Ken Clarke is wrong to oppose Tory policy on marriage

He said it six weeks ago but this is what Ken Clarke said about Tory policy on marriage just before Christmas:

"I got rid of the married couples allowance [when I was Chancellor]… I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married] and most of the younger people I know don't seem very keen on it. My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system – my wife didn't put up with me because I was getting £150 by way of tax allowance. This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it."

"...But what I am in favour of is David [Cameron] setting an agenda pointing out all the social problems, the broken parts of cities, the level of family breakdown, poverty, social disorder and crime. I'm glad to see us getting into all that but the stuff I associate with the religious right in America, I think, is having too much influence on where we are."

The quote - like his belief that the Conservatives will be more pro-Europe in office - has come from the PublicService.co.uk website.  The remarks were made at an academic conference and were supposed to be off the record.

Mr Clarke looks at the marriage issue from a very middle class perspective.  The trouble is - as David Cameron and 93% of Tory candidates recognise - the incentives to live apart within the tax and benefits system are significant for lower income people.  That's the injustice that David Cameron is rightly seeking to address.  I don't expect David Cameron and George Osborne to retreat from this pledge.  Nor should they.

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[resident leftie]

He's absolutely right. I'm so glad he's rejoined the Tory front bench.

The tax incentive isn't for living together, it's for getting married - social engineering.

The other thing he said which the Tories should take to heart is: "Try to minimise the number of stupid promises you make and don't allow the media to keep dragging you into producing marvellous new schemes and policies every month as a cure for the problem because they will probably get shot apart and they will certainly be no use at all"

[DCMX]

So apart from disagreeing with Conservative policy on the Euro, Lisbon, EPP membership, the Iraq war, international aid spending, Capital Adequacy Ratios, VAT, British Bill of Rights, and marriage Ken Clarke is fully on board!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Well it's just as well that as Business Secretary he'll have no more influence on Conservative policy on this subject than any other Conservative MP.
The decision to bring Ken Clarke back to the Shadow Cabinet has been made. We can make of that the best we can and use Ken's skills to good effect in the financial/business arena or we can start arguing with each other, which is it going to be?

[Deborah]

I disagree with Ken Clarke on this - and so does the majority of the Tory party. What's the problem?
Democracy doesn't mean everybody agreeing with everybody else on everything. .
Nuff said.

[Lord Elvis of Paisley]

I always thought people were allowed to disagree in a democracy. Why should it be any different within a political party? I don't agree with Ken Clarke on this issue, or on Europe, but I can live with that as long as he focuses on the job he's back on the front bench to do.

[Happy Tory]

There may be less difference than you think between Ken Clarke's view and that of most candidates. I bet if you asked Ken whether he was in favour of a tax system that made it a better plan to live apart, then there's a good chance that he'd say that was unintentional social engineering too.

[Tim]

Ken is spot on. Conservative Governments should not be in the business of trying to control how people live their lives.

[Sally Roberts]

Tim @ 15:19 I totally agree with you (and Ken Clarke)!

[snegchui]

A problem is that the the system rewards non-marriage\"non-couple identification" at present, and considerably so. A lot more than giving marriage-tax allowance would seek to balance. Neutrality has to be the way forward.
At the low end of the cash spectrum, two do not live as cheaply as one and probably will never be able to. So any mechanism to enhance welfare or other earnings will be employed.
Who does this benefit? Not the individuals concerned nor society as a whole.
The world has changed and wages with it, so each human being is an economic unit. The days of single-wage households as the majority are on the decline, and allowances and entitlements and taxes should come closer to reflecting this.
Marriage per se, I favour it as the most stable of arrangements, as I still think that a formal declaration of marriage and public exchange of vows in a community, says a lot more than living-together.

[HF]

"So apart from disagreeing with Conservative policy on the Euro, Lisbon, EPP..... "

DCMX sums it up very well.

[support the strivers]

I agree with you Tim.

We have to understand the motivations of people with lower disposable income. Two reasons: 1. they're voters but 2. it is the only decent way to be, surely?

[Michael Hewlett]

You should re-name this site as anti-clarkehome.com. Might be useful to point your guns at the government at some point??

[Doug]

These Clarke stories had better die down soon or else he will be confirmed as an absolute disaster for a shadow cabinet pick. I was against his returning but hoped that Cameron had beaten an oath of collective responsibility out of Clarke. This also shows some poor vetting of Clarke by Cameron's team. Now I'm even less inclined to give Clarke the benefit of the doubt.

[NigelC]

Why are "off the record comments" being used to stir up dissent? Conservatives should boycott the conference organisers in future. Chatham House rules used to mean something. They allow free debate and issues to be explored without the worry that you will be quoted every 5 minutes.

I disagree with Ken.
We need a system that addresses the social problems caused by family breakdown and the incentives to live apart within the tax and benefits system (which are significant for lower income people)

[Doug]

Michael Hewlett - Maybe Clarke could stop lobbing grenades at his own party leadership. Who needs Labour when Clarke opens his mouth.

[Confused of Middle Dumpling]

O/T slightly and on Economy

Gordon Brown last week -- "I never saw this coming"
Gordon Brown This week - "I warned about this 10 years ago"

Now correct me if I am very wrong here but does anyone else notice a slight contradiction?

[Mondeo Man]

Blimey Tim - you really don't like Ken do you!!!

A number of important points:
1) This was another statement from before Ken joined the shadow cabinet.
2) He is not vehemently opposed to the idea, but clearly doesn't think it is the role of the state.
3) His key point - which you totally ignore - is that whoever wins the next election will not have any money to implement schemes like this.

Why would you post an article that is so subjective - ignoring the key point of his speech? You don't come across very well in your one sided attacks on Ken. Stop it.

[rugfish]

In the Conservative Party we have a thing called democracy. I know it's a dying thing in this country, like having opinions which differ from the 'norm', whatever that is.

We can disagree with specific issues too, but all the same maintain overall support on a broad range of issues because we recognise we are independent a free to express our views.

I agree with tax advantages for married couples as I support a package which helps to restore the bonds of the family unit where 'marriage' is not seen as something to deride but rather to be fully supported by government. Hopefully if IDS is right then it should engender a more responsible attitude generally and this can only be good.

I have no argument 'against' marriage yet accept more liberal minded people would perhaps not agree and they have a right to their opinion as do I.

I guess I hold a conservative idea of this and would be pleased if we were able to replace the liberal society we live in with my my view which supports David Cameron that marriage is 'GOOD', and a culture of irresponsibility is BAD in general. ( Specifics will always exist to the contrary but they should not become the norm otherwise we'll all be liberals. ) - Marriage is normal and Liberals are not normal.

[rugfish]

Posted by: Confused of Middle Dumpling | January 27, 2009 at 15:50

ha ha ha ha ha - well spotted MD.

[James Maskell]

I find the Tory attachment to marriage as the answer to social ills as done under the best of intentions but overdoing it. Marriage in fact will do little to stall social breakdown and I am yet to be convinced of the Conservative policy of handing money out being any serious good.

I agree with Ken Clarke on this point. It is a form of social engineering. But is it really that much of a suprize with Camerons lot in? They cant resist the temptation to use the power of the State to push change on an otherwise unwilling population. But then again he doesnt like libertarianism, so why would he hold back on using the State in such a way...

[London Tory]

Who cares ?

Just seen Ken in Parliament giving a terrific front bench performance in response to the latest Govt bailout.

Our side loved it- just the sort of political ballast we have been lacking.

[Stuart Mark Turner]

I like the comment earlier about neutrality, it is right that we should not encourage a tax system which forces people on low incomes apart. But we should also not encourage people on low incomes to stick together no matter what. The right thing to do is encourage the tax system to be as neutral as possible and let people make up their own minds as to how they sort out their relationships. Having said that I do believe that it is beneficial for couples to marry, I just disagree with state compulsion.

[Peter Bailey]

I for one don't believe for a minute Clarke said this. Who says so? Can we confirm it? Or do I detect the hands of Mandelson and Campbell at work?

I'm sure Clarke knows as well as the rest of us that people should be married, and, far from trying to 'social engineer', such a move is merely trying to ensure that everybody gets married.

Let Mandelson and Campbell make up their non-stories, but don't give their lies credence by discussing them on here.

[Sally Roberts]

I have often thought that it might be a good idea to have a system of time-limited marriage contracts which could be renewed, say, every five or ten years. This may seem radical or even daft but so many couples "grow apart" and if nothing else it would concentrate minds and make them decide whether they wanted to stay together or move on. That said, there would have to be a legally-enforceable system where the parents of children remained jointly responsible for those children until maturity.

[Harry Benson]

Mr Clarke would be right that marriage should be nothing to do with politicians if it didn't matter whether couples stay together or not. However, family breakdown has very expensive consequences that do concern politicians and taxpayers - to the tune of at least £20bn a year. Lone parent family formation has risen fairly consistently for the last 40 years under all governments by around 40,000 families per year.

However since 1980, the sole driver of this relentless rise has been the collapse of unmarried families. More than one third of unmarried couples split up before their child's fifth birthday compared to only one in eleven married families. Marital status is a more important factor in this than age, education, income, ethnic group, or being on benefits.

Today 70% of all parents with young children who split are unmarried, compared to 20% back in 1980.

Is this really about whether people marry or not? The problem of cause and effect will never be completely resolved. But the latest research shows the importance of the link between decision-making about the future and subsequent commitment, especially for men. Marriage represents a clear decision to commit. Cohabiting is much more often characterised by sliding and inertia.

Mr Clarke may not be aware of this relatively new analysis. It is founded on compelling research from the last 10 years and underpins the family policy proposals in the CSJ Breakthrough Britain paper.

The re-introduction of a tax break is one of several ways government can signpost its recognition that marriage, and the attitudes and behaviours that marriage represents, is really valuable to both individuals and society.

Most marriages work. Most unmarriages don't. Previous governments have fudged the issue. Mr Cameron is pointing in the right direction.

[GB£.com]

Well the solution should be to remove the injustice, not add another 'solution' to offset it.

It seems that Cameron's solution is similar to his a-list proposals, ie adding another layer of prejudice to balance a supposed problem instead of removing the initial prejudice.

And if you are going to use quotes and votes by politicians *before* they join the front bench, the very same could be done for Cameron as you are doing to Ken.

Give it a rest.

[snegchui]

"Marriage represents a clear decision to commit. Cohabiting is much more often characterised by sliding and inertia. "
I thoroughly agree, but trying to get this point across to the young, and not so young, "in infatuation" these days seems nigh on impossible.
Addressing why this is so, is more important than trying to offer economic inducements (the exception to the rule!!).

[Angelo Basu]

Before getting into government it makes sense for Cameron and Osborne to be talking in positives. Rewarding married couples is positive. Removing the current rewards for unmarried couples or parents living apart is negative and very much "nasty party" material. I suspect that Ken would be all for the latter and that in practice that would be the more prudent thing to do, particularly in the context of the severe pruning of public spending that will be necessary. I would be unsurprised if the "reward" got quietly dropped when that happened as "fairness" will have been obtained prudently.

[Sally Roberts]

" Marriage represents a clear decision to commit. Cohabiting is much more often characterised by sliding and inertia."

This is why I wonder if rather than shackling a couple together for life you change the system to allow them to move on -BUT still have to remain responsible for providing for and caring for the children they have produced together. By the way, Harry Benson, how do you define a happy or successful marriage? Really the only two people who know the truth about a marriage are the two within it. Many people put up a successful "front" for years!

[Tim Montgomerie]

A big yawn to Michael Hewlett and Mondeo Man. I have nothing against Ken Clarke personally but do disagree with him on certain policies. I praised Clarke's performance on Andrew Marr on Sunday but his views on Europe and marriage are legitimate topics for discussion.

[Steve Tierney]

In almost ALL cases Im against government sticking their noses into how we run our personal lives.

But Im not against some encouragement and guidance by way of taxation where it is appropriate, as long as its not 'nanny' laws.

In this case, I really do believe a huge amount of our problems are caused by family breakdown. We absolutely MUST encourage traditional families (which does NOT mean stamping on non-traditional families).

Consequently, I don't agree with Ken Clarke. Certainly we shouldn't be *telling* people how to run their lives, but offering marital tax incentives is important. Not because the money, in and of itself, will "bring or keep people together". But because it sends a subtle message, which in my opinion is powerful for its simplicity.

[TomTom]

Not a very logical position. Clarke does not believe the tax system should encourage marriage - what about the benefits system ?

Should that continue to discriminate against marriage ?

Why should we pay taxes anyway ? The idea that the State punishes us or rewards us through taxation is to put the cart before the horse. Clarke is a Statist who thinks all incomes belong to The State and that The State graciously allows people to keep their own money.

In fact it should be The State that asks citizens if it wants money spent rather than grabbing whatever it can through extortion

[Peter Buss]

A whole load of fuss about nothing. Ken made these comments before he returned to the Shadow cabinet. So what !! He's back - doing his job well and is an asset to the Team.I am sure if we trawled back through various shadow ministers remarks pre 2005 I am sure we could find some who also disagreed with the Tory tax proposals on mariage. It really doesn't matter in my view.

[TomTom]

Not a very logical position. Clarke does not believe the tax system should encourage marriage - what about the benefits system ?

Should that continue to discriminate against marriage ?

Why should we pay taxes anyway ? The idea that the State punishes us or rewards us through taxation is to put the cart before the horse. Clarke is a Statist who thinks all incomes belong to The State and that The State graciously allows people to keep their own money.

In fact it should be The State that asks citizens if it wants money spent rather than grabbing whatever it can through extortion

[Alan S]

You can bet that Clarke has just given more ammo for Brown to use at PMQs.

I am glad Cameron is supporting marriage. Clarke must now toe the line.

[Richard]

Tim, I and many others are getting a little sick and tired of your constant Ken Clarke bashing. This latest attack is based on comments he made when he was on the back benches.

Like most people on this site, I disagree with much of what Ken Clarke stands for, but I am willing to get behind him and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet. Our country is in such a terrible mess, we need to win the next election.

[Adrian Butterworth]

'The tax incentive isn't for living together, it's for getting married - social engineering.'

No, punishing married couples (as does our gargantuan undiscriminating welfare state) is social engineering of those most malignant kind.

Its a deliberate attempt on the part of the left-wing state to artificially create the maximum moral space for the individual to persue 'experimental lifestyles' and absolve him/her of any responsibility for the consequences.

It does it by using huge amounts of coercive power against businesses and taxpayers to prevent a dominant culture from emerging. It deliberately removes all pressures on mothers to stay at home or for fathers to stay and provide, it deliberately rewards unmarried mothers with benefits that married couples can only through self-sacrifice.

A conservative solution would be to abolish this massive social interference, not replace it with another form of interference. It would be permissive not authoritarian: it would involve permitting normal habits of self-sufficiency to re-emerge. It would involve allowing alternatives to the married family to be marginalised naturally by withdrawing public funds from pernicious things like feminist university courses. It would be to allow the restoration of circumstances in which responsible ways of living spontaneously emerge.

The facts of life are conservative. Even though they're unnatural and abnormal to malignant leftists, they're perfectly normal and natural to human beings.

[Hugh Oxford]

Supporting marriage would seem to be pretty much on page one of "Conservatism for dummies". So too would "it is for the state to stay out of people's lives".

So how to reconcile these positions?

The key is to recognise that marriage has vital positive externalities, whereas cohabitation and bastardy have enormous detrimental externalities.

Marriage/non-marriage are not simply private matters. They involve third parties, specifically children, but the rest of us in so many ways. It is in the interests of all of us to support marriage and the family, to support the right of children to a mother and a father united for life.

That is the only way we can have a happy, peaceable, productive society.

[Tim Montgomerie]

One of the reasons the country is in a terrible mess Richard is the failure of public policy to support marriage.

[SW]

Three words, Tim: Get. Over. It.

Your blind loyalty to the failed IDS regime, and your willingness to re-fight the old battles of that sad era, is beginning to look a little unfortunate.

[NigelC]

Off topic but....When the cabinet minutes on the decision to go to war in Iraq are published, as per ruling on Information Tribunal today, we may see more relevant cabinet divisions than this storm in a tea cup

[Tim Montgomerie]

Good stereotyping SW but recognising marriage in the tax system happens to be David Cameron's policy. This is today's battle, not yesterday's.

[Adrian Butterworth]

"Tim, I and many others are getting a little sick and tired of your constant Ken Clarke bashing."

We can 'bash' him if we like, he's big enough to take a bashing. It's not as though we're trying to stop anyone from saying what they really think. Ken Clarke should say whatever he likes, he should just say them from where he belongs; on the Labour or Lib Dem benches. By allowing this man on the front benches of the Tory party you are in fact 'bashing' the patriotic and conservative minded section of the population who want the Tory Party to speak for them because nobody else will.

More importantly, this website doesnt bash the cowardly creatures (who unlike, Clarke) try to hide their treasonous Europhilia from behind the veil of 'euroscepticism'. (Hmm, perhaps because a disproportionate amount of these anti-british cowards contribute to this website)

[snegchui]

Tim Montgomerie:
How would you "support marriage" without supporting non-married co-habitors"? Do you want to?
Would you change the divorce laws to make it harder to divorce? What would your position on pre-nups be? (No man of any means these days marries, I bet Paul McCartney has had a rethink on his position)
I do not know if these are the right questions, but the points are too broad at the moment. What exactly are you after?

[Shaun]

"the incentives to live apart"

Yeah but you don't disincentivise solo living by lobbing £150 at couples to get married. Also, that's a pretty pathetically small sum, much less than the value of the benefits you'd get as a single parent, so if you honestly want to play the facile 'lets send a message' game, what message do you really send?

That you care about marriage but not as much as you care about not dismantling the incentives for fecklessness?

[CH Defender]

Ben Brogan, Janet Daley and James Kirkup have blogged this. It would be off if CH didn't.

[TomTom]

Would you change the divorce laws to make it harder to divorce?

Parliament has not changed the Divorce Law since 1973 because it is afraid to...instead the High Court has usurped parliament's role (not small "p" for insignificance) as it should on taxation too.

It is time for the High Court to take on all major decisions and let parliament be a gentleman's club of the old school

[NigelJ]

Tim - you are begining to look pathetic! This was a comment made before he was on the front bench. And even if it was not - do you want all our spokesmen to be Cameron clones with no views at all? Be a bit like New labour perhaps? Clarke is back, doing a pretty good job - credit to him, and to Cameron for having the balls to take a risk - now get over it and stop causing trouble before you make yourself " a useful idiot" for the Labour party.

[Adrian Butterworth]

"That you care about marriage but not as much as you care about not dismantling the incentives for fecklessness?"

Exactly Shaun. Tim Montgomerie must realise that 'compassionate' big government conservatism is a non-starter. Look at US Republicans who instead of tearing down the anti-marriage welfare state, tried to make it pro-marriage while increasing its size. Totally stupid of course. By allowing the structures of the welfare state to remain in place, the left-wing enemies of society can easily re-direct its energies into attacking marriage once they're back in power.

[Sally Roberts]

NigelJ - whilst I don't agree with Tim's views on the subject of marriage I think he has every right to hold a discussion on the subject and is certainly not being "pathetic". What must be clarified is that this is an old statement - six weeks old - and made before Ken Clarke joined the Shadow Cabinet. At least we are not like the Labour Party who seek to suppress all debate.

[Rod Sellers]

Clarke is entitled to his views and it is not the end of the world if they don't fit with the 'settled view' of the Party.

Many on this site would disagree with the party line on Grammar schools. They are a Good Thing just as marriage is a Good Thing.

The State has a right to have a view when all the evidence is that married families are more stable better for the kids and cheaper for the Tax payer.

[pp]

Couples get a reduced pension - shouldn't there be some benefits to balance these other imbalances?

I tried to find out about 'children at risk' and their parental situation (to see if my prejudiced inkling that children living with their parents were safer than children living in other situations) - the government don't even collect this information...

Evidence based policy making is what is required, and the evidence should be published in full, so the public can make up their own minds.

Only the left pretend that all their decisions are the only possible ones - sensible people (like conservatives) know that there can be differences of opinion and that this can be acknowledged without anyone losing their manhood.

[Shaun]

By allowing the structures of the welfare state to remain in place...

Its worse than that; taken together with the insidious, Orwellian notion of 'Tax Credits' where the state takes your money away and drip feeds it back to you if you do what it likes (work for slave wages at Tesco, have kids, whatever), this would simply extend the numbers of people who feel they are 'clients' of the welfare state and thus natural Labour constituents with their hands out.

Surely the correct Conservative approach to this would be based on education (telling people that if they have kids as a single parent they and their kids are, statistically, more likely to have a worse outcome than if they were stabley married), high employment(hmm, Labour may have torpedoed that one for a while with their Recession - yes *some* of it is global but the worst excesses are theirs) and low taxes. One of the worst strains you can place on a marriage of any sort is that of money problems and bluntly when the state is taking c. 40% of your income, that's going to place a lot of pressure on people. I should know - I got married about 18 months ago!

[Adrian Butterworth]

"And even if it was not - do you want all our spokesmen to be Cameron clones with no views at all"

Actually Ken Clarke's views are probably not all that different from Cameron's. And many Tory MPs are clones with no views.

"Stop causing trouble before you make yourself " a useful idiot" for the Labour party"

Yes, "Stop causing trouble" - the words of a useless idiot.

[sjm]

There is an extremely simple and cost-effective way of supporting marriage:

allow transferable tax allowances between married couples.

[Adam in London]

Another flagrant breach of Chatham House rules I see.

Do you think there's anywhere left where politicians, civil servants, think tank researchers, and academics can get together, think out loud and speak their mind without fear of it being flung back at them in the public arena?

[The Bishop swine]

Ken should get with the program and realise that familys have children and as a result are the bedrock of the One Nation. In any case Dave isn't so inclined being a young family man himself.

[WHS]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN FOR CONTAINING FALSEHOOD.

[CJ]

Peter Bailey @ 16:08 "I'm sure Clarke knows as well as the rest of us that people should be married, and, far from trying to 'social engineer', such a move is merely trying to ensure that everybody gets married."

And isn't that social engineering?

Are you serious? And exactly what's the punishment if you don't get married then? Since you believe we SHOULD all be married. Should we all just say yes to the first person who asks us to marry them to fit in with your social ideals - and those of many others on this site? I was brought up to believe that marriage is about love and commitment. If you don't find someone who loves you and who wants to commit to you, who you love and you want to commit to, where do you go then? Just find someone - anyone - to marry you so you can tick that box and keep you all happy? It's not that simple. And nor should it be.

There should be no tax breaks for married couples and the government should not be in the business of telling people how to live their lives. End of story.

[Shaun]

Forget about promoting marriage or polygamy or collective celtic orgies or whatever social structure you want to pick from the past. Promote *stable* relationships where a mum and dad stick together, whether in matrimony, as co-habitees or as trolls under a bridge. You do this, as I said, be removing the pressures on relationships.

My recipe is simple:

1) Give people more money; reducing the burden of taxation should do the trick while also incentivising work in comparison to benefits
2) Deal with chaotic alcohol and drug abuse to give people the environment in which they can maintain stable relationships. Think about your own lives and how many one night stands began with 'well, I'd had a few beers and...'
3) Don't preach about a narrow mode of right or wrong (marriage, voodoo, whatever) but instead focus on outcomes. If a child is well adjusted in society and well educated and a good citizen (whatever that is), I don't care if was raised by married churchgoers, a gay couple in a civil partnership or one eyed lesbian asylum seekers on benefits. The key factor is the *outcome* and not the method.

[The Bishop swine]

And exactly what's the punishment if you don't get married then? Well the idea is to increase the incentive to do "the right thing" which for the vast majority will be getting properly married. Didn't Paul rightly say that celibacy was superior, even to Marriage. However most people want to enjoy a sexual relationship and that results in children and the best place for children is in families. So lets not be shy about promoting families and children.

[Shaun]

...lets not even start on the fact that if it's the 'right thing to do' in the context of delivering better outcomes as that really ought to be incentive enough.

[Social conservative]

Ken Clarke was part of a Conservative cabinet that introduced many of the policies that undermined the family. The old beast does not appear to have seen the error of his ways.

[Phil C]

"What is the punishment if you don't get married?" Well under a Tory government you will pay more tax, it seems. Early in the thread, snegchui posted "two do not live as cheaply as one". No they don't, but they do live less than twice expensively. Being single and living on your own is more expensive, so why should you pay more tax than a married couple who might be better off than you - and who have lower per capita living expenses? I am all for supporting stable family life, but this is too broad a brush approach to be effective.

[Midnight Blue]

Surely the best thing would be to remove the incentives to live apart that arguably may prevent people who may otherwise get married, from doing so. That said if the evidence shows that this would be of help stitching together the gaping wounds in our society then I wouldn't object to it (even though I can't see how such a small amount of money makes that big a difference)

Bishop Swine @ 19:52 - surely whether getting married is the right thing depends on the couple in question and their circumstances? Am I doing the wrong thing by being single?

[CJ]

Midnight Blue@ 21:35 - I refer you back to my previous post. Sadly in the eyes of many yes, you are doing the 'wrong thing' if you don't get married. Get married immediately -to anyone by the looks of it!!

The Bishop Swine @ 19:52 - Just because you are single it doesn't mean you're having a, or numerous sexual relationships or in a couple but have chosen not to get married. And no, not all sexual relationships end in children. We have something called contraception.

I am pro marriage and families - but no I don't believe the definition of a 'family' is a man and woman who are married (to each other), with children. Families come in all shapes and sizes. What makes a 'family' is so much more complicated than that. Shaun @ 19:23 has the right idea.

[Sally Roberts]

"And no, not all sexual relationships end in children. We have something called contraception"

Precisely! Some people cannot have children for one reason or another - and there are quite a number of post-menopausal women too...

CJ you are right to point out that families come in all shapes and sizes. My own extended family is testament to that. We need to consider all situations - not just the "nuclear family".

[Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under]

Ken is spot on. Conservative Governments should not be in the business of trying to control how people live their lives.

Posted by: Tim | January 27, 2009 at 15:19

On that reasoning we can now empty the prisons, sack then judiciary and the police

[Richard]

Tim, I am happily married, I love marriage and I think that the State should support marriage through the tax system, so I disagree with Ken Clarke on this.

My problem is that you have (once again) put up an article on Conservative Home that attacks Ken Clarke for something he said six weeks ago!

This was a dead story that you have given new life to. I saw today that the Telegraph gave the story some coverage, no doubt thanks to your article.

Your regular attacks on Ken Clarke, usually based on old stories only serve to help Labour.

[Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under]

........Precisely! Some people cannot have children for one reason or another - and there are quite a number of post-menopausal women too...

CJ you are right to point out that families come in all shapes and sizes. My own extended family is testament to that. We need to consider all situations - not just the "nuclear family".
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 28, 2009 at 07:38

Here is another family that Ken (the anti-social engineer) and the Tories (including Cameron) can be rightly proud of as commented on in today’s DT

Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.

They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.

The distraught grandfather said: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.
"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.

As a grandparent my heart bleeds for them.
Vote Tory and for Ken Clarke? Whatever for?
Answer: To replace Tweeledum with Tweedle- Dumber. Read it all and despair at what has happeded to Britain

[Nick Gulliford]

As usual I agree with Harry Benson, not least because he actually quotes some salient facts which are useful to the discussion.

Social Conservative writes "Ken Clarke was part of a Conservative cabinet that introduced many of the policies that undermined the family. The old beast does not appear to have seen the error of his ways."

Sadly, he is right too. It doesn't matter whether it was six weeks ago or ten or more years ago. A fudge is a fudge is a fudge.

If it is 'social engineering' to encourage marriage, what term should be used to discourage teenage pregnancy? Employing emotive phrases won't enlighten the debate.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Independent Labour Peer, said about the Conservative Government in a debate on the Family Law Bill [11th January 1996]:

"The [Conservative] Government have been saying over a long period of time that they support the family and marriage, yet all their actions belie that claim. For example, the taxation system - on the pretext of achieving equalisation between the sexes - has progressively worked against marriage. Everyone in the House knows that that is true.

The freezing until the last Budget of the married man's allowance and reducing its value from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., the refusal to allow the transfer of the personal tax allowances between spouses and from one working spouse to a non-working spouse - thus failing to assist those wives who wish to do so to remain at home and look after their children - has actually been destructive of the family.

.... A burden has been put on the family that almost forces both spouses to go out to work. It is a system designed to encourage women to go to work rather than remain at home and look after their own children.

Indeed, as we all know, the social security system itself favours the single parent in many ways, even to the extent that it is financially more favourable for fathers and mothers to live apart. No one can deny that that is happening under the present system.

The impression has been given to women that they do not need a stable relationship with the father of their children as the state will provide. That has all been done under this particular [Conservative] Government who say that they want to retain marriage as a strong institution.

Of course the impression has been given to fathers that they need not worry too much because the state will pick up the tabs.

The social consequences of the single parent family - poverty, crime, deprivation, lack of education and unemployment - are all evils which affect the children of single parent families along with the fiscal and social policies of the [Conservative] Government which have all exacerbated the problems."

Politicians across the political spectrum have been undermining the institution of marriage for a generation. What will make them stop doing this?

[Michael Hewlett]

A big yawn to Michael Hewlett and Mondeo Man. I have nothing against Ken Clarke personally but do disagree with him on certain policies.
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | January 27, 2009 at 16:27

It may be a big yamn to you Tim, but it's equally tiring for the readers to read continual attacks on Ken Clarke on a daily basis. I know that Europe along with grammar schools can whip the right into a frenzy of indignation but it's not helpful to give continual ammo to Labour on this.

[Martin Sewell]

The liberal establishment is very keen on "evidence based policy" - except where the evidence points firmly against their liberal prejudices.

Every study demonstrates that the children of the married do better than those of the unmarried and that the children of the unmarried are vastly over represented in the cohorts of every indicator of social breakdown from prison to drug addiction from mental illness to classroom disruption. Even the Office of National Statistics has offered such evidence.

Governments love to send "messages" to shape social policy. It is therefore entirely sensible and compassionate to send the message that statistically leads to success rather than a message of "it doesn't matter" when plainly it does to children and society alike.

If statistically any other group created so much social cost and mayhem as the unmarried parents there would be major enquiries.

Please do not tell me that marriages fail and that some people triumph against the odds. I have long expereience in the field and do not need to be told, but equally the evidence from far and wide is overwhelmingly that marriage is a win/win for children and society alike. It is a no brainer. So stop the theoretical faffing about and give children the best chance they deserve

[Rory Baxter]

Tim

My name's Rory Baxter and I'm the journalist who attended the Nottingham seminar and picked up Ken's comments. I wrote both exclusive pieces on Ken's views on Obama and Europe (here's the original story, not the one the media ran: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=11168) and on Ken's views on public service spending and marriage.

They have been picked up by virtually every media outlet under the sun, especially the first piece I did where they attempted to suggest Ken was calling Cameron a 'right wing nationalist'. I didn't get that impression when I was there and I didn't write it that way. I can't control how the media treat such stories but I do believe they were, as they say, in the public interest, as we can see by the huge amount of feedback they have generated.

However, I must take you up on the point about Ken's comments being off the record. First of all, the university invited me to the event, knowing I am a journalist, and Ken Clarke was also invited. Presumably somebody should have told Ken that journalists would be present. Even if they hadn't, you obviously had a discussion with Ken about him not saying anything controversial. Here's what you and Ken said at the event, just after Ken had attacked the married couples allowance:

You: “Before this panel started Ken you told me you weren’t going to be controversial, now you’ve just trashed one of the flagship policies.”

Ken: “I also said I hope I’m off the … are there any journalists here? This is off the record.”

You: “Might be a bit late Ken!” (much laughter from the audience).

Indeed it was too late, the cats were well and truly out of their bags.

Before anyone accuses me of breaching any journalistic ethics, there are three things to note here: 1) knowing that there were journalists present, if Ken was strongly against his comments being reported it should have been made clear at the beginning (or even when the invites were sent out), 2) as chairman you could have stressed this point after he'd made his controversial comments if you thought there was a danger of them being reported and 3) Ken was being very light-hearted about the whole thing as he usually is. I've interviewed Ken and face to face he's told me stuff which he's prefaced as saying it's off the record then accepts later that he can't really do that and he allows it to pass. I think it’s fair to say he cares less about these things than other politicians might.

So it was on this basis that I chose to report what Ken said. You could ask why other journalists there didn't report the comments and the answer might be a) they realised they were controversial and wouldn't do Ken any favours if they were reported and they wouldn’t want to do this because they are the same political hue as him or b) they didn't record the whole event like I did. Which brings me to the point made by Peter Bailey that Ken never said these things and they are made up. I can send you the WMA file if you like, it's all there and much more that I have chosen not to air.

As you yourself have said on here: Ken's views on Europe and marriage are legitimate topics for discussion. That's justification enough for me.

But I must end by saying that while I realised his comments were controversial, I did not write the pieces in a 'Ken bashing' way. The various media and commentators that have picked up the story have chosen to do that. (If you look at my first article it's headed 'Brown is finished', says Ken Clarke, it isn't attacking Clarke at all. The first part is all about the possibility of a hung parliament and the Obama comments come in the second half of the item). And while my second article does have the more controversial stuff at the top, its headline is about what the next government will have to do about public spending and taxes, it has loads of paragraphs about fiscal stimulus, Callaghan, tips on policy presentation and how Brown's public spending pledges don't add up, which no newspapers focussed on). I personally like Ken very much, he's a great guy and a much needed 'character' in the political world. Indeed, my running his comments has gained him many supporters who have said it's great that a politician speaks his mind and we should have more like him. It's usually the media that talks about rifts and party splits and damaging Cameron etc etc. Indeed, in the week that my articles appeared, the Tories moved further ahead in the polls, so I don't buy that at all.

Finally, the fact is, if I'd written the articles in December when I intended to, there would have been no fuss because Ken was a backbencher. However, family issues [ie my mother's very poor health] meant I got around to them a few weeks later, by which time Ken was on the front bench and Obama was president. Suddenly the newspapers and everyone else was interested, but the irony is if I'd done them on time none of this discussion would be happening. So timing has proved to be everything in this case.

Finally, finally, Ken can rest assured that there is nothing else to come out of this seminar. My third and final report from this event will be about what David Willetts said, which I don’t think will be reported at all by any newspapers.

Rory