Here are some key themes from David Cameron's speech to Welsh Tories later today where he will focus on the role of the family in fighting crime, reducing poverty and improving the quality of life:
- Britons are tired of living in a nation that is "economically rich but socially poor".
- "This is not about saying that single parents do a bad job. They do the hardest job in the world. It is simply saying that kids do best when mum and dad are both there for them. And we should not ignore that one compelling fact. Nearly one in two cohabiting parents split up before their child's fifth birthday, compared to one in 12 married parents. That is why we support marriage."
- He will acknowledge that culture will play at least as important a role as government policies such as tax breaks: "In particular we need to create the right social pressures, applying the full force of shame to fathers who run away from their responsibilities."
- "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who opposed everything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, now admit they were wrong... You know and I know and everyone out there knows that the big argument in British politics today is about our society. Because it's not economic breakdown that Britain faces today, but social breakdown. I think it's time we recognised that family breakdown is the central factor in the social breakdown we see in our country today."
Editor's comment: "This is a bold and unambiguous commitment by the Tory leader to the central role of marriage and the family in defeating our nation's social challenges. It is very welcome. When Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group makes its recommendations on family policy David Cameron will have the policy tools to deliver the family-friendly government that he seems determined to lead."
12.45pm update: The Sunday Times is reporting that there is internal resistance to the emphasis on marriage: "Despite the lead set by Duncan Smith and Cameron, insiders say Oliver Letwin, Cameron’s policy chief and mentor, is fearful that “banging on” about marriage will undermine the campaign to show the Conservative party has changed... Privately Francis Maude, the party chairman, is said to share Letwin’s concerns. However, both Cameron and his chief adviser, Steve Hilton, are convinced that pushing marriage is the right thing."
A paradox this one. Cameron is undoubtedly a 'family' man. He's not a bible-bashing fanatic. He has credibility on this issue. But, i think it will register nowhere 'out-there' where it matters. Tax-breaks to 'keep families together'? What rot. What is needed is families to have more TIME together instead of both parents HAVING to work to pay off colossal, and in most cases unpayable, mortgage loans. We have now reached a turning-point. A new conservative government has to grasp the housing issue; the work/life balance to have any real credibility about being remotely serious about 'keeping families together'.
Posted by: simon | March 04, 2007 at 12:08
Simon - and I've heard Willets and Cameron talk about those s well. My concern isn't that Cameon talks about the importance of marriage but that he also addresses the wider issues affecting families that IDS and other commentators have raised.
Posted by: Ted | March 04, 2007 at 12:12
Nearly one in two cohabiting parents split up before their child's fifth birthday, compared to one in 12 married parents. That is why we support marriage.
I wish Francis Maude had made that point on Question Time last week during the hammering he took over tax incentives for married couples. Why on earth he also failed to make the point that parents can receive more money by being apart, rather than being together, beggars belief. The incentive to be apart should be removed.
No one is suggesting that people should stay in dysfunctional relationships and I believe that only married couples with children should benefit from any tax breaks. But surely it is preferable to ensure that a couple with children who remain together should not be financially worse off than couple who have had children and split up.
It is also time for the circumstances behind a marital breakdown to be examined properly in court. If a woman has got bored, had an affair and left the relationship, the man should only contribute towards the children and not her upkeep. Also he should have a fair hearing for custody of the children and keeping the marital home. If however he has caused the breakdown through his unacceptable behaviour then of course he should not be rewarded for it and should provide more for the family he affected.
Posted by: Tony | March 04, 2007 at 12:16
This is a bold and unambiguous commitment by the Tory leader to the central role of marriage and the family in defeating our nation's social challenges. It is very welcome
Yes but unfortunatly too many of us recall his "inclusive" comments at Bournemouth which rubbished the sacrament of Marriage in true Blairite Politically Correct style.
We don't want an "Heir to Blair". We want an alternative to Blair.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 04, 2007 at 12:21
A new conservative government has to grasp the housing issue; the work/life balance to have any real credibility about being remotely serious about 'keeping families together'.
Couldn't agree more. There was a time when only one parent needed to work in order for a family to be "comfortable". Now both parents need to work to maintain the same affluence - and during the same period the price of "goods" has plummeted.
Housing costs are a serious issue except for those old enough to buy their "final" house before the current spiral started. We need a new planning and housing policy and fast.
Posted by: Ed Clarke | March 04, 2007 at 12:26
Cameron makes some excellent points. Question is, will he tackle our oversized welfare system that encourages social breakdown?
Posted by: Richard | March 04, 2007 at 12:37
Alex Forsyth 12.21 - Cameron did NOT "rubbish" the Sacrament of Marriage. He accepted that some people can find another way to COMMITMENT.
Posted by: Perdix | March 04, 2007 at 12:51
Emphasising the importance of marriage and a stable family background shows that David Cameron is making a sound political judgement that is right in todays political climate.
Not only that, but David Cameron has done this very skilfully by going out of his way not to demonise single mothers, and to make clear that this is not a preaching and moralising mission by another politician.
Today's political climate is very different from the 1990s, and perhaps the 1990s was the wrong time for the arguments about single mothers to be made at that time.
Posted by: Brook Whelan | March 04, 2007 at 13:26
Indeed Perdix. We cannot support marriage AND rubbish other relationships, each should be judged on their worth and not on what they are called. We have to strike a balance here; marriage should be supported, but we have to accept that marriages are not always perfect and as a society we should not go back to the days of shaming people into staying together in worthless and often abusive marriages.
Posted by: Afleitch | March 04, 2007 at 13:30
Simon Walters has a story in the Mail on Sunday saying that Labour is beginning a divorce watch on Tory MPs. They plan to ask them if a Tory tax allowance would have stopped them from separating. Pretty childish stuff.
Posted by: CCHQ Spy | March 04, 2007 at 13:38
"I wish Francis Maude had made that point on Question Time last week during the hammering he took over tax incentives for married couples. Why on earth he also failed to make the point that parents can receive more money by being apart, rather than being together, beggars belief. The incentive to be apart should be removed."
Completely agree, Question Time was rather embarrassing on Thursday. Alan Duncan for Chairman.
Posted by: Francis Urquhart | March 04, 2007 at 13:55
"economically rich but socially poor"
Doesn't half sound a bit wet!
Posted by: Curly | March 04, 2007 at 13:55
Not only that, but David Cameron has done this very skilfully by going out of his way not to demonise single mothers
It depends what you mean by a "single mother"
My late mother was a "single mother" because my father died when I was 11. I hardly think she would have appreciated being shoved into the same pIgeonhole as a "gymlip mum"
Unmarried women who become pregnant through their own stupidity and moral incontinence are as undeserving of sympathy now as they were 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 500 years ago.
Sometimes we need to condemn a little more and understand a little less.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 04, 2007 at 13:56
"Economically rich, but socially poor"
Doesn't half sound a bit wet!
(Edited to correct link)
Posted by: Curly | March 04, 2007 at 13:59
"In particular we need to create the right social pressures, applying the full force of shame to fathers who run away from their responsibilities."
Still demonising men and going for the feminist vote, then.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | March 04, 2007 at 14:09
Labour has proved skilful at moving the grounds of discussion away from the matters at issue - cash for peerages becomes party funding, back to basics became personal morality.
While Cameron is discussing the importance of committment and stability in parenthoood and how marriage delivers that Labour are trying to make this all about married couples allowance.
Like too many of our spokesmen on TV Maude hadn't prepared himself for the obvious - he didn't know the position and got boggged down in the specifics. A media appearance is PMQs for spokesmen - they should prepare and get experts to advise what's likely to be asked.
DC did this before Paxman - he didn't walse in unprepared. Maude has done a lot to professionalise CCHQ, perhaps he needs to professionalise his and others preparation.
Posted by: Ted | March 04, 2007 at 14:11
One way to seriously 'support the family' would be to repeal Inehritance Tax - so helping more wealth to cascade down the generations instead of hard-working parents seeing their money creamed-off by the Treasury when they die.
Posted by: Tanuki | March 04, 2007 at 14:13
This weekend is a defining moment for Cameron. Here we have a government in utter freefall and disarray, where charges will be made against, not the PM, but those very close to him and he is talking about the Family. At any time in history this would have brought down a government, but Cameron seems unwilling to join the fray.
To fight the next election on NuLab spin subjects such as welfare, the family and social cohesion is fine providing you have radical policy. Current policy has been an unmitigated disaster, the public know it,Labour know it hence the change of leader and 'policy debates' so what are we doing? We think offering policies that are simply variants on existing, NuLab nonsense will win the day.
The two embarrassing performances by Maude and Osbourne show one thing very clearly, they were seen to look daft because they couldnt defend a crazy policy and that the NuLab panelist came out looking good when they were in effect criticising their own policy (nanny state intervention)!
If kids have no chance of picking up the rules, discipline, boundaries from schools, society, authorities and rely on a lone parent for ALL this then more will fail.
How many of us from "stable two parent families' actually picked up our boundaries from those other sources.
The liberal/ PC agenda is responsible for the breakdown of society not single mothers, married parents or poor parents. If kids are encouraged by their parents to behave in a certain way and adhere to certain beliefs like honesty, compassion and tolerance yet everywhere else in their life those rules are ignored the results are obvious surely.
People want an alternative to everything that this governemnt stands for.
Up until the last general election camerons current strategy was the only way to beat NuLab, now it is the only way we can lose.
Would the Tory's get more votes if they adopted policy such as;
A more hard line EU (not necessary to leave but put onto statute books the right of UK to decide by referendum on any further powers for EU)
Control of borders (simply have the ability to monitor who comes and goes)
Restore school discipline by making the kids responsible for their behaviour - no more "but its because he is ..... or from ...)
Cancel the Olympics
Promise an investigation into government sleaze and to implementthe recommendations
Pull our troops out of both afghanistan and Iraq - we have been wrong on both and those in the party that understand military matters are appalled by the governments treatment of the armed forces
Show the costs of the NuLab incompetence and where money can be saved. Show why the numbers shown to the public are all fantasy and that we cannot promise nything given we have no idea what we will find behind the scenes
explain to the public how you will deal with the issue of torture flights, saudi/bae and countless other breaches of law by this government.
The public want good schools, good healthcare and to feel safe from crime. these are not the same as wanting more 'rights' legislation, less freedoms and policy that looks very much like the policy that created the crime problem in the first place.
Unless we can articulate the reasons this govt has failed and how to resolve it we look, in the eyes of the public, a very similar proposition to the one they want to vote out.
Posted by: Steve | March 04, 2007 at 14:18
The irony is that anyone who thinks these policies will get us elected and are therefore the right policies have been in the wrong party for the last 10 years.
Every voter will be reluctant to vote for a party without any conviction. They now realise the problems created by electing dishonest governments.
Posted by: barry | March 04, 2007 at 14:28
I thought Osborne was alright on Any Questions Steve. He answered the marriage question much better than Maude (could hardly have been worse) and apart from a joke that went flat about the Lib Dem conference he survived OK. Ruth Kelly on the other hand was truly truly awful.It is now becoming common for audiences on Any Questions to laugh or howl at government spokesman,it happened again when Kelly began to eulogise Blair.
Posted by: malcolm | March 04, 2007 at 15:11
"DC did this before Paxman - he didn't walse in unprepared. Maude has done a lot to professionalise CCHQ, perhaps he needs to professionalise his and others preparation."
Ted, I absolutely agree with your point!
I cannot believe that Maude was so badly prepared for this question, and as Chairman of the party that was unforgivable. I cringed in between making the points he should have been saying.
"Cameron puts renewal of the family at the heart of his Conservatism" It is the most positive and bold agenda he has led on since becoming leader. It is the correct direction to go in, not just for the party but because we desperately need to address this problem now before it becomes too late.
It is utterly incredible that in light of the unfair tax system which is anti marriage for couples on poorer incomes and all the research on benefits and outcomes for children that we as a country just can't "openly" recognise the "causes" of many of our social problems. That the Labour party would now turn something so important into a "divorce watch" for conservative politicians to criticise the campaign is pretty disgusting and opportunistic.
This corrupt governments argument that marriage, cohabiting or a single parent is not the issue but rather that they are helping children would be admirable if they had not made the most ideal emotional outcome for children so financially more unattractive!
I think we need to run on an agenda that is aiming to try and alleviate some of the financial and social stigma which are now in place within the government regarding children's welfare.
Posted by: Scotty | March 04, 2007 at 15:15
Well said Scotty.
Steve, you say we need radical policies to ensure young people know the boundaries, but of those you outline only this
"Restore school discipline by making the kids responsible for their behaviour - no more "but its because he is ..... or from ...)"
deals with it. How is this particularly radical? It's not exactly substantive policy either is it? I agree we need to look at other areas too, but I think you're being too harsh on the leadership.
Posted by: Edward | March 04, 2007 at 15:23
It's good to see Cameron sticking to his guns after the poor performances on this particular issue by Maude and Osborne (the latter only a little poor).
I think it's definately the right thing for the party to leading on - and how have the Government and the Lib Dems responded, apart from misrepresenting the point? Useless, the pair of them.
The problem, of course, is with the presentation. It's clear that the policy isn't quite there yet, hence what appeared to be the confusion about whether some sort of allowance would be given for all marriages, or just for those with dependent children.
This needs to be sorted out, then the Shadow Cabinet can provide a clear and coherent message: that our society is better off when parents stay together, and the best way of ensuring this is for the two people to make a public commitment to each other, in front of friends and family. This should apply to civil partnerships as well as the "traditional" marriage.
I hope the team get this to fit in with the whole idea of social responsibility. I wonder, is it too much to base a whole manifesto on a social revolution? Everything can be covered, from giving professional responsibility to the police, teachers and doctors, to corporate responsibility and our own personal responsibility.
Posted by: EML | March 04, 2007 at 15:55
You can watch Mr Cameron's speech via the BBC website (real player req.)
Posted by: Dave Bartlett | March 04, 2007 at 17:21
I think Maude on Question Time was flummuxed by the simple but effective point that Hain was making which was that if the Conservative argument is that two parent families bring up Children more effectively and therefore married couples with children should get an incentive, the only reason to give married couples with grown up children or no children an incentive is if you feel marriage should be rewarded which in turn provides an easy reminder of back to basics.
This policy should be changed to only help couples with children under the age of 18, this would mean less cost, be a far more rational argument and it would not provide Labour with such a ridiculously easy target.
Posted by: voreas06 | March 04, 2007 at 18:15
Labour are, I think, behind the times on this issue, and their attacks on Cameron are falling very flat.
At the intellectual level, I'd say that very few people would now dispute that children of married parents are much more likely to do well in life, than children of unmarried parents, even when you control for income and social background. Ten or twenty years ago, that would not have been the case. I can remember the outrage that greeted the IEA pamphlet "Families without Fathers" when they published it in 1994.
At the level of most peoples' experience, I think that we've tested to destruction the theory that any form of family structure works just as well as any other - or that any problems are down to poverty, which can be remedies by welfare benefits.
Posted by: Sean Fear | March 04, 2007 at 21:38
Simon at 1208 speaks of families being able to spend time together, not just tax breaks for marriage, are also important for keeping families together. But I recall David Cameron has on previous occasions spoke about work/life balance and that families shouldn't be sacrificed for economic competitiveness. This and the following examples from the Editor’s quotes from Mr Cameron above:
“Britons are tired of living in a nation that is "economically rich but socially poor" ”
“it's not economic breakdown that Britain faces today, but social breakdown. I think it's time we recognised that family breakdown is the central factor in the social breakdown we see in our country today."
show we are not the "nasty party" only concerned with maximising profit.
As for Ollie Leftwing and Mr Maude...I assume this is only speculation, but hope David Cameron have a Chairman and policy chief who are fully behind him in supporting marriage and the family to begin to repair our broken society. “It is simply saying that kids do best when mum and dad are both there for them.”
Posted by: Philip | March 04, 2007 at 23:17
I agree that we need to be better prepared for questions on some of this, especially the inevitable opposition spin. But it is a good, strong agenda, that has the courage to tackle some of society's problems at the root. It is not going to be easy, I think, to explain to the electorate than not all of these policies are going to be able to bear fruit to the standard electoral timetable, but we must try.
I don’t believe that taxation policy in and of itself will have a huge effect on rates of marriage, separation and divorce. I do think, however, that if we believe the statistical evidence that marriage is a desirable institution, at the root of many stable families, then we must at least ensure that our policy removes financial disincentives, thereby sending an important signal.
We should, as we have for the most part in this debate here on CH.com, never forget that this is really about supporting children and those who care for them. I think that does mean supporting strong families, and that includes applauding other family arrangements where parents are doing a fantastic job, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
However, there is one comment from earlier today that I would especially like to take to task:
Alex Forsyth: Yes but unfortunately too many of us recall his "inclusive" comments at Bournemouth which rubbished the sacrament of Marriage in true Blairite Politically Correct style.
Those remarks did no such thing, as well you know. Instead, they recognised the importance of two people in a loving relationship making a strong and binding public commitment to take responsibility for each other, regardless of circumstances. You may have been one of the few po-faced representatives that the BBC were able to pick out of the crowd, but as I applauded that passage in Bournemouth I was yet again proud to be a Conservative.
Posted by: Richard Carey | March 04, 2007 at 23:42
Sean Fear "Labour are, I think, behind the times on this issue, and their attacks on Cameron are falling very flat."
I am not so sure about this Sean. The fact that two parents are better than one is proven in the raising of children and most people will accept that, but what is by no means proven is that people particularily are any more inclined to marriage than they were 10 years ago, and they certainly don't want to be told how to lead their lives, regardless of the reason.
I think either the policy should be changed to offer support to two parents bringing up a child as long as they are together alternatively, the argument about bringing up children should not be put as it is not coherent.
Posted by: voreas06 | March 04, 2007 at 23:48
CAn someone FIRE Letwin before he makes any more stupid comments as he has done in TWO elections so far.
Letwin is not credible and would be a disaster in any public discussions anywhere. Letwin is a one-man disaster-zone.
Posted by: ToMTom | March 05, 2007 at 07:47
Surely if it's better for a child to have married parents, it's better if they get married before the child is born? Preferably before conception, even! Young childless couples turn into young couples with children, so why not start the incentives for them to marry before that happens, rather than afterwards?
Similarly married couples who have produced children still have those children after they've grown up, and normally they have grandchildren who also benefit from the stability and good example offered by still-married grandparents.
I see little point in faffing around making incentives for marriage conditional on
the couple having children under 18. Help for the children should be separate - and preferably in the form of much higher but taxable child benefit, not through Gordon Brown's appalling child tax credit system.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | March 05, 2007 at 12:03
Denis Cooper "Surely if it's better for a child to have married parents, it's better if they get married before the child is born? Preferably before conception, even! Young childless couples turn into young couples with children, so why not start the incentives for them to marry before that happens, rather than afterwards?"
Why? If the argument is about stability for bringing up children then if a couple has no children surely they should get nothing.
Denis Cooper "Similarly married couples who have produced children still have those children after they've grown up, and normally they have grandchildren who also benefit from the stability and good example offered by still-married grandparents."
I can't see how this allowance helps in stability (and therefore benefits society) after the child is grown up. Surely what the grandparents do is none of our business, unless we are giving them an allowance for caring for their grandchildren, which is a different matter.
Denis Cooper "I see little point in faffing around making incentives for marriage conditional on the couple having children under 18. Help for the children should be separate - and preferably in the form of much higher but taxable child benefit, not through Gordon Brown's appalling child tax credit system."
This comes to the heart of it. Surely we should not be in the habit of providing allowances just because we like something i.e marriage. If stability in bringing up children is a totally different subject and the married allowance is to be given then it needs to be robustly proved that marriage is of financial benefit to society. In other words if the state supports marriage and the argument is not about providing stability for a child what in monetary terms (reduced crime costs, greater employment [tax revenue] etc) does the state get back to favour marriage so.
Posted by: voreas06 | March 05, 2007 at 14:15
I'm pretty sure that with or without children marriage benefits society as a whole, and married people tend to cost the state less than the unmarried, and if there aren't already studies around demonstrating that then it's only a matter of time before they emerge. This is why I'd be content to see similar financial incentives being extended to civil partnerships, where it's far less likely that the beneficial effects on children will ever come into consideration.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | March 05, 2007 at 15:31
It's all fine, but whatever the policy we end with is needs to be cast iron and rigorously scrutinised inside the party before it goes public. Our family policies could be hugely popular, but they do run the risk of making us look like the same old Tories.
I'm reminded of William Hague at the last election being questioned about our asylum policy (the quota). He was asked if that actually meant a quota for asylum seekers, and that if the quota for the year was reached asylum seekers regardless of their claims would be refused entry (they would). He was then asked if this remained the case even if those above-quota asylum seekers were white Zimbabweans fleeing Mugabe. He was completely flummoxed.
Posted by: Adam | March 05, 2007 at 19:22