried father has less rights with respect to his children than his married counterpart. A devoted unmarried father therefore has more to lose through separation and a greater incentive to work problems through. It is counter-intuitive to say

the public and legal commitment of marriage makes it more likely that couples persist and work it through.

so I wonder if you have any evidence for “public and legal commitment” being the reason that married couples are more likely to stay together. It seems far more likely to me that the reasons come down to the characters of the couple.

I am married, so I'm clearly not anti-marriage, but I don't think it’s a Holy Grail and I certainly don't think it's a matter for the State. If we're going to spend tax money on a message, the message should be “devotion”, not “marriage”. It is far more important that young men and women realise the seriousness of having a child.

As to the amount I spent on a wedding, it really is a matter of personal choice. Despite my quip I don’t regret a penny of what I spent and, dare I blow my own trumpet, I understand that when it comes to a rock, bigger really is better.

[Lucy]

"when it comes to a rock, bigger really is better"

More men should be so enlightened!

[Sean Fear]

"when it comes to a rock, bigger really is better"

More men should be so enlightened!"

Not necessarily. Some big rocks are incredibly tasteless!

[Londoner]

Just to reassure Lucy, I agree with Mark Fulford at least on rocks. I must admit I wasn't really counting that as part of the cost of the wedding - more of the engagement. I also find further rocks (or their near equivalents) go down quite well each time a child is born. It seems only polite really when one thinks what a mother goes through (ouch).

An unmarried father possibly has more to lose in some ways, but less in others. My intuition differs from Mark's but the statistics lend more support to my view, although I do accept that, in the absence of a controlled sample, we cannot tell whether marriage enhances commitment to bringing up children together or such commitment makes marriage more likely. Either way though, marriage would be an encouraging symptom. The statistic that nearly 50% of births are outside wedlock is on the contrary a very discouraging symptom.

[Tory Loyalist]

that possibly says even more about you than the fact that you deliberately set out to have a child out of wedlock.

Pseudonyms throwing insults. How cowardly has this country become?
________________________________________________________________

You seem very touchy Mr Fulford. Maybe you'd better extend those criticisms to some of the more obnoxious anonymous posters hailing from your wing of the party.

I spent hundreds, not thousands, on my wedding and, no, nobody else was sharing the bill. Like most newly-wed we had very little money, and what we had we were disinclined to waste.

Twenty five years later I spent considerably more on the very worthwhile celebration of our silver wedding. By that time I could well afford to do so.

Like Londoner I have observed that the length of a marriage appears to run in inverse proportion to its cost and vulgarity

[ToMTom]

A devoted unmarried father therefore has more to lose through separation and a greater incentive to work problems through. It is counter-intuitive to say

the public and legal commitment of marriage makes it more likely that couples persist and work it through.

But an adulterous female has ALL the rights when she moves in with her new boyfriend taking the children her ex-cohabitee must pay for

[Lucy]

some of the more obnoxious anonymous posters hailing from your wing of the party.

I can't think of any. Who do you mean?

Twenty five years later I spent considerably more on the very worthwhile celebration of our silver wedding. By that time I could well afford to do so.

So spending on a celebration is not wasteful provided you can afford it. Hurray - we are in complete agreement!

I suspect you were resentful that we were able to afford it but a) you probably married younger with less savings and b) get over it.

Now, shall we get back to whether marriage is something for government to espouse?

[Mark Fulford]

Just spluttering as I notice my post in Lucy's name. Should probably explain... Lucy is a visiting friend who laughed at what I had written earlier and wanted to add her own thoughts. This’ll make her laugh even more!

[Londoner]

This thread has mercifully descended into comedy. I wonder whether Lucy is in fact a nom de plume of Mark F, possibly used on other more adventurous websites? How can we be sure now that someone else was admiring his rock earlier or whether his only admirer (so far as rocks are concerned at least) is himself? Alternatively does Mark's wife know about Lucy's unhygenic use of Mark's computer? Is Lucy Mark's wife? The possibilities are endless.

It's totally off the point but although Lucy/Mark now says to Loyalist that he COULD afford a lavish wedding, I thought he started by saying he didn't get married at first because he couldn't afford one. As Loyalist then said this was no reason not to get married, it seems odd for Mark then to say that Loyalist is jealous that Mark waited until he could afford 15K. I think Mark must be jealous that he's going to have to wait longer than Loyalist until his Silver Wedding, unless that is Lucy continues to admire his rocks so much that that becomes irrelevant...

[Tory Loyalist]

Oh dear Mark. Wasn't that an embarrassing little slip? You'd better keep a beady eye on autofill or you'll be blowing the gaff on a few more of your sock puppets.

"Lucy" has been posting for weeks. Can this mean that you are running an ongoing menage-a-trois at Fulford Towers?

I do not approve of expensive weddings full stop. I think they are a very bad example of waste, greed, drunkenness and hubris. Since the majority of marriages seem to end in divorce these days most of the money spent on these idiotic booze-fuelled jamborees can be regarded as going straight down the toilet.

Still at least we'll give you credit for (apparently) footing the bill yourself. Those of my friends whose children have got married recently seem to end up writing the cheques themselves and getting little gratitude for their pains.

[Tory Loyalist]

Just read Londoner's, posted while I was composing last.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Fulford]

I fully appreciate the comedy value of two anonymous posters becoming so gleeful and smutty about the slip of a cookie.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but it really was as innocent as I said. That there is another Lucy in the world must be some kind of bizarre coincidence.

"Londoner", you may have thought I started by saying that I couldn't afford a wedding but, with the whole thread visible above, there's no excuse for getting it wrong. So no great deception, and no great confusion of argument either.

"Tory Loyalist", the Colonel Blimp caricature of Conservative beliefs that you play is hardly likely to use ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you slip out of character for a moment?

[Londoner]

I must be the real Col Blimp as I have had to email Loyalist to ask what those initials stand for. One man's humour is another man's smut, I guess. Sorry if this time it was at your expense but, in my case certainly, it was meant in good part.

You seem to have a thing about anon. Having once blogged under my own name and found it coming up on a Google search on me which might be used when searching for me in a professional capacity, I am wary of using my name, even when I am just being political rather than trying to be humorous. I also think the possibility of anonymity is part and parcel of ConHome. It makes for greater candour.

[Londoner]

I have now re-read Mark F's entries on the thread. I think I now understand that his view is that marriage is unimportant compared with children as it is just a piece of paper, but it is still something to spend £15,000 on.

Maybe there is a connection between the expensive wedding=often short marriage hypothesis and the expensive=unimportant piece of paper one. But this is a generalisation and I am certainly not meaning any insult to Mark or indeed his marriage which I am delighted to read is a blissful one.

[Mark Fulford]

Sorry if this time it was at your expense

Family breakdown is a serious subject but, nevertheless, today has entertained me no end.

I haven’t got a problem with anonymity when views are honestly held – i.e. for candour. When anonymity is used to damage an opposing argument, I find it underhand. For example, a Labour supporter admitted to me that when they posted on CH they pretended to be a xenophobic, homophobic wing-nut in order to make right-wing arguments look foolish. I’m not convinced that Tory Loyalist doesn’t fit that category. Piss-take is always funny, but anonymous personal attacks are just pathetic.

As for the link between expense and longevity – it doesn’t fit what I see around me. I have seen many marriages work and three marriages ruined: one through adultery and two through depression. In the three that failed, it’s my strong suspicion that the root cause was that parenthood didn’t live up to the fathers’ expectations. I’m absolutely certain that the cost of their weddings (which were each very different) was irrelevant. This is why I wish we would focus on parenthood, not marriage.

[Esbonio]

I can see two sides to this debate. On the one hand marriage can (incorrectly) be seen just as a piece of paper when in reality as noted earlier its consequences are very important. On the other hand it is a very important institution. If you have ever been married, divorced, or advised on divorces you will know this.

As for the cost of marriage I understand the average is £20k. I agree however it is possible to get by on a lot less, if you are so inclined.

PS

Don't parents contribute any more? My wife reckons we need at least £20K in today's prices set aside for only daughter.

[Londoner]

I have now found from Google what ROFLMAO stands for. Thanks Loyalist.

Mark, it would still be very possible to carve out a mad ring wing persona whilst sticking a realistic sounding "real" name on it with an email address set up to match. Equally, having been posting on here now for a few months as "Londoner" I feel Londoner has a reputation to protect, even if it's separate from my own.

If I wanted to pretend to be something different to what I am, I think I'd invent a real sounding name, like Mark Fulford...(joke). But, seriously, it's part of the territory here that sometimes one is attacked. [Londoner got misrepresented a little time ago for being a raving Cameroon, which I found a little offensive, but I got over it.] I think if one gives personal details (like in your case about your marriage) then one must accept that it will be open season for people to discuss/attack them if they so wish. If that is going to be too painful, then don't personalise it. I know that's a bit hard when you only gave the details in response to someone asking why people having children didn't get married, but it's the only way to proceed.

On longevity of marriage, I'll call it a score draw.

[Londoner]

Esbonio

I agree with you. I have three sons and am of the firm view that the parents of the bride should pay, although I believe the bridegroom's father picks up the honeymoon. (But in view of multiple marriages, in each case, this should be only once per daughter/son.) It is right and proper that the bride's parents pay because the son's education is still usually more expensive than the daughter's, and the daughter is likely to keep the son's family's jewellery if they get divorced.

If the children marry young, the parents can afford the cost better. If they marry when the parents have grown old, it is good Inheritance Tax planning.

[Tory Loyalist]

I have now found from Google what ROFLMAO stands for. Thanks Loyalist.
_______________________________________________________________

Sorry I've been offline or would have responded. I don't often access my lycos email account.

I fail to see how the use of amusing net acronyms proves to Mr Fulford that I must be a "phoney reactionary". I would say it has a lot more with the amount of time you spend on internet forums, chatrooms etc.

If "smilies" were available on CH I would be using them freely, especially when dealing with Mark.

As for "Lucy" the gentleman doth protest too much. We'll believe him. Thousands wouldn't.

[Esbonio]

Londoner

I think you are attempting rather transparently to pull my leg. Surely you are not a troll which I think was allided to earlier?

Either way I'll correct your etiquette. A large number of people do still assume that the bride's parents will pay for the wedding. The weddings I have been to recently certainly conform with that view. However even when I got married (first time round) there was a trend developing for some groom's parents to offer to make a contribution (the wine for example). Although even before that couples were offering to and in actuality paying for the event entirely themselves, as one of my siblings did. I certainly think second time round paying for yourself is quite common, which is what we did.

[Sean Fear]

I think once you are in a fairly well-paying job, paying for yourself is reasonable, which is what my wife and I did (and I was 36 when I got married).

[Tory Loyalist]

Esbonio, why don't you just give her £19,000 towards the house and keep £1000 aside for the wedding?

The worst thing about most of these people who spend this kind of money is that they have to borrow it.

Cue the "Tosser Test"?

[Esbonio]

Well done Sean. A good age to get married. Of course some parents do like/feel it is their duty to give their children a good send off. And if you have ever been to a Greek wedding you'll know what I mean.

[Londoner]

It's obviously disappointing to all us fathers of eligible sons that Esbonio is expecting us to contribute as well. I'll clearly have to look for somewhere more traditionalist. Do you think I should try a UKIP website?

[tired and emotional]

Isn't it the case that the figures show that marriage beats all other forms of relationship hands-down when it comes to outcomes for children?

If that is the case how is it possible that we are even debating whether or not a political party should promote this blessed state as the no.1 model for a stable society?