Does anyone care about families anymore?
Dear David Willetts,
Nice to have you back on the front pages after assuming a relatively quiet role over the past year or so. As the Conservative Party is about to release a Green Paper on the family, now is a good time to raise two questions: have the Conservatives got the right policies on families, and does anyone really care about family policy?
You told the Guardian today that marriage in Britain is in danger of becoming an exclusive middle-class institution unless action is taken to bolster it, stating that it would be ”extremely dangerous if marriage became something only for the affluent elite” and that the rate of family break-ups was a disaster for children. The general theme of your Paper is that the state and the voluntary sector can do more to help fathers in relationships, especially at the birth of the first child, frequently a point where couples drift apart and separate. You will also back recognition of marriage in the tax system, as well as providing relationship advice at civil marriage ceremonies. In addition, The Green Paper will propose changes in the law to make it easier for grandparents and fathers to stay in contact with children when marriages break up. “There is quite a lot of evidence coming from America about how we are in danger of heading towards a society where middle-class people get married and people on low and erratic incomes don’t get married, and that in turn leads to a divergence of a whole host of other outcomes,” you added.
So, first up, is this the right way to go? Research from Essex University shows that less educated women born after 1960 have a divorce rate 30% higher than that of the better educated and they are also more likely to have a child outside a live-in partnership. Studies such as this never identify causal links, but the sheer volume of evidence suggesting that children from households with strong family bonds have better outcomes than those who don’t is a perfectly good justification for concentrating on keeping families together. That said, I was glad to see you recognise that some marriages will fail, as marriage is never the be-all-and-end-all. Owing to budgetary pressures you said it was unlikely that recognition of marriage in the tax system would appear in the Tories’ first budget, but you are also right to highlight the fact that Turkey and Mexico are the only other major industrialised countries not to recognise marriage in the tax system, and the fact that a second adult is ’invisible’ in our tax credit system is also potentially problematic. I’m delighted to see grandparents being explicitly discussed in the context of the family and you will propose that grandparents are automatically considered for placements if both parents are not deemed suitable to bring up the children and they should also be considered for access to the child following a divorce. Personally I would go further and guarantee grandparents access after a divorce unless they pose a risk to the child, but at least it’s a start.
On the second question of does anyone care about the family anymore, I suspect that you will not win many new votes. Sure, readers of the Telegraph and the Daily Fail will be overjoyed at even the slightest hint of a politician discussing ‘the family’, but I can’t really see Guardian readers flocking over to the Blue team once this Green Paper is published. The economic crisis has taken the wind out of the sails of almost every other policy area and, while your ideas would make for good manifesto commitments, I’m not convinced that many people will be tempted to move towards the Conservatives purely on the basis of a couple of tweaks to the tax credit system. Nevertheless, the more traditional wing of the Conservatives will be happy to hear Team Cameron putting climate change and all that other fluffy b******* to one side, even if it is just for a fleeting moment, because there is clearly still an undercurrent within the Conservatives created by those who do not entirely buy into Cameron’s centre-ground antics. Perhaps the biggest success of your policies will be to keep Conservatives voting Conservative, but don’t expect swathes of swing voters to sign up on conservatives.com tomorrow morning.
Labour’s disgraceful neglect of the family unit has had catastrophic consequences and will continue to do so for many years even if the Conservatives win the next election. Their refusal to champion two-parent families, encourage fathers to stay in touch with their children, keep grandparents in touch with their grandchildren and remove disincentives to couples staying together has left many families in pieces. It will be a long, painful road back to a stable family unit being at the heart of British society, assuming that it is possible at all. Your Green Paper is a step in the right direction but there is a long, long, long way to go before the damage that Labour have caused is undone.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Whole-heartedly agree. Nice to see someone doing something which is right rather than just populist (although am sure that appealing to the base will have crossed their mind as well)
“The general theme of your Paper is that the state and the voluntary sector can do more to help fathers in relationships…”
That is good news after the distaterous policies of Blair and Brown, though frankly I’d rather the state stayed out of people’s lives altogether.
“It will be a long, painful road back to a stable family unit being at the heart of British society, assuming that it is possible at all. “
I don’t think it is. I think societal change would have happened regardless of government policy on this.
Charles, policy based on principles is certainly in short supply these days.
Julia, the voluntary sector can deliver some amazing things if it is given the chance – just reading through the work of the Centre for Social Justice makes that point abundantly clear. It also fits nicely with the ‘localism’ agenda where the Government pulls back from having its nasty tentacles in everything that local authorities do.
“Labour’s disgraceful neglect of the family unit…” Epitomised, perhaps, by the fact that the ‘Children, Schools & Families’ cabinet portfolio lies in the sensitive and caring hands of the charming and warm personality that is Ed Balls.
Families? Balls’ time is mainly spent fannying around as a key member of Brown’s scheming, mendacious inner circle, or panting on the sidelines, aching to further his own ambitions and, next, become chancellor of the exchequer.
I make no mention of his massive failures in respect of ’schools’ (wisely and appropriately, the word ‘education’ does not appear any more in Balls’ portfolio title). But look at him. Listen to him. Have regard for his bullying, deeply unpleasant manner. No matter how bad things become (and things are bad, I know), on the issue of our children and families do we honestly need advice and guidance from the disaster that is New Labour in general, and Balls in particular?
“Research from Essex University shows that less educated women born after 1960 have a divorce rate 30% higher than that of the better educated and they are also more likely to have a child outside a live-in partnership. Studies such as this never identify causal links, but the sheer volume of evidence suggesting that children from households with strong family bonds have better outcomes than those who don’t is a perfectly good justification for concentrating on keeping families together. ”
So less educated poorer people are more likely to divorce, and people from families with stronger bonds (typicly more educated and richer then) do better, who’d of thunk it.
I’d much rather goverment just kept it’s nose out of telling people how they should live, which is what a tax break is essentially doing.
Talwin, David Willets rightly pointed out that Ed Balls talks a lot about parent-child relationships but never about parent-parent relationships, which are crucial for the wellbeing of children. I agree that Ed Balls has been preoccupied with trying to suck up to Gordon Brown, despite having such an important brief.
Aron, I have no problem with the Government putting incentives in place to promote evidence-based behaviour and also removing disincentives to behaviours that contradict the research. Where I get annoyed is when idiots like Labour start saying what parents can and cannot do, which is not what Willets is talking about.
Aron
The issue is that the evidence-based analysis suggests that there are real societal benefits from family units staying together (better education outcomes, reduced crime, improved job prospects, etc) even when controlling for class/parental income. The government can either intervene ‘at source’ like the Tories are suggesting (and they are just offering an incentive, not mandating behaviour) or they can pay the bill when they pick up the pieces of a societal break down. I know which I would prefer my tax dollars to be spent on!
I agree Charles. However, I don’t think a few quid a week will make much of a difference by way of an incentive. It certainly isn’t enough to mitigate any financial pressures a married couple may feel.
Worse, I wonder if nagging or lecturing people, or even strongly promoting, Marriage will be counter productive, rendering it uncool in exactly the way being told not to smoke by your parents may encourage you to try a sneaky ciggie behind the bikesheds.
Instead, I suspect it may be more effective to lead by example, as it were. Though I can’t see how.
Interestingly, I’m 35 and now three or four of my peergroup are married and more in my wider circle of friends, including people like me who’s own parents co-habited but never married. So perhaps there’s a generational ebb & flow at work here as much as a class one.
Shaun
I’m not sure that is a money thing – more a fact that society is standing up and saying that “we think marriage is a good thing”. More of a cultural dynamic than anything else – someone standing up for what is right. Don’t think there is a risk of marriage becoming “uncool” though – I don’t expect (and hope that – like Aron – the government doesn’t start lecturing us). Just a change in tone from what often seemed a positively anti-marriage Labour party will be fine.
You may be right on the generational thing though – I am a couple of years younger than you and the majority of my peers are either married or want to be – the only anti marriage person works for Alan Johnson, so you can make your own judgement!
Me. I care about my family.. I care all of them and to those I love.
Merry Christmas.
@Charles – I agree that often Labour have appeared anti-marriage, and yet the reality seems to be that most who occupy the upper echelons of the PLP are themselves married.
Perhaps, like their own education and that of their offspring, wages, income and emoluments, lies and deceit, morals, responsibity for cock-ups, eco-consciousness, etc. their views on marriage are different for them and what they expect of us.
Or perhaps there’s just more chance to fiddle exes. if they’re married (or they reckoned they’d have more chance of becoming prime minister!).
Two points.
“Owing to budgetary pressures you said it was unlikely that recognition of marriage in the tax system would appear in the Tories’ first budget” – that assumes that the recognition is done by improving the position of married couples, rather than by making non-married ones bear the brunt of the tax rises that are presumably coming. You could, for example, reduce the personal allowance but add a married couple’s allowance so that married couples didn’t lose out. The Tories shouldn’t be allowed to cop out of doing everything desirable “owing to budgetary pressures”.
There is a big danger in the voluntary sector approach. If the State starts funding voluntary bodies, pretty soon they become fakecharities that are effectively part of the State. Therefore they become “poisoned” by their association with the State, and their unique virtues are compromised.
“The issue is that the evidence-based analysis suggests that there are real societal benefits from family units staying together (better education outcomes, reduced crime, improved job prospects, etc) even when controlling for class/parental income. ”
Evidence, go on then?
Whilst your at it show me the evidence that giving a little of someone elses money to a married couple helps them stay married. The evidence that shows that marriage is the cause of good parenting, and not that good parents are the type to choose a stable married relasionship, or deal with issues others don’t.
“I know which I would prefer my tax dollars to be spent on! ”
Do what you want with your money, but don’t treat mine as if it’s rightfully someone elses because they happen to be married.
Aron
Unfortunately I’m on the road again at short notice (which really irritated my wife) but will try to look out some of the data and see if I can find a useful link to a goos synopsis for you. I believe that IDS’s report had some decent data. Or you could just try google
As for your second point, to be fair, the research I have read is focused on outcomes: I.e. that children from stable, married, units tend to outperform. I don’t recall off the top of my head whether they dug further into causality, although they certainly controlled the analysis for parental income, eductational status and so forth which I would expected would cover off your main charge. On the question of money, my earlier point was that it is the change of tone/culture that is most important: the money is merely a signalling device rather than anything else. I would be equally content with an approach that equalised the economic position of single parent vs married units proving this was sufficient to shift societal perspectives.
As for the money point, it is really an ethical question. I believe that soceity has an obligation to help those who are most disadvantaged – and would rather do this in the most cost effective way (pre-emptively) rather than wait and address the poor outcomes that we expect. That means that more money can be left in the pockets of those who earn it rather than taken from them in tax. If you believe that there is no moral obligation to help the poorest – or if you believe that the government should on principle let people live their own lives and just pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong – then we don’t agree, but I suspect that I won’t be able to convince you.
Aron, with all due respect, the evidence base on this topic is absolutely vast. Basic google searches will bring up a lot of info but even that is just scratching the surface. I take your point and Shaun’s point that a few extra quid won’t change the world, but it will send out the right message at the same time as removing the financial penalties that couples can face for living together.
Adam, no-one wants more fake charities, but local authorities putting up seed funding for new ‘charities’ and social enterprises based on successful models is fine with me.
Talwin, I don’t think one comment thread could ever do justice to Labour’s hypocrisy on these sorts of issues e.g. slamming Eton while most of the Labour cabinet went to private school etc etc.
As a ‘change of tone’ issue, that’s fine. Spending a few quid a head to send a message is a-okay with me. Using the law to send ‘messages’ containing unscientific content about things, like, say, drugs, is not okay. I’m glad you take my point, though, that in and of itself, a few notes a week won’t save marriages!
Don’t tell my wife I said that, ffs – she thinks I’m profligate enough!
I think its all about how that money is spent.
I have a rather odd perspective on this, having been hard-right on this in my twenties and disenchanted in my early 30s but now disabled with MS which is just irritating! My view is that yes, the state should assist and where people *genuinely* can’t work then they should be well paid for, not the detterence-level crumbs tossed their way at the moment. However, people like me – I have sudden-onset need-the-toilet-RIGHT-NOW bladder due to the MS, bouts of fatigue, odd drug requirements and so on – still WANT to work. I do work – I’m lucky enough to be a PHP developer so can do that from home where I have two toilets and can always source one in time!
Assistance to allow people and to enable them to work, to establish their worth in THAT world, is money worth spending. In some cases that will be courses, in others assistance devices and yet others tough-love and retraining. That said, the benefits of work go so far beyond the merely financial that I’d almost (hah! I’m conservative in a number of ways!) bet that if people did more work, be it paid or community volunteering, the benefits in self esteem and other health areas would save the NHS billions and thus be cost effective.
Or maybe I’ve smoked an Iain Duncan Spliff and am imagining things…
This is my major concern. Thanks for posting about this.
“Aron, with all due respect, the evidence base on this topic is absolutely vast. Basic google searches will bring up a lot of info but even that is just scratching the surface.”
Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, there is plenty of research that shows married couples perform better, but i am not aware of research that very specificlly proves that it is marraige itself that is the cause.
Now seeming as your the one saying that the non married populace should subsidise the married populace, don’t ask me to google it, i mean surely you already have it and are not just talking out of your bum?
Without that proof the only message you send is “the goverment disaproves of lifestyles outside of marraige”.
“removing the financial penalties that couples can face for living together.”
And those are?