If you want to be tough on the causes of crime - you support the family

This is what David Cameron writes in today's Telegraph:

"We need to make it as socially unacceptable for fathers to avoid their responsibilities as drink-driving now is. As with drink-driving, it is a combination of government action and culture change that will make the difference.

In a thoughtful and forensic paper published by our Social Justice Policy Group today, Iain Duncan Smith sets out clearly the central task: making sure that young people grow up with a strong male influence in their lives. He points to the success of welfare reform in other countries to reverse the growth in lone parenthood. And he calls for a new focus on keeping male prisoners with children in touch with their families — a vital link which helps cut the chance of re-offending."

Really excellent stuff.

The Daily Mail likes it, too.  The Mail notes that President Bush's Healthy Marriages Initiative appears to be inspiring the Tory leader.  This is good news as practical support for marriage in the form of mentoring and education - alongside tax breaks - is vital to support marriages during difficult times and to prevent 'unhealthy marriages' from starting in the first place.

Related link: Download a PDF of the Social Justice Group's report here.

Comments

[simon]

A load of guff. Marrige is on the decline. people choosing to live alone is on the rise. Social/Economic conditions leading to crime is a load of guff too. I remember the words of i think Mrs T when she said that her family did not have 'much' they did not turn to crime. Quite right! A bit more 'stick' is required, no more bloody carrots!

[Denis Cooper]

David Cameron may think this a shrewd move, but he's made a bad mistake by selectively attacking men in this way. It won't be forgotten by the many would-be conscientious fathers who have fallen victim to the blatant injustice of the present divorce laws and the predations of the Child Support Agency, nor by the women and children who have suffered alongside them.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Denis, quite right. I think there should be a level playing field here.
1) Pre-nuptial agreements should be encouraged, with a statutory default that all assets and liabilities are split 50/50 with no maintenance payable to the mother. fi that means that the family home is sold, then so be it.
2) Instead of the bizarre way that maintenance is calculated under CSA rules (you need a degree in maths to understand it), there should be a flat weekly rate of (say) £35 per child per week payable to the parent who looks after the kids until they are 18. This should be irrespective of whether the father and mother were ever married and irrespective of the father's income, however low or high.
3) Under a Citizen's Income-style welfare scheme, a married full time mother would get the same benefits as a single mother. I prefer this to "transferable married woman's allowances" but it comes to much the same thing.

[spagbob]

i have just read that speech on the family e.t.c. that cameron gave last week - it is the best speech ive ever read from a politician. well done dave...more people should make speeches like that.

[Sean Fear]

That's true, Denis. Perhaps instead of looking at providing tax cuts for married couples, we should look to eliminate disincentives to marriage. One of these is the way that the laws relating to child custody, and maintenance penalise husbands. Any man is taking a considerable financial risk in getting married in this day and age. That's fine by Labour, who see fathers as purely an income stream (while having no other function) but it is something that any future Conservative government must put right.

[Valedictoryan]

"£35 per child per week... irrespective of the father's income..."

£5 a day to bring up a child. I'm glad I'm not your wife!

You're saying that a father on £50K should be able to bugger off and do things-more-fun, while ex-wifey and two kids have to survive on £3,600 a year + benefits (paid by me). You're having a laugh.

[Denis Cooper]

Valedictoryan, if you were Mark's wife you could decide to divorce him whether he was one of the feckless fathers who wanted to bugger off and do-things-more-fun, or whether he was a good father but you'd found someone else you fancied more, and either way the full weight of the law (and Cameron) would be on your side.

[malcolm]

Whilst I would applaud David Camerons ideas in trying to make marriage a more attractive prospect he has with this article left himself open to cries of injustice from spurned fathers as Denis Cooper indicates.
This subject is a minefield where politicians wiull have to tread very carefully and be extremely careful with the words they use.
Good stuff from the CSJ 'though.

[George Hinton]

I think DC has a tough way ahead if he thinks he can just ignore 50 years of socialist dogma and planning to eliminate the nuclear family.
The church won't help, they are on deep shit over gay rights and potential schism and have in any event done sweet FA on this front for decades.
Whilst one welcomes an attempt to resurrect the nuclear family, society as a whole will have to change if he wants to get tough on the causes of crime. Ignore the empty rhetoric of the left, criminals choose to commit crime, they are not forced, society does not create criminals, they make the option.
More jails, a clearer CJS, judges properly briefed and on-side---or retire them, and a proper social back-up for re-education, recidivists to get hard time and chain gangs--bugger their human rights, and bring back capital punishment for first degree murder and terrorist offences.
Our society today all know their rights, but have no concept of manners, good behaviour and social inter-action.

[mark]

Why not treat divorce as a matter of broken contract and allow the cuckolded man to sue the lover of an adulterous wife for any loss incurred. I think this may concentrate a few minds rather than David Cameron's immediate assumption that it is always the man who is to blame. This is probably a cynical attempt to gain women's votes, but as with everything he does he forgets the reaction of those that he isolates as being unimportant and passive.

[Sean Fear]

At what point did the law abolish damages for adultery?

[mark]

Sean Fear @ 14.22

Yes there are damages for the costs for bringing the divorce action but I had more draconian obligations in mind for the guilty parties.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Valedictorian, if you can come up with a better estimate than £35 then fine. I didn't say that this was enough to bring up a child, what's wrong with the mother paying her share as well?

Women will of course want a higher figure and men a lower figure. Other countries have a fixed rate and that is that. Or do you think that the CSA's rules are any better?

As things stand, all these single mums live entirely off benefits paid by you. I'd give them a bit less and expect absent Dad to cough up a bit more. Carrots and sticks.

Fair enough?

[Sean Fear]

No, it's a genuine question, Mark. Adulterers could once be sued for damages, but no longer. I'm interested to know when that particular legal change was brought in.

[George Hinton]

You can sue for -"alienation of affection"

Divorce needs to establish cause and blame and that predicates the financial split-up. It will eliminate gold diggers and make people think very hard before asking for a divorce and perhaps establish fidelity and loyalty.
Pre-nuptial agreements should also be encouraged and enforced.

[mark]

Sean Fear.......

I'm no expert in this area but I would imagine the move to the no blame culture in divorce began with the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 which became effective in 1971.
My point was that outsiders who cause a marital rift should carry the financial burden rather than for example a wronged husband who has observed his marital contract to the letter.
After all if I go out in my car and drive recklessly and injure someone I am culpible for any financial loss to that person.

[Valedictoryan]

"Why not treat divorce as a matter of broken contract and allow the cuckolded man to sue the lover of an adulterous wife for any loss incurred."

While we're at it, why don't we go the whole way and explicitly make the woman a possession of her husband – an object for two men to fight over in court.

"...if you can come up with a better estimate than £35 then fine. I didn't say that this was enough to bring up a child, what's wrong with the mother paying her share as well?"

Your question seems to deny that doing the childcare has any value that can be included in "her share".

There's no right figure for child maintenance. It has to be based on ability to pay and, in my opinion, it should be sufficient to make people think twice before creating any more children. They must be absolutely sure that they know what went wrong.

Several posts have a strong subtext that the blame for a failed relationship is often the woman’s alone. My experience is that it’s very rarely as simple as that. Any person who thinks that their partner single-handedly wrecked a relationship should take a very honest look at themselves.

[Mark Wadsworth]

V, Where you say "ability to pay" I see means testing/taxation/intrusion.

A flat rate means that hard working Dad knows what the fixed amount is; he can pay it and get on with his life. If he can improve his earnings in future, he doesn't have to pass on half to ex-wife.

An income-related amount means that hard working Dad has to fill in stupid forms for the next eighteen years and if he gets a pay rise loses most of it in tax and extra maintenance.

The real miscreant of the piece, dead-beat Dad who was absent ab initio will lie about his earnings and/or be claiming benefits anyway, so will pay little or nothing.

So your system is great for deadbeat Dad but punishes hard-working Dad. And it doesn;t work in practice - see CSA.

My system (which is alive in well in other countries) is better for hardworking Dad and a real deterrent to deadbeat Dad. And it is nice and simple and it works in practice.

Of course, if higher-earner Dad is happy to pay more, then fine.

If in doubt, I recommend that your read "The Price of Parenthood" by Jill Kirby and look up the CSA calculator.

[Valedictoryan]

"An income-related amount means that hard working Dad has to fill in stupid forms for the next eighteen years and if he gets a pay rise loses most of it in tax and extra maintenance."

The CSA, like all government departments, needs overhaul. There's no reason why the CSA can't get income figures directly from Inland Revenue - without any form-filling on the part of the father.

Most parents would laugh at the idea that their pay rises are theirs to spend. I don't see why absent fathers should be any different.

Child-maintenance should simply make sure that fathers do their share of providing for their children. Politicians shouldn't try to use it as a punitive tool to keep families together. "Deadbeat Dad" gets off lightly, and that's grossly unfair, but it's equally unfair that the difference in wealth between unemployment and low-income employment is so little. What are we to do though? Throw debtors into prison (at our expense)? Leave children to starve? Our civilisation isn't yet so threatened that we have to become inhumane.

[Sean Fear]

V, I think that it's pretty obvious that the fault for the break up will often be the woman's; and it will often be the man's. And often both parties'.

But the general point that our divorce laws often do injustice is a reasonable one.

[William Norton]

Sean: the right to sue for "criminal conversation" was scrapped by the Law Reform Act 1970. In effect, you could sue someone who committed adultery with your wife on the basis that it was a form of trespass (don't think wife could sue the "other woman"). I think it was one of those occasional modernisation measures the Law Commission are always badgering about.

That law also abolished breach of promise actions, but provides that an engagement ring is not returnable unless it was an express or implied condition of the gift that the marriage goes ahead.

[Alex Forsyth]

Great idea. Suspend their fathership licence for three years and put them on a parenting course before they get it back.

What utter guff. It shows how totally silver-spoon Cameron is removed from the harshness of real life.

You don't see these absent fathers for dust. The best you can do is to try and screw some cash out of them and 9 times out of 10 that doesn't work.

[Alex Forsyth]

No, it's a genuine question, Mark. Adulterers could once be sued for damages

It used to be possible for a husband to bring an action of "Criminal Conversation" against an adulterer.

Such an action was brought against the Earl of Cardigan of Light Brigade fame. I recall reading a very amusing account of the husband's detective cowering under a creaking sofa as the Earl and the errant wife cavorted above.

Cardigan was a noted duellist and horsewhipper, so he cowered with good reason.

[Alex Forsyth]

No, it's a genuine question, Mark. Adulterers could once be sued for damages

It used to be possible for a husband to bring an action of "Criminal Conversation" against an adulterer.

Such an action was brought against the Earl of Cardigan of Light Brigade fame. I recall reading a very amusing account of the husband's detective cowering under a creaking sofa as the Earl and the errant wife cavorted above.

Cardigan was a noted duellist and horsewhipper, so he cowered with good reason.

[Valedictoryan]

"But the general point that our divorce laws often do injustice is a reasonable one."

Sean I agree, but the injustice isn’t the financial element. I think the court does a pretty good job of balancing the financial needs of the absent parent, parent and children.

The injustice is that a father can be involuntarily made absent too easily. To resolve this I would prefer the courts to be more inclined to give custody of the children to the father, especially if he was less than 50% to blame for the divorce.

The risk of losing their children makes fathers think twice about straying. I don’t see why mothers shouldn’t have the same deterrent.

[Denis Cooper]

The reality is that there are different paths to single parenthood, or to focus on the most usual case single motherhood, and they should not all be lumped together.

A married mother could be turned into a single mother by an accident of fate, for example because her loving husband and the devoted father of her children died in a rail crash on his way to work. Neither could be blamed in any way, and in earlier times it would have been seen as a great misfortune that she had not only lost her husband, but was left to raise their children alone. At the other extreme there are single mothers who have deliberately got themselves pregnant in order to jump the queue for social housing, and men of the "find, f*** and forget" type. Trying to reduce these widely varying circumstances down to a single problem with "Deadbeat Dads" is both stupid and insulting to men in general - something to be expected from New Labour politicians, but not from David Cameron.

[Alex Forsyth]

Well I suppose my late mother was a "single parent" as she was widowed when I was 11 years old.

I find it thoroughly that she whould these days be effectively shovelled into the same pigeonhole as "unmarried mothers"

[jailhouselawyer]

As two thirds of the prison population is made up of care leavers, something needs to be done about this problem if prison overcrowding is to be solved. Prison building is not the answer. It's having measures in place to prevent offending in the first place, and stop re-offending in the second place.

[malcolm]

Jailhouselawyer I thought you were barred from this site but as you're here I'm curious,what effective measures could a government put in place to 'prevent offending'.

[Mark Wadsworth]

V, I am talking from experience here. I was divorced under German rules, statutory 50/50 split of assets, no maintenance for Mum, £50 a week per child maintenance and no back-chat. I'm not saying it was pleasant or anything, but at least you can settle up fairly quickly and get on with your life. I have heard real horror stories about English divorces.

V, yes it is an outrage that Mum automatically gets the kids. Again, under my system this will even out. If Mum really wants the kids, she can have them but has to make do with £35 per week per child maintenance. So Dad loses the kids (which is a terrible emotional wrench) but doesn't get screwed over for money as well.

Do you understand my objection to means-testing of maintenance?

Denis, I made a distinction between two extreme ends of spectrum, the FFF/deadbeat Dads and the hardworking Dads whose wife runs off with the milkman (or worse). There are infinite shades of grey between the two. I am not lumping all Dads in together. It's the same as you giving examples of the single mum in voluntary poverty and the "innocent" widow or deserted wife.

[Mark Wadsworth]

V "it is equally unfair that the difference in wealth between unemployment and low-income employment is so little"

Yup, that's a job for a Citizen's Income/flat tax-type welfare and tax system. Send me and email if you want that explained.

[jailhouselawyer]

malcolm: Why on earth should I be barred?, 25 years is enough for any person. Have you not heard of freedom of expression? The Tories really will have to get thicker skins if a few words from me upset them.

I was watching the programme last night on BBC 2 following Newsnight, where 4 out of 7 children in one family suffered from autism, and the father had gone AWOL. The mother was getting one of the children assessed, and the expert predicted that the child might end up in the Criminal Justice System when he grew up. If they can predict the likely outcome like this, then surely they can come up with a course of treatment more likely to lead the child in a different direction? I have Asperger Syndrome, and I remember my barrister telling the judge that I needed help not imprisonment but the judge said that I would receive all the help I needed in prison. He was wrong. Many offences and many sentences later, I did receive the necessary treatment. However, in between there was a wasted life and a big waste of taxpayers money. I feel we need to get away from this notion that all offenders are evil. Too many have mental problems and this requires psychologists searching for the causes in each individual. Its a bit like throwing rubbish away when much of it can be recycled. I think it was Gladstone in 1832 who suggested that individual treatment programmes should be introduced. There is not one cure for all. But, I think patterns would suggest a suitable approach for those with a particular mindset. Those with Aspergers are different and should be treated differently. The CJS is catching up with this idea but it is moving too slowly, and not enough education is in place for those working within the system to identify those suffering from AS.

[Noisy Summer]

I was having a fascinating conversation in my student union bar a few hours ago. It really made me realise the absolute overriding importance of my upbringing on my personal values, it was one of those semiotic moments! The whole future of our country I would say depends on this; nothing matters more than having a real value based family upbringing; I am quite sure of it!

[Noisy Summer]

I was having a fascinating conversation in my student union bar a few hours ago. It really made me realise the absolute overriding importance of my upbringing on my personal values, it was one of those semiotic moments! The whole future of our country I would say depends on this; nothing matters more than having a real value based family upbringing; I am quite sure of it!

[thatcherite]

"Iain Duncan Smith sets out clearly the central task: making sure that young people grow up with a strong male influence in their lives."

That really means a man and a woman, not two men!

[Richard Carey]

That really means a man and a woman, not two men!

I'm really not sure what you think you're adding to the debate by posting that, "thatcherite". Some of those issues have been debated on here before, and we have not always collectively done ourselves credit.

Families come in all shapes and sizes, not all of them the "traditional ideal", and many of those do a fantastic job.

This is not about passing judgement on the configuration of a family, as you seem to seek to do, but suporting those who make a commitment to each other and to the upbringing of a child.

I agree that on a statistical basis the "nuclear family" produces the best outcomes for children - but families and children are not statistics, they all deserve our respect and support, and I fail to see how comments like this help.

[cleo]

Politicians have to be careful about talking up family values. Strong and stable families are important yes but children have to get a good education and they get values from the community at large. A strong society is also created by a vibrant community and voluntary sector that can support families of all variations.

[Matt Wright]

Cameron is generally right on this. An increasing number of children are growing up in an amoral atmosphere without a stable family and no expectations of life at all. The schools can't do much with them. We have to start somewhere and re-build the norms. It will require bot carrot and stick and determination to see it through. It will take 2 generations to solve it,

Matt

[Denis Cooper]

I think that's a crucial point, Matt, and not just on this issue. A problem which has built up over decades or even generations can't necessarily be solved in a
few years. Some can, but in most cases it will take decades or generations to fully reverse the trends. This is also true for example with car use - over half a century or more we've gradually moved to an economic and social structure
which depends very heavily on people being able to clock up huge average mileages each year, and they can't just abruptly stop doing that.

[Martin Bristow]

The problem with much of the Cameron prognosis is that he seems to be arguing that the state can solve the problem of family breakdown.At the margin it is true that fiscal changes may help those soaked by the ever rising tax bill meaning they avoid financial collapse and breakdown.

In reality there is little the state can do without a sea change in the intellectual climate of accepted oppinion.Ideas are crucial in politics.We should crusade against the amoral social mores that have underpinned our society over the past 2 decades.Communities and families should be encouraged to operate in an environment where there are taboos relating to raising to children alone.The welfare benefits and access to housing need to be curtailed for those contemplating parenthood without the fiscal means to foster self reliance.Sexual relationships need to be seen as an expression of love that bring responsibilities ultimately as well as pleasure.

I apologise if all this offends some of the commentators on this strand.I may appear completely out of step.It is necessary to take on the prevailing norms of social conduct,hold these up to inspection and come up with a new vision.Cameron appears to be skirting around the real issues scared to seem out of touch.I for one don't accept the prevailing perceived reality.

[Tim D]

This is my cry for help .. MEP has screwed me into neer loosing my house .. They take most of my paycheques every cheque wich in the last 30 days has equiled neer to $4000 in payments to MEP .. i i called MEP and talk to Terry Rach .. i asked for a little bit of a break maby some help .. all he said is "what do you want me to say" ... i am at the end of my rope here and dont know what to do heck the one child was 5 when i met him and i am paying back payments fron day 1 =$12000 i am not even allowed to tell this kid i am his dad these ppl are runing my life home and family and like i said i am on ym last nurve .. some one pls tell me what i can do ([email protected]) is my e-mail