Clever Nick Clegg speaking at the 3rd Relate Annual Conference 8th July 2009 , said:
“The fact that some relationships will fail doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to make other relationships succeed.”
He trumpeted, “David Cameron’s social policy is focused almost obsessively on marriage, cajoling people to conform to a single view of what a happy couple should look like...... it’s relationships that matter, not signatures on a piece of paper.” He went on:
“But the Labour party is wrong, too, when it ignores interpersonal relationships. When it pretends that family circumstances don’t make a difference to children’s lives. All the evidence shows that it’s better for children to have two parents who get on well together looking after them.”
So he reads some research, when it suits him.
Like other Liberal Democrats he, “attaches real value to relationships, to commitment and to love, but does not seek to limit or prescribe what makes for a strong relationship.”
Hang on a minute! I thought he just said it is wrong to pretend “that family circumstances don’t make a difference to children’s lives.”
Family circumstances – including marital status – do make a difference to children's lives. Harry Benson of Bristol Community Family Trust has updated his earlier research with, “Back off or Fire back? Negative relationship behaviours amongst postnatal married and cohabiting couples”:
“Analysis of marital outcomes amongst 15,000 mothers from the Millennium Cohort Study (Benson, 2006) showed that 6% of married parents had split up by their child’s third birthday compared with 20% of cohabiting parents and 32% of all unmarried couple parents (combining parents who describe themselves as either “cohabiting” or “closely involved”).
Benson’s analysis also found that marital status was the single most important factor in predicting break-up. Demographic factors such as age, income, education, ethnic group and receipt of welfare payments each independently influence the risk of family breakdown amongst new parents. Yet after controlling for these factors, unmarried parents were still more than twice as likely to split up compared to similar married couples.
Analysis of the most recent wave of Millennium Cohort Study data for this paper showed that the risk of breakdown by a child’s fifth birthday had risen to 9% for married parents, 26% for cohabiting parents and 35% for all unmarried couples. The risk of family breakdown amongst unmarried couples with children under five years old is thus four times higher than for equivalent married couples.”
So if clever Nick Clegg is right to complain the Labour party's “wish not to stigmatise single parents has led them to minimise the importance of couples in family life” he is wrong by the same token to ignore the evidence of the significance of marriage in providing more stability in the family life of couples – four times as much for couples with children under five.
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
8 Jul 2009
Yes, the Conservatives were hoodwinked by the LGA over marriage preparation
The LGA duly trotted off to see their mates at LACORS who commissioned One Plus One [see previous post] to come up with something to which registrars could signpost couples.
This website http://www.coupleconnection.net/ does not even mention marriage on the front page. It is clearly designed to pander to all the seekers after alternative lifestyles which the Conservatives say they are trying to encourage people to get away from. You have to dig deeply to find anything about marriage preparation.
Is the LGA a quango without political direction? I had fondly imagined that with the majority of councils under Conservative control it would be following Conservative family policies.
This website http://www.coupleconnection.net/ does not even mention marriage on the front page. It is clearly designed to pander to all the seekers after alternative lifestyles which the Conservatives say they are trying to encourage people to get away from. You have to dig deeply to find anything about marriage preparation.
Is the LGA a quango without political direction? I had fondly imagined that with the majority of councils under Conservative control it would be following Conservative family policies.
30 Jan 2009
Michael Gove and the decline of marriage
In "Who says the decline of marriage is bad for us all? I do" Michael Gove spells out what he describes as a 'progressive' view of marriage in Scotland on Sunday, 25th January 2009. Here are some extracts:
"Why should adults be corralled into an institution invented by a church in which a majority no longer believe? Why should the personal have to become public? Why should the million different shapes that love can take be forced into the Victorian corset of mouldy vows and mildewed sentiments? Since most couples live together before they marry, and therefore few these days believe that bridal white reflects virginal purity, why go through a charade just to please parents, when the cash could pay for a new kitchen instead?
Given the strength, and gathering force, of this trend, who would dare stand against it? Who would want to be a Holy Willie, twitching and frothing at what young people get up to these days, seeking to apply the morality of a judgmental and prejudiced past in these, more liberal and tolerant, times?
But if no one points out the consequences of the marginalisation of marriage, then some of the most vulnerable in our society will be voiceless. For the drift away from marital commitment is part of a broader flight from responsibility which is weakening our society and hitting the poorest, hardest. Marriage is a constraint, it is a restriction on freedom, a corset or corral in which passions which would otherwise run free are subject to disciplines, and personal satisfaction is subordinated to social expectations. But the reason marriage imposes those constraints is to ensure that selfish adults, especially pleasure-seeking males, are placed within a structure which forces them to live up to their responsibilities towards the next generation. A society which expects men to stay married to the mother of their children is a society which places a premium on providing young boys with male role models who embody the virtues of responsibility, restraint and consideration for others.
Children become mature when they grasp the principle of deferred gratification, the idea that greater prizes accrue to those who are prepared to work, wait and share than to those who wish to eat, shoot and leave. When adults behave like children, seeking instant gratification of their desires, abandoning relationships which no longer serve their purposes in pursuit of new, more intense, pleasure they leave children in their wake who have been deprived of the most valuable of inheritances – stability and security in which to grow to maturity.
These nouns may be abstract, but the problems created by the collapse of commitment are not. When I visit primary schools I am struck by how often headteachers point to the increasing numbers of children who, aged five, are incapable of sitting still and listening, who have not learnt how to communicate even basic thoughts and grow frustrated, even violent, when their needs aren't met. The heads I talk to bracket the growth in the numbers of children arriving at school with these disadvantages with the decline in the number of households where both the birth parents still live together. In a sober, entirely pragmatic way they point out that the absence of responsible male role models has a direct effect on the behaviour of the children.
One of the most striking failures of Government over the last 10 years has been the inability of ministers to promote social mobility and make our society more equal. Improving education is crucial to helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve their potential. But making schools better isn't enough, as any teacher will tell you. The early years matter hugely, and children deserve the care of both the adults who brought them into this world...........
If we're all reviewing our economic perspectives in the wake of the credit crunch, shouldn't we also extend that same process to our most intimate concerns? Shouldn't we see personal relations less through the prism of celebrating freedom and maximising pleasure and more as a means of growing through sharing? Support for marriage should actually be a cause behind which progressives rally. We may promise to wed for richer, for poorer, but we all live in an impoverished society if more and more people choose to put me before we."
On 30th September 2008 at the Conservative Party conference, Maria Miller MP, Shadow Minister for the family, one of Michael Gove's team, announced a new policy:
"Most young couples now get married in a civil ceremony. Unlike a church wedding, there is no tradition of pre-marriage preparation for couples marrying at a registry office. We want that to change. We want local registrars to start signposting couples to pre-marital education as a matter of routine. The Local Government Association who co-ordinate the role of wedding registrars, agree and I am pleased to say that they [are] putting forward this policy so that every young couple getting married will be made aware of the benefits they would get from relationship support at this critical point in their life. In the US, couples who have this type of pre-marriage education are a third less likely to divorce. We want this type of support for couples to be routine in Britain too."
This fits well with what Michael Gove is saying. But where is the action? There has been a deafening silence from the LGA for four months now.
If the Conservatives want electors to believe them, they must show some signs that they mean business.
"Why should adults be corralled into an institution invented by a church in which a majority no longer believe? Why should the personal have to become public? Why should the million different shapes that love can take be forced into the Victorian corset of mouldy vows and mildewed sentiments? Since most couples live together before they marry, and therefore few these days believe that bridal white reflects virginal purity, why go through a charade just to please parents, when the cash could pay for a new kitchen instead?
Given the strength, and gathering force, of this trend, who would dare stand against it? Who would want to be a Holy Willie, twitching and frothing at what young people get up to these days, seeking to apply the morality of a judgmental and prejudiced past in these, more liberal and tolerant, times?
But if no one points out the consequences of the marginalisation of marriage, then some of the most vulnerable in our society will be voiceless. For the drift away from marital commitment is part of a broader flight from responsibility which is weakening our society and hitting the poorest, hardest. Marriage is a constraint, it is a restriction on freedom, a corset or corral in which passions which would otherwise run free are subject to disciplines, and personal satisfaction is subordinated to social expectations. But the reason marriage imposes those constraints is to ensure that selfish adults, especially pleasure-seeking males, are placed within a structure which forces them to live up to their responsibilities towards the next generation. A society which expects men to stay married to the mother of their children is a society which places a premium on providing young boys with male role models who embody the virtues of responsibility, restraint and consideration for others.
Children become mature when they grasp the principle of deferred gratification, the idea that greater prizes accrue to those who are prepared to work, wait and share than to those who wish to eat, shoot and leave. When adults behave like children, seeking instant gratification of their desires, abandoning relationships which no longer serve their purposes in pursuit of new, more intense, pleasure they leave children in their wake who have been deprived of the most valuable of inheritances – stability and security in which to grow to maturity.
These nouns may be abstract, but the problems created by the collapse of commitment are not. When I visit primary schools I am struck by how often headteachers point to the increasing numbers of children who, aged five, are incapable of sitting still and listening, who have not learnt how to communicate even basic thoughts and grow frustrated, even violent, when their needs aren't met. The heads I talk to bracket the growth in the numbers of children arriving at school with these disadvantages with the decline in the number of households where both the birth parents still live together. In a sober, entirely pragmatic way they point out that the absence of responsible male role models has a direct effect on the behaviour of the children.
One of the most striking failures of Government over the last 10 years has been the inability of ministers to promote social mobility and make our society more equal. Improving education is crucial to helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve their potential. But making schools better isn't enough, as any teacher will tell you. The early years matter hugely, and children deserve the care of both the adults who brought them into this world...........
If we're all reviewing our economic perspectives in the wake of the credit crunch, shouldn't we also extend that same process to our most intimate concerns? Shouldn't we see personal relations less through the prism of celebrating freedom and maximising pleasure and more as a means of growing through sharing? Support for marriage should actually be a cause behind which progressives rally. We may promise to wed for richer, for poorer, but we all live in an impoverished society if more and more people choose to put me before we."
On 30th September 2008 at the Conservative Party conference, Maria Miller MP, Shadow Minister for the family, one of Michael Gove's team, announced a new policy:
"Most young couples now get married in a civil ceremony. Unlike a church wedding, there is no tradition of pre-marriage preparation for couples marrying at a registry office. We want that to change. We want local registrars to start signposting couples to pre-marital education as a matter of routine. The Local Government Association who co-ordinate the role of wedding registrars, agree and I am pleased to say that they [are] putting forward this policy so that every young couple getting married will be made aware of the benefits they would get from relationship support at this critical point in their life. In the US, couples who have this type of pre-marriage education are a third less likely to divorce. We want this type of support for couples to be routine in Britain too."
This fits well with what Michael Gove is saying. But where is the action? There has been a deafening silence from the LGA for four months now.
If the Conservatives want electors to believe them, they must show some signs that they mean business.
31 Dec 2008
Families in Britain: an evidence paper
The DCSF web site reports, "The family dominates public and policy debate and there is much discussion about the state of family in Britain. This paper assembles the key trends and sets out a framework to think about the family. The paper aims to provide a framework to take stock of family life in Britain and map recent trends and changes as well as explore future pressures on families. It also aims to understand what lies behind headline trends and to understand the implications of these. This paper and the family policy principles it sets out will hopefully stimulate further discussion which will continue to inform the Government's work and underpin the ambition for a truly family-friendly Britain."
My comments on 'Families in Britain: an evidence paper' [December 2008] are set out below. It was published recently by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and the DCSF and includes the following:
Page 85 - Marriage is associated with successful outcomes
Page 86 - Lone parenthood is associated with less successful outcomes
Page 87 - Stepfamilies are associated with less successful outcomes than biological two-parent families
Page 88 - Parental separation is associated with a range of adverse childhood, adolescent and adult outcomes for children e.g. in terms of cognitive development, education and labour market disadvantages
Page 85 [married couples] are happier, less prone to depression and suicide and live longer.
Government Ministers have become so accustomed to parroting the mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure over another", that no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, they are blind to it, even when it is in their own documents.
Ironically, of course, the government doesn't adhere to this mantra, as it tries desperately to halt the increase in teenage motherhood and the spread of sexually transmitted infections with ever increasing quantities of contraceptives.
If the evidence does not endorse teenage motherhood as a good basis for healthy outcomes for children, why not promote the structure which does, rather than the alternatives that have outcomes closer to those from teenage motherhood?
(The National Statistics [published on the web 28th February 2008] 'Trends in suicide by marital status in England and Wales,1982-2005' Abstract states, "A protective effect of marriage has been observed in a number of previous studies .......... despite changes in marriage patterns over the last 25 years, those who are married still have the lowest risk of suicide, and there has generally been no obvious decline in the difference in suicide rates between those who are married and those who are not.")
You might think with the evidence from a number of studies about the "protective effect of marriage" that the Ministers promoting a report entitled 'Families in Britain: an evidence paper' would want to draw attention to the "protective effect of marriage", but, not a bit of it, the Ministers use the opportunity in their Foreword to calmly spin the evidence away from married couple relationships - which the evidence supports - towards 'diversity', which it does not.
A further example of spin is on Page 99, with "Life Event Marriage/cohabitation"; this is a conflation of two entirely different events, only one of which is to a publicly committed and enduring relationship.
This conflation of marriage and cohabitation lies at the heart of what some bishops are complaining about when they speak of policies that are 'morally corrupt'.
The Rt Revd Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, is reported as saying, "the breakdown of the family is a crucial element in the difficulties of our present society .... The Government hasn’t given sufficient support to that because it is scared of losing votes.... Labour’s failure to back marriage and its “insistence on supporting every choice of lifestyle” ha[s] had a negative effect on society."
An example of this 'negative effect' has been revealed recently: the banks bought into the Government's "every choice of lifestyle" agenda - and created the toxic debt - which now they are too ashamed to acknowledge by publishing mortgage arrears figures by marital status. The previous generation of bankers would never have lent money to cohabiting couples with inherently unstable relationships in the amounts which have been advanced in the last decade. Toxic relationships are behind the toxic debt and the financial meltdown.
On a practical level, the MPs, Graeme Allen and Iain Duncan Smith, are jointly promoting 'Early Intervention: Good Parents, Great Kids, Better Citizens'. Please ask your MP to support this initiative.
There is common ground developing across the political spectrum in welfare reform with direct payments and 'Self-Directed Support for every child and young person' as described in "A whole-life approach to personalisation". These principles could be applied to supporting marriage and family life.
My comments on 'Families in Britain: an evidence paper' [December 2008] are set out below. It was published recently by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and the DCSF and includes the following:
Page 85 - Marriage is associated with successful outcomes
Page 86 - Lone parenthood is associated with less successful outcomes
Page 87 - Stepfamilies are associated with less successful outcomes than biological two-parent families
Page 88 - Parental separation is associated with a range of adverse childhood, adolescent and adult outcomes for children e.g. in terms of cognitive development, education and labour market disadvantages
Page 85 [married couples] are happier, less prone to depression and suicide and live longer.
Government Ministers have become so accustomed to parroting the mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure over another", that no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, they are blind to it, even when it is in their own documents.
Ironically, of course, the government doesn't adhere to this mantra, as it tries desperately to halt the increase in teenage motherhood and the spread of sexually transmitted infections with ever increasing quantities of contraceptives.
If the evidence does not endorse teenage motherhood as a good basis for healthy outcomes for children, why not promote the structure which does, rather than the alternatives that have outcomes closer to those from teenage motherhood?
(The National Statistics [published on the web 28th February 2008] 'Trends in suicide by marital status in England and Wales,1982-2005' Abstract states, "A protective effect of marriage has been observed in a number of previous studies .......... despite changes in marriage patterns over the last 25 years, those who are married still have the lowest risk of suicide, and there has generally been no obvious decline in the difference in suicide rates between those who are married and those who are not.")
You might think with the evidence from a number of studies about the "protective effect of marriage" that the Ministers promoting a report entitled 'Families in Britain: an evidence paper' would want to draw attention to the "protective effect of marriage", but, not a bit of it, the Ministers use the opportunity in their Foreword to calmly spin the evidence away from married couple relationships - which the evidence supports - towards 'diversity', which it does not.
A further example of spin is on Page 99, with "Life Event Marriage/cohabitation"; this is a conflation of two entirely different events, only one of which is to a publicly committed and enduring relationship.
This conflation of marriage and cohabitation lies at the heart of what some bishops are complaining about when they speak of policies that are 'morally corrupt'.
The Rt Revd Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, is reported as saying, "the breakdown of the family is a crucial element in the difficulties of our present society .... The Government hasn’t given sufficient support to that because it is scared of losing votes.... Labour’s failure to back marriage and its “insistence on supporting every choice of lifestyle” ha[s] had a negative effect on society."
An example of this 'negative effect' has been revealed recently: the banks bought into the Government's "every choice of lifestyle" agenda - and created the toxic debt - which now they are too ashamed to acknowledge by publishing mortgage arrears figures by marital status. The previous generation of bankers would never have lent money to cohabiting couples with inherently unstable relationships in the amounts which have been advanced in the last decade. Toxic relationships are behind the toxic debt and the financial meltdown.
On a practical level, the MPs, Graeme Allen and Iain Duncan Smith, are jointly promoting 'Early Intervention: Good Parents, Great Kids, Better Citizens'. Please ask your MP to support this initiative.
There is common ground developing across the political spectrum in welfare reform with direct payments and 'Self-Directed Support for every child and young person' as described in "A whole-life approach to personalisation". These principles could be applied to supporting marriage and family life.
17 Aug 2008
The Sub-Prime cohabitation crisis and "The Emperor's New Clothes"
"An emperor who cares too much about clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital show off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth."
The conflation of cohabitation and marriage - strongly promoted by HMG [Her Majesty's Government] - with its mantra "We shall not promote one type of family structure over another" is bringing its chickens home to roost. HMG - indeed many politicians and City and Wall Street "insiders" - are faced with a dilemma. Do they admit they were inept and have been proved profoundly wrong in their acceptance of the mantra, or do they continue to ignore the research evidence and hope what is a still "a cloud no larger than a man's hand" evaporates?
Cohabiting couples who are in arrears with their mortgage payments have precipitated the mortgage/credit/economic crisis. Why them more than married couples? Well, the research evidence - though not yet conclusive - points in the direction of cohabitants as the culprits. Please follow these links:
[1] "Are the Sub-Prime, Northern Rock, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos connected with the increase in cohabitation?" [article and comments]
[2] "Cohabitation is not the same as marriage; most importantly, cohabiting couples break up at a much higher rate than married couples".
[3] "Cohabitation vs. Marriage: How Love’s Choices Shape Life Outcomes" [Top Ten Findings]
The Economist reports "For much of this financial crisis, America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has cut a pathetic figure, relegated to the sidelines as a hyperactive Federal Reserve tried a variety of creative measures to keep the system afloat. When the market watchdog finally did get in on the act, it was highly controversial: a temporary order restricting short-selling the shares of 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled mortgage agencies" [Not to mention Northern Rock in the UK].
The "short-selling" of marriage has been the real scandal, and this goes way above and beyond the Securities and Exchange Commission. All the "Emperors" who have all allowed themselves to be deceived about this will need to address the issue sooner or later. The institution which is "systemically important" is marriage. Attempting to legislate against bucket shop type operations without attending to the real issue is futile.
The conflation of cohabitation and marriage - strongly promoted by HMG [Her Majesty's Government] - with its mantra "We shall not promote one type of family structure over another" is bringing its chickens home to roost. HMG - indeed many politicians and City and Wall Street "insiders" - are faced with a dilemma. Do they admit they were inept and have been proved profoundly wrong in their acceptance of the mantra, or do they continue to ignore the research evidence and hope what is a still "a cloud no larger than a man's hand" evaporates?
Cohabiting couples who are in arrears with their mortgage payments have precipitated the mortgage/credit/economic crisis. Why them more than married couples? Well, the research evidence - though not yet conclusive - points in the direction of cohabitants as the culprits. Please follow these links:
[1] "Are the Sub-Prime, Northern Rock, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos connected with the increase in cohabitation?" [article and comments]
[2] "Cohabitation is not the same as marriage; most importantly, cohabiting couples break up at a much higher rate than married couples".
[3] "Cohabitation vs. Marriage: How Love’s Choices Shape Life Outcomes" [Top Ten Findings]
The Economist reports "For much of this financial crisis, America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has cut a pathetic figure, relegated to the sidelines as a hyperactive Federal Reserve tried a variety of creative measures to keep the system afloat. When the market watchdog finally did get in on the act, it was highly controversial: a temporary order restricting short-selling the shares of 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled mortgage agencies" [Not to mention Northern Rock in the UK].
The "short-selling" of marriage has been the real scandal, and this goes way above and beyond the Securities and Exchange Commission. All the "Emperors" who have all allowed themselves to be deceived about this will need to address the issue sooner or later. The institution which is "systemically important" is marriage. Attempting to legislate against bucket shop type operations without attending to the real issue is futile.
5 Mar 2008
Poverty – is it the cause or consequence of family breakdown?
Martin Narey is chair of the End Child Poverty coalition and chief executive of Barnardo's. He was formerly head of the prison service at the Home Office. He has been appointed by Nick Clegg to chair the Liberal Democrats' commission on social mobility because he is seen as an independent, expert voice, Andrew Sparrow reported in the Guardian on Monday 3rd March 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/03/welfare.socialexclusion
Guardian: “When Iain Duncan Smith looked at this for the Conservatives, he identified family breakdown as a cause of inequality. Do you think he's got a point or do you think he's barking up the wrong tree?”
Narey: “I wouldn't say he's barking up the wrong tree. I met IDS for the fist time [recently] and I found him enormously impressive. But I would offer an alternative theory, which is that dire poverty leads to family breakdown. Anyone who has brought up children or a family, if you think seriously about what it must be like under such immense financial pressure, I think it's very easy to understand why we have so many marriages that fail.”
In an article in the Daily Mail, James Chapman comments on a study by former Inland Revenue consultants Don Draper and Leonard Beighton, working for CARE. He concludes: "Among highly developed economies, the UK is almost alone in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509438&in_page_id=1770
Professor Rowthorn is quoted as saying: "The system is resented because it is so biased against one-earner couples who wish to look after their own children. There is growing recognition that it penalises stable couples and encourages family breakdown and un-partnered childbearing."
Therefore, in so far as Martin Narey’s theory is correct in pointing to poverty being the cause of family breakdown, it is the bias against marriage in the tax and benefit systems that is bringing about much of the poverty, in addition to inherently unstable “unpartnered childbearing” and childrearing.
In a later article [2nd March 2008], also in the Daily Mail, Steve Doughty reported that Don Draper “examined the income of 98 theoretical couples with different incomes ranging from basic benefits to more than £46,000 a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=524381&in_page_id=1770
“His report took into account benefits, rent or mortgage payments, and whether a missing father is paying maintenance. Checks of family entitlements against tax and benefit tables used by the Department for Work and Pensions showed that 75 of the 98 families would be better off apart than together. The analysis - which also took into account the additional costs of running two homes - showed that on average the premium for living apart would be £69. A similar study last year found 71 couples out of 98 would be worse off and the extra cost of living together averaged £63. The worst affected families were those where only one partner worked and the other stayed at home to bring up one child. For them, the extra benefits if the family broke up would be worth £95.62 a week.”
Mr Draper said: "These are very considerable sums for people whose incomes may be less than £300 a week. Breaking the cycle of poverty by encouraging the formation and maintenance of stable families would make a major contribution to reducing long-term poverty. Many social problems seem to have their roots in unstable family structures."
The Labour MP Frank Field has calculated that a single mother with two children under 11 on the minimum wage received tax credits that took her weekly income to £487 if she worked only 16 hours a week. A two-parent family with one earner would have had to put in 116 hours of work on the same pay to get the same money.
CARE's report said the extra cost to the Treasury of a couple choosing to stay apart to claim more benefits this year - of whom there are 1.2million - will average £7,732.
Let’s hope Martin Narey – “an independent, expert voice” - looks first at the numbers with a dispassionate eye.
At much the same time [4th March 2008], the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill accused politicians of failing the nation's children by conducting an experiment to "downgrade" marriage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nbishop104.xml
He says the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" was showing no sign of running out of steam.
"Our legislators have got a bit careless and they've not noticed that some of the things they've done have not helped home life in our country.
"The tax system works so that if you get married you are penalised.
“We have been dismantling the institution of marriage and saying to our young people it doesn't really matter if you get married."
It is good to see a public figure like the bishop engaging in this important debate. Thus far it has been like a “phoney war” with very few prominent figures willing to enter it. The result has been that the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" has continued almost unchecked and without serious debate.
There was a debate in House of Lords on Thursday, 28 February 2008 on “Families, Community Cohesion and Social Action”, but not a single male Conservative peer participated.
In an article in the Guardian, “Marital splits are still costly for mothers” by John Carvel, social affairs editor, Wednesday March 5, 2008:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2262214,00.html
Dr Paul Dornan, the head of policy and research for the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Some have argued the tax credit system somehow incentivises parents to live apart, but that argument is hollow - mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown."
No doubt mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown, but it doesn’t alter the fact that many separated parents receive in total more money through the tax and benefit systems than married couples living together. The question is, “is it fair and sensible for the state to give more money to people raising children apart than those who opt to stay together despite their difficulties?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/03/welfare.socialexclusion
Guardian: “When Iain Duncan Smith looked at this for the Conservatives, he identified family breakdown as a cause of inequality. Do you think he's got a point or do you think he's barking up the wrong tree?”
Narey: “I wouldn't say he's barking up the wrong tree. I met IDS for the fist time [recently] and I found him enormously impressive. But I would offer an alternative theory, which is that dire poverty leads to family breakdown. Anyone who has brought up children or a family, if you think seriously about what it must be like under such immense financial pressure, I think it's very easy to understand why we have so many marriages that fail.”
In an article in the Daily Mail, James Chapman comments on a study by former Inland Revenue consultants Don Draper and Leonard Beighton, working for CARE. He concludes: "Among highly developed economies, the UK is almost alone in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509438&in_page_id=1770
Professor Rowthorn is quoted as saying: "The system is resented because it is so biased against one-earner couples who wish to look after their own children. There is growing recognition that it penalises stable couples and encourages family breakdown and un-partnered childbearing."
Therefore, in so far as Martin Narey’s theory is correct in pointing to poverty being the cause of family breakdown, it is the bias against marriage in the tax and benefit systems that is bringing about much of the poverty, in addition to inherently unstable “unpartnered childbearing” and childrearing.
In a later article [2nd March 2008], also in the Daily Mail, Steve Doughty reported that Don Draper “examined the income of 98 theoretical couples with different incomes ranging from basic benefits to more than £46,000 a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=524381&in_page_id=1770
“His report took into account benefits, rent or mortgage payments, and whether a missing father is paying maintenance. Checks of family entitlements against tax and benefit tables used by the Department for Work and Pensions showed that 75 of the 98 families would be better off apart than together. The analysis - which also took into account the additional costs of running two homes - showed that on average the premium for living apart would be £69. A similar study last year found 71 couples out of 98 would be worse off and the extra cost of living together averaged £63. The worst affected families were those where only one partner worked and the other stayed at home to bring up one child. For them, the extra benefits if the family broke up would be worth £95.62 a week.”
Mr Draper said: "These are very considerable sums for people whose incomes may be less than £300 a week. Breaking the cycle of poverty by encouraging the formation and maintenance of stable families would make a major contribution to reducing long-term poverty. Many social problems seem to have their roots in unstable family structures."
The Labour MP Frank Field has calculated that a single mother with two children under 11 on the minimum wage received tax credits that took her weekly income to £487 if she worked only 16 hours a week. A two-parent family with one earner would have had to put in 116 hours of work on the same pay to get the same money.
CARE's report said the extra cost to the Treasury of a couple choosing to stay apart to claim more benefits this year - of whom there are 1.2million - will average £7,732.
Let’s hope Martin Narey – “an independent, expert voice” - looks first at the numbers with a dispassionate eye.
At much the same time [4th March 2008], the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill accused politicians of failing the nation's children by conducting an experiment to "downgrade" marriage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nbishop104.xml
He says the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" was showing no sign of running out of steam.
"Our legislators have got a bit careless and they've not noticed that some of the things they've done have not helped home life in our country.
"The tax system works so that if you get married you are penalised.
“We have been dismantling the institution of marriage and saying to our young people it doesn't really matter if you get married."
It is good to see a public figure like the bishop engaging in this important debate. Thus far it has been like a “phoney war” with very few prominent figures willing to enter it. The result has been that the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" has continued almost unchecked and without serious debate.
There was a debate in House of Lords on Thursday, 28 February 2008 on “Families, Community Cohesion and Social Action”, but not a single male Conservative peer participated.
In an article in the Guardian, “Marital splits are still costly for mothers” by John Carvel, social affairs editor, Wednesday March 5, 2008:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2262214,00.html
Dr Paul Dornan, the head of policy and research for the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Some have argued the tax credit system somehow incentivises parents to live apart, but that argument is hollow - mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown."
No doubt mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown, but it doesn’t alter the fact that many separated parents receive in total more money through the tax and benefit systems than married couples living together. The question is, “is it fair and sensible for the state to give more money to people raising children apart than those who opt to stay together despite their difficulties?”
21 Oct 2007
Standing ovations and obfuscation make for poor marriage and family policies
Iain Duncan Smith won a well deserved standing ovation for his speech at the Conservative Party conference, but will the Tory faithful get off their seats to take his ideas forward?
Iain Duncan Smith said later:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece
“The decline of marriage is a difficult social trend to reverse. It would be too simplistic to argue that a tax break will reverse this trend and we have made 29 recommendations on the subject, including more education on how to sustain relationships.”
Despite this evident common sense, his colleagues and government ministers continue to talk only about tax breaks and not at all about relationship education and support.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/debtext/71018-0004.htm
Theresa May said, “In the latest Government flip-flop, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said: ‘It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise ... marriage’.
She called on the government to “commit to a debate in Government time on how to support families in the tax system?”
If she is serious, surely the Conservatives will allocate some Opposition time to a debate, as there is no chance – and Theresa May must know it – that the government will want to leave their ambivalent policies towards marriage and the family open to scrutiny.
The previous day Gordon Brown said, “As far as the tax issues are concerned, it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that we have made the changes that we have on inheritance tax ……….. But as far as children’s tax credits and child benefit are concerned, I believe that the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children.”
This is very confusing. What Gordon Brown seems to be saying is that it’s Ok for there to be just a little bit of recognition in the tax system for marriage, but when it comes to benefits it’s Ok for the government to squander money on people however tenuous their relationships, even if it means giving 200,000 cohabiting couples benefits to which they are not entitled, there being that number more claimants of single parent benefits than there are registered single parent households.
This makes no sense, especially since in other respects – such as pensions - the benefit system penalises married couples compared with single people. Gordon Brown then starts talking piously about, “the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children” as if this lets the government off the hook when it comes to supporting families.
It is worth recalling what Paul Boateng said in 1996 during the passage of the Family Law Bill. He was then the Opposition spokesman on marriage for the Lord Chancellor’s department:
http://ww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960424/debtext/60424-37.htm
“In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
"The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life."
The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase--I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television--get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today…..
At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear…… The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.”
Iain Duncan Smith deserved the applause and his standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month. Unfortunately the implications of what he is saying are lost on most of his colleagues and on most members of the government. But we must be thankful to Andy Burnham [like Paul Boateng who was also later], Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for keeping the issue in the public consciousness.
Iain Duncan Smith said later:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece
“The decline of marriage is a difficult social trend to reverse. It would be too simplistic to argue that a tax break will reverse this trend and we have made 29 recommendations on the subject, including more education on how to sustain relationships.”
Despite this evident common sense, his colleagues and government ministers continue to talk only about tax breaks and not at all about relationship education and support.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/debtext/71018-0004.htm
Theresa May said, “In the latest Government flip-flop, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said: ‘It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise ... marriage’.
She called on the government to “commit to a debate in Government time on how to support families in the tax system?”
If she is serious, surely the Conservatives will allocate some Opposition time to a debate, as there is no chance – and Theresa May must know it – that the government will want to leave their ambivalent policies towards marriage and the family open to scrutiny.
The previous day Gordon Brown said, “As far as the tax issues are concerned, it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that we have made the changes that we have on inheritance tax ……….. But as far as children’s tax credits and child benefit are concerned, I believe that the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children.”
This is very confusing. What Gordon Brown seems to be saying is that it’s Ok for there to be just a little bit of recognition in the tax system for marriage, but when it comes to benefits it’s Ok for the government to squander money on people however tenuous their relationships, even if it means giving 200,000 cohabiting couples benefits to which they are not entitled, there being that number more claimants of single parent benefits than there are registered single parent households.
This makes no sense, especially since in other respects – such as pensions - the benefit system penalises married couples compared with single people. Gordon Brown then starts talking piously about, “the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children” as if this lets the government off the hook when it comes to supporting families.
It is worth recalling what Paul Boateng said in 1996 during the passage of the Family Law Bill. He was then the Opposition spokesman on marriage for the Lord Chancellor’s department:
http://ww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960424/debtext/60424-37.htm
“In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
"The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life."
The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase--I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television--get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today…..
At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear…… The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.”
Iain Duncan Smith deserved the applause and his standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month. Unfortunately the implications of what he is saying are lost on most of his colleagues and on most members of the government. But we must be thankful to Andy Burnham [like Paul Boateng who was also later], Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for keeping the issue in the public consciousness.
18 Jun 2007
Unmarried parents - "Why can’t they be left alone?"
Labour’s chaotic approach to relationships for unmarried couples by John Elliott and Claire Newell in The Sunday Times 17th June 2007
"Last week Frank Field, the Labour MP and expert on welfare reform, produced a new analysis of how the [Labour] government’s complicated tax credits and benefits system affects different types of family.
Field found that the system “brutally discriminates against two-parent families”. Startlingly, Field showed that while a lone parent with two children has to work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage to earn £487, a couple with two children would have to slog away for 116 hours.
“I can’t believe the [Labour] government, when it set out, thought this would be the effect,” said Field, adding that there is now a “huge disincentive” for single parents to find another partner, because to do so would incur a large drop in income for both of them.
“There is also a disincentive for two-parent households to tell the truth,” said Field, noting that last year it had emerged that the [Labour] government was paying tax credits or welfare benefits to 2.1m lone parents – 200,000 more than its own official figures said exist. "
But what is really new about this? 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.
My noble friend said that that argument is nonsense. Of course, it is not nonsense. 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?
"Last week Frank Field, the Labour MP and expert on welfare reform, produced a new analysis of how the [Labour] government’s complicated tax credits and benefits system affects different types of family.
Field found that the system “brutally discriminates against two-parent families”. Startlingly, Field showed that while a lone parent with two children has to work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage to earn £487, a couple with two children would have to slog away for 116 hours.
“I can’t believe the [Labour] government, when it set out, thought this would be the effect,” said Field, adding that there is now a “huge disincentive” for single parents to find another partner, because to do so would incur a large drop in income for both of them.
“There is also a disincentive for two-parent households to tell the truth,” said Field, noting that last year it had emerged that the [Labour] government was paying tax credits or welfare benefits to 2.1m lone parents – 200,000 more than its own official figures said exist. "
But what is really new about this? 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.
My noble friend said that that argument is nonsense. Of course, it is not nonsense. 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?
27 Apr 2007
Social Capital Index - the case for a clause in the Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Social Capital is an unstoppable concept. David Cameron is instinctively in tune with electors in understanding that the highest aspirations of most people are for good relationships with family, friends, and neighbours; and if those aspirations are fulfilled - not merely they, but – the wider society benefits. Such people contribute – in many cases voluntarily and enjoyably – to a wide spectrum of good causes. It is in the interest of the State to foster the development of such social capital, and to do so without constantly trying to engineer outcomes.
Social capital is about networks. It is about connections between family members, friends, neighbours and community groups and institutions.
'Investing in each other and the community: the role of social capital', by Paul Haezewindt [Published in web format: 5 September 2006] from Social Trends, vol 33, pp 19-27. ISSN: 0306-7742 includes:
"Marital status and household type shows a significant relationship with a number of indicators of social capital. Married couples exhibited the highest levels of social capital. They were more likely to be trusting of their neighbours and enjoy high levels of reciprocity with them and were also most likely to have higher levels of social support. Eighty four per cent of married people had three or more people to turn to in a crisis. Divorced or separated people had the lowest level of social support, 72 per cent had three or more people to turn to. This group were also least likely to enjoy living in their local area. Single people were less likely to be civically engaged and be less neighbourly than other groups, but they were more likely to have satisfactory friendship networks. It should be noted, however, that marital status is strongly related to age. For example, 75 per cent of single men and women are aged between 16 and 34, while 84 per cent of married people are aged 35 or above 14. High proportions of lone parent households were likely to have both satisfactory friendship and relatives networks. Non-related households, such as people in flatshares, were least likely to know, trust and speak to neighbours, and low proportions also reported having a satisfactory relatives network...............
Few social capital indicators are found to have statistically significant relationships with factors such as income or employment status..............."
David Cameron is quite right to be upholding the institution of marriage. Given the facts about marital status and social capital, it is only sensible to measure changes in social capital by neighbourhood using the indicators available - such as neighbourhood statistics and indices, local authority best value performance indicators, and NHS Healthcare Commission performance ratings – and to provide an index of social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood.
Social capital is about networks. It is about connections between family members, friends, neighbours and community groups and institutions.
'Investing in each other and the community: the role of social capital', by Paul Haezewindt [Published in web format: 5 September 2006] from Social Trends, vol 33, pp 19-27. ISSN: 0306-7742 includes:
"Marital status and household type shows a significant relationship with a number of indicators of social capital. Married couples exhibited the highest levels of social capital. They were more likely to be trusting of their neighbours and enjoy high levels of reciprocity with them and were also most likely to have higher levels of social support. Eighty four per cent of married people had three or more people to turn to in a crisis. Divorced or separated people had the lowest level of social support, 72 per cent had three or more people to turn to. This group were also least likely to enjoy living in their local area. Single people were less likely to be civically engaged and be less neighbourly than other groups, but they were more likely to have satisfactory friendship networks. It should be noted, however, that marital status is strongly related to age. For example, 75 per cent of single men and women are aged between 16 and 34, while 84 per cent of married people are aged 35 or above 14. High proportions of lone parent households were likely to have both satisfactory friendship and relatives networks. Non-related households, such as people in flatshares, were least likely to know, trust and speak to neighbours, and low proportions also reported having a satisfactory relatives network...............
Few social capital indicators are found to have statistically significant relationships with factors such as income or employment status..............."
David Cameron is quite right to be upholding the institution of marriage. Given the facts about marital status and social capital, it is only sensible to measure changes in social capital by neighbourhood using the indicators available - such as neighbourhood statistics and indices, local authority best value performance indicators, and NHS Healthcare Commission performance ratings – and to provide an index of social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood.
25 Apr 2007
Social Capital Index - Statistics and Registration Service Bill
In the debate on the Statistics and Registration Service Bill in the House of Lords yesterday the issue of social and domestic cohesion was raised:
Baroness Noakes: There is also the question of developing new statistics. For example, the social capital project has been drawn to our attention. Statistics which monitor social and domestic cohesion are much sought after by those active in this field — by which I mean active in helping to cure society’s ills with practical projects on the ground rather than developing policies. A lot of statistics and data are available, but they omit some important information on marriage breakdown and family status at a local level. Many groups think that this is particularly important, and the information has not yet been pulled together in the form of a social capital index, as has been suggested to us. I do not know why that has not been done, and I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level.
The board should have the needs of users at the heart of its work, and there should be full engagement with them.
This is splendid news!
Needless to say, however, the Minister declined to oblige Baroness Noakes with an answer to her question, "I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level."
So she tried again!
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps the Minister could answer my specific questions about a social capital index. I asked what was happening with the project on that and why we do not have a social capital index.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can. That was one of the things that I said that we would take away and think about. The information that I have is that the ONS carries out work on social capital, and has done since 2001. The board’s powers, including, at Clause 18, that to produce statistics, would enable it to produce additional work on social capital if necessary. I am told by officials that we will write to the noble Baroness to explain more and to answer any specific points that she has.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful that the Minister will write because people who we have been in touch with me are particularly concerned about that. I see that those in the Box are smiling. They will do the letter for the Minister; it is not a problem.
The Minister’s response was entirely predictable. Anything that these Benches suggest to improve the Bill and to keep the needs of persons such as users properly in view are regarded not as an improvement but as an unnecessary elaboration, or possibly even unhelpful. I will consider carefully what the Minister said. I look forward to the letter that his officials will draft for him on social capital and I will decide at that stage whether or not I shall return to this issue on Report.
Feisty lady!
Baroness Noakes: There is also the question of developing new statistics. For example, the social capital project has been drawn to our attention. Statistics which monitor social and domestic cohesion are much sought after by those active in this field — by which I mean active in helping to cure society’s ills with practical projects on the ground rather than developing policies. A lot of statistics and data are available, but they omit some important information on marriage breakdown and family status at a local level. Many groups think that this is particularly important, and the information has not yet been pulled together in the form of a social capital index, as has been suggested to us. I do not know why that has not been done, and I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level.
The board should have the needs of users at the heart of its work, and there should be full engagement with them.
This is splendid news!
Needless to say, however, the Minister declined to oblige Baroness Noakes with an answer to her question, "I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level."
So she tried again!
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps the Minister could answer my specific questions about a social capital index. I asked what was happening with the project on that and why we do not have a social capital index.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can. That was one of the things that I said that we would take away and think about. The information that I have is that the ONS carries out work on social capital, and has done since 2001. The board’s powers, including, at Clause 18, that to produce statistics, would enable it to produce additional work on social capital if necessary. I am told by officials that we will write to the noble Baroness to explain more and to answer any specific points that she has.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful that the Minister will write because people who we have been in touch with me are particularly concerned about that. I see that those in the Box are smiling. They will do the letter for the Minister; it is not a problem.
The Minister’s response was entirely predictable. Anything that these Benches suggest to improve the Bill and to keep the needs of persons such as users properly in view are regarded not as an improvement but as an unnecessary elaboration, or possibly even unhelpful. I will consider carefully what the Minister said. I look forward to the letter that his officials will draft for him on social capital and I will decide at that stage whether or not I shall return to this issue on Report.
Feisty lady!
15 Apr 2007
PSHE and Social Capital - absence of a moral code in the home puts some children under additional pressures
The following are extracts from the Ofsted report 'Time for change? Personal, social and health education' [Published: April 2007 Reference no: 070049]:
"At times, it is the school rather than the home that provides the moral code and, in its absence in the home, some children are put under additional pressures."
"Parents greatest challenge is to set clear expectations, and to be aware of and to accept responsibility for their children's behaviour. Some parents do not rise to this challenge."
"the ability to make moral judgements about what to do in actual situations and the potential to put these judgements into practice"
"Most of the schools in this survey ensure that their aims and values are well known to pupils and their parents, and that they are adhered to consistently. They will often refer to personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE. However, some of the schools visited need to broaden their coverage of SRE and clarify what they mean by achievement in this area, so that it includes developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
"focusing on a pupil's individual needs and avoiding a one size fits all approach......... trying to bring together the work of mentors, counsellors and external support agencies with individual pupils and, if appropriate, with their families"
Consistent adherence to the aims and values of the school, including a moral code, is a worthy outcome arising from good teaching of PSHE. But pupils must find the mixed messages they are hearing very confusing:
(1) On the one hand government ministers repeat the New Labour mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another".
(2) On the other, schools are trying to promote "personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE......." and are concerned with "developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
In fact 'family structure' is a garbled concept in 'government speak' as teenage motherhood is deprecated and the government even produces league tables showing which local authorities are best at reducing teenage pregnancy. To pretend its attitude to family structure is a neutral one is belied by its own policies.
What is baffling is why - if this sort of league table is a valid concept in improving this aspect in particular of social and domestic cohesion - there are not comprehensive neighbourhood statistics and a league table comprising an index of other aspects of social and domestic cohesion together with a social capital index?
One minister [Maria Neagle] who said "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another" went on to say, "We must deal with people and families as we find them, and we must try to ensure that whatever structure children are brought up in, they have the best possible chance in life. In 97 per cent. of cohabiting couples, the father registers the birth of the child with the mother. We should not be prescriptive about precisely what the best structure is."
This is disingenuous, as the break-up rate of couples who are unmarried at the time of the birth of their child is far greater and faster than that of couples who are married at the time of the birth.
"We should not be prescriptive about precisely what the best structure is" looks and sounds like an argument that the government is not concerned with the facts, is unwilling to study the research on family structure, and will suppress - whenever it can - the publication of statistics that are relevant.
Faced with such humbug, what chance have schools got in promoting a moral code when the government is effectively opposed to the very idea and is actively promoting 'diversity' at every opportunity ?
"At times, it is the school rather than the home that provides the moral code and, in its absence in the home, some children are put under additional pressures."
"Parents greatest challenge is to set clear expectations, and to be aware of and to accept responsibility for their children's behaviour. Some parents do not rise to this challenge."
"the ability to make moral judgements about what to do in actual situations and the potential to put these judgements into practice"
"Most of the schools in this survey ensure that their aims and values are well known to pupils and their parents, and that they are adhered to consistently. They will often refer to personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE. However, some of the schools visited need to broaden their coverage of SRE and clarify what they mean by achievement in this area, so that it includes developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
"focusing on a pupil's individual needs and avoiding a one size fits all approach......... trying to bring together the work of mentors, counsellors and external support agencies with individual pupils and, if appropriate, with their families"
Consistent adherence to the aims and values of the school, including a moral code, is a worthy outcome arising from good teaching of PSHE. But pupils must find the mixed messages they are hearing very confusing:
(1) On the one hand government ministers repeat the New Labour mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another".
(2) On the other, schools are trying to promote "personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE......." and are concerned with "developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
In fact 'family structure' is a garbled concept in 'government speak' as teenage motherhood is deprecated and the government even produces league tables showing which local authorities are best at reducing teenage pregnancy. To pretend its attitude to family structure is a neutral one is belied by its own policies.
What is baffling is why - if this sort of league table is a valid concept in improving this aspect in particular of social and domestic cohesion - there are not comprehensive neighbourhood statistics and a league table comprising an index of other aspects of social and domestic cohesion together with a social capital index?
One minister [Maria Neagle] who said "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another" went on to say, "We must deal with people and families as we find them, and we must try to ensure that whatever structure children are brought up in, they have the best possible chance in life. In 97 per cent. of cohabiting couples, the father registers the birth of the child with the mother. We should not be prescriptive about precisely what the best structure is."
This is disingenuous, as the break-up rate of couples who are unmarried at the time of the birth of their child is far greater and faster than that of couples who are married at the time of the birth.
"We should not be prescriptive about precisely what the best structure is" looks and sounds like an argument that the government is not concerned with the facts, is unwilling to study the research on family structure, and will suppress - whenever it can - the publication of statistics that are relevant.
Faced with such humbug, what chance have schools got in promoting a moral code when the government is effectively opposed to the very idea and is actively promoting 'diversity' at every opportunity ?
30 Mar 2007
Child poverty - socialists on the back foot
The Guardian has reacted quickly to the news that 'child poverty' is actually getting worse now under New Labour.
"You can't talk about children's well-being unless you dare talk about the inequality of their life experience" [whatever that means], wails Polly Toynbee.
"Here is even worse news: inequality grew again and is now back up to the level when figures were first collated (the Gini coefficient) back in 1961. This looks grim; here was one solid rock on which Labour could stake its moral claims. That astonishing promise to abolish all child poverty by 2020 was Labour's trump card when it faces the sullen looks of its shrunken remaining troops. Whatever Cameron may pretend is his "aspiration" to keep lifting children out of poverty, if his plans don't add up he has been let off the hook for now....."
"Sure Start children's centres are the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance - but the 3,500 new centres are being rolled out without anything like the funds needed for intensive professional help. Everywhere, brilliant pilots and small schemes show what can be done: an opportunity tax should supply the funds to make them universal. None of that will happen unless voters will it. The child poverty target can't be hit by stealth."
All the more reason for the ONS to publish a Social Capital Index by neighbourhood so we can see what effect Sure Start's "brilliant pilots and small schemes" - and the programmes provided by other organisations - are having on social and domestic cohesion, as well as the effect they are having on the other indicators of deprivation.
But there is not a squeak so far from the Guardian about the need for a Social Capital Index so that the evaluations can be undertaken.
"Until now, the very word "inequality" has been banned from the political lexicon. But now the wealth gap is widening, Labour has to confront it. In the last decade every £100 increase in GDP growth has seen £40 go to the richest 10% of the people: the other 90% have had to share out the rest - and this pattern is accelerating. This argument hasn't yet been put, these facts are not out there in the political battleground, but here is prime territory for Labour to lay down a challenge" Polly Toynbee declares roundly.
Actually, the taboo is not "inequality" but "marriage", as most socialists can't seem to utter the word without choking on it.
"Sure Start children's centres are the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance" claims Polly Toynbee, as if it is an assertion that should go unchallenged. But surely "the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance" would occur if the fathers marry the childrens' mothers, love them, and remain married to them? Is that not something to be promoted?
"Gordon Brown yesterday admitted the government faced a big challenge to reach its key child poverty target but refused to pledge more money to address the problem" says Ashley Seager also in the Guardian.
"Giving testimony to parliament's Treasury select committee, the chancellor also faced accusations that last week's budget had left many poorer people worse off. The government was stung this week when its own figures showed that child poverty had increased for the first time in six years while overall poverty had risen for the first time under this government........... Figures out yesterday also showed take up of the pension credit had fallen last year."
"This is further proof that Gordon Brown's obsession with mass means-tested benefits is failing to help the most vulnerable people in our society," said Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman David Laws.
Meanwhile, in "The Politicizing of Poverty" Janice Shaw Crouse [27/3/07] is writing in the US:
"A headline about changing family structure wouldn't be effective, however, for two reasons. One, it would make reporters' eyes glaze over, and two, it does not lay the blame for increased poverty at the door of the current administration and its so-called "tax cuts for the rich." A third reason is that the problem relates to irresponsible sexual behavior. Much of the poverty problem is related to the growth of single-parent families, a fact that is recognized further down in the Brookings report in the following statement:
'Three of the most effective ways to reduce poverty are to increase work levels, reverse the growth of single-parent families, and improve educational outcomes.'
Note that even liberal social analysts must come to terms with the negative outcomes of dysfunctional sexual behavior. They try to formulate policy proposals to deal with the consequences of non-marital sex in terms compatible with their world view that sees social structures as the sources of problems and government programs as their solutions. So, they seek funding for yet another iteration of government programs rather than acknowledge the root moral-values issues, [my italics] which, to be fair, are the purview of today's religious leaders, many of whom have forsaken the true message of their calling.
We know, too, that ever-larger funding for education is not going to change the reality that children who grow up without a father present often turn a classroom into barely controlled chaos where learning is a very difficult proposition. But these realities have not yet penetrated the culture. The downward trend in the marriage rate among unmarried women age 15-44 continues. The marriage rate today is a little less than half of what it was in the mid-1960s. Also the unmarried birthrate of women 20 and older continues to rise year after year.
The charge has long been wielded that the rise in unwed birth rates was the consequence of poverty. Yet, with the advent of the abstinence movement, the rise of the unwed birthrate among American teens miraculously stopped climbing in the early 1990s after rising almost every year since WWII. The unwed teen birthrate has since declined by 25 percent. Funny, after listening to the left incessantly sing the song that youths could not control their raging hormones, yet another myth has been swept into the trash can..................
Sadly, it's not politically correct to focus on moral values and responsible sexual behavior but as the public relations folks at Brookings recognize, there is always a good market for yet another press release full of hopeful promises about governmental programs [my italics]."
"You can't talk about children's well-being unless you dare talk about the inequality of their life experience" [whatever that means], wails Polly Toynbee.
"Here is even worse news: inequality grew again and is now back up to the level when figures were first collated (the Gini coefficient) back in 1961. This looks grim; here was one solid rock on which Labour could stake its moral claims. That astonishing promise to abolish all child poverty by 2020 was Labour's trump card when it faces the sullen looks of its shrunken remaining troops. Whatever Cameron may pretend is his "aspiration" to keep lifting children out of poverty, if his plans don't add up he has been let off the hook for now....."
"Sure Start children's centres are the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance - but the 3,500 new centres are being rolled out without anything like the funds needed for intensive professional help. Everywhere, brilliant pilots and small schemes show what can be done: an opportunity tax should supply the funds to make them universal. None of that will happen unless voters will it. The child poverty target can't be hit by stealth."
All the more reason for the ONS to publish a Social Capital Index by neighbourhood so we can see what effect Sure Start's "brilliant pilots and small schemes" - and the programmes provided by other organisations - are having on social and domestic cohesion, as well as the effect they are having on the other indicators of deprivation.
But there is not a squeak so far from the Guardian about the need for a Social Capital Index so that the evaluations can be undertaken.
"Until now, the very word "inequality" has been banned from the political lexicon. But now the wealth gap is widening, Labour has to confront it. In the last decade every £100 increase in GDP growth has seen £40 go to the richest 10% of the people: the other 90% have had to share out the rest - and this pattern is accelerating. This argument hasn't yet been put, these facts are not out there in the political battleground, but here is prime territory for Labour to lay down a challenge" Polly Toynbee declares roundly.
Actually, the taboo is not "inequality" but "marriage", as most socialists can't seem to utter the word without choking on it.
"Sure Start children's centres are the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance" claims Polly Toynbee, as if it is an assertion that should go unchallenged. But surely "the best hope of reaching every family to give every child a chance" would occur if the fathers marry the childrens' mothers, love them, and remain married to them? Is that not something to be promoted?
"Gordon Brown yesterday admitted the government faced a big challenge to reach its key child poverty target but refused to pledge more money to address the problem" says Ashley Seager also in the Guardian.
"Giving testimony to parliament's Treasury select committee, the chancellor also faced accusations that last week's budget had left many poorer people worse off. The government was stung this week when its own figures showed that child poverty had increased for the first time in six years while overall poverty had risen for the first time under this government........... Figures out yesterday also showed take up of the pension credit had fallen last year."
"This is further proof that Gordon Brown's obsession with mass means-tested benefits is failing to help the most vulnerable people in our society," said Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman David Laws.
Meanwhile, in "The Politicizing of Poverty" Janice Shaw Crouse [27/3/07] is writing in the US:
"A headline about changing family structure wouldn't be effective, however, for two reasons. One, it would make reporters' eyes glaze over, and two, it does not lay the blame for increased poverty at the door of the current administration and its so-called "tax cuts for the rich." A third reason is that the problem relates to irresponsible sexual behavior. Much of the poverty problem is related to the growth of single-parent families, a fact that is recognized further down in the Brookings report in the following statement:
'Three of the most effective ways to reduce poverty are to increase work levels, reverse the growth of single-parent families, and improve educational outcomes.'
Note that even liberal social analysts must come to terms with the negative outcomes of dysfunctional sexual behavior. They try to formulate policy proposals to deal with the consequences of non-marital sex in terms compatible with their world view that sees social structures as the sources of problems and government programs as their solutions. So, they seek funding for yet another iteration of government programs rather than acknowledge the root moral-values issues, [my italics] which, to be fair, are the purview of today's religious leaders, many of whom have forsaken the true message of their calling.
We know, too, that ever-larger funding for education is not going to change the reality that children who grow up without a father present often turn a classroom into barely controlled chaos where learning is a very difficult proposition. But these realities have not yet penetrated the culture. The downward trend in the marriage rate among unmarried women age 15-44 continues. The marriage rate today is a little less than half of what it was in the mid-1960s. Also the unmarried birthrate of women 20 and older continues to rise year after year.
The charge has long been wielded that the rise in unwed birth rates was the consequence of poverty. Yet, with the advent of the abstinence movement, the rise of the unwed birthrate among American teens miraculously stopped climbing in the early 1990s after rising almost every year since WWII. The unwed teen birthrate has since declined by 25 percent. Funny, after listening to the left incessantly sing the song that youths could not control their raging hormones, yet another myth has been swept into the trash can..................
Sadly, it's not politically correct to focus on moral values and responsible sexual behavior but as the public relations folks at Brookings recognize, there is always a good market for yet another press release full of hopeful promises about governmental programs [my italics]."
28 Mar 2007
Child poverty - swings and roundabouts
"Budget 2007: Benefit and tax changes will lift 200,000 children out of poverty" says Tristan Donovan, 28 March 2007 at "Children Now".
In the nick of time, so it seems, as according to the BBC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 15:51 GMT 16:51 UK:
"More UK children live in poverty" - "Figures showing a 200,000 rise in UK children living in relative poverty last year have been described as a "moral disgrace" by Barnardo's."
It's difficult to know what and who to believe.
Let's try Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) speaking in the House of Commons on 26th March 2007:
"I want to focus on the measures to reduce child poverty. I welcome the decisions that will lift 200,000 children out of poverty, and the recommitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and to abolishing it by 2020 ............. It is clear from the criticisms that we have heard that Her Majesty’s Opposition basically do not understand the phenomenon of child poverty, which is presumably why they allowed it to treble under the last Tory Government. It has also become clear to us that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has completely misled his colleagues by suggesting that family breakdown is the prime cause of child poverty in this country. In January, there was a lot of talk about the UNICEF comparisons of child well-being among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but I have looked at the more up-to-date comparisons between European countries by Jonathan Bradshaw of York university. They were published in a journal called Social Indicators Research in January this year, and they show that family breakdown is not the prime cause of child poverty in any of the European countries. Indeed, if we strip out the experience of the United Kingdom, we see that there is a positive correlation between child well-being and the number of single-parent families, with Finland and Sweden at the top of the table............... The key factors influencing child poverty were found to be income inequality, child poverty itself, obviously, gross domestic product per capita - at is, the overall wealth of a country - social spending and spending on children and families. That is why the strategy announced in the Budget for tackling child poverty is the right course of action."
So there we have it! Or do we? Is Professor Jonathan Bradshaw the last word we need to hear on the subject?
If the Labour "strategy" is so virtuously and manifestly the correct one, how is it that Barnado's are complaining about the "moral disgrace" that 200,000 more children have just slipped into poverty?
Let's hear it from another professor:
The Extraordinary Effects of Marriage [January 2002 in Accountancy] By Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics, Warwick University. Visit his website at www.oswald.co.uk
"A new branch of research is finding that marriage has powerful and beneficial effects on human beings. Currently this work is done by applied statisticians, and appears only in arcane journals. But its findings deserve to be read by everyone in western society. The work proceeds in a way common in modern social science. Large random samples of families are followed through time. They are interviewed every year about their lives, and their incomes and psychological wellbeing levels are measured.
The first finding is that marriage makes you richer. In virtually every country ever studied, workers who are married earn between 10% and 20% more than those who are single. This figure holds after many other influences are factored out (in other words, it bears in mind there are lots of other forces that affect pay, including someone’s age and education and gender and so on). Economists argue about what this finding means. Some say that it is because ‘better’ people -- healthier, more tenacious, more conscientious, better looking, more productive, stronger -- are the ones who get married. Marriage itself, on this line of argument, is not doing anything to a man or woman's earning power. Those with large pay packets simply choose to get hitched more than do those on low earnings. That sounds plausible, but actually it does not fit the facts. For one thing, if you study people in their early 20s, then those who are married barely earn more than singles. It appears that the ‘marriage wage premium’, as it is sometimes called by researchers, actually gets stronger through time as the years pass and the marriage gets longer. This suggests that marriage is more a cause than an effect of higher pay....
The second main finding from modern statistical research is even stranger. Marriage makes you live longer. Although most members of the general public are probably not aware of it, there is now some consensus among epidemiologists that you can prolong your life by marrying. Marriage keeps you alive about 3 extra years, on average. Numerous studies have shown this. One of the most intriguing followed male graduates of Amherst College in the United States in the late nineteenth century. At age 18, all these men had their health, height and weight measured. Their later occupation was also recorded, and much else about them. Then they were followed through their lives. All are now dead, of course. Strikingly, those who married lived much longer, even bearing in mind other influences.
There is plenty of British evidence too. In the late 1960s, 20,000 middle – aged male civil servants had a medical examination and were then tracked for the next two decades. At the end of that time, 14 out of every 1000 married men had died, compared to 21 for widowers, 17 for those single, and 21 for those separated. This study is interesting because it appears to pin some of the blame, if that is the right word, on cardiovascular disease. Unmarried men had much higher blood pressure. The current conventional view in the epidemiological journals is that marriage works through some kind of protective effect on mental wellbeing. It lowers stress and worry – presumably because sharing worries halves them, just as tradition says. Partly, too, married people smoke less and eat in a healthier way."
So you can take your choice, if you want to reduce deprivation and end child poverty:
(1) Trust Helen Goodman and Gordon Brown to continue to tinker creatively with taxes and benefits, or
(2) Ask Iain Duncan Smith whether he is going to try to persuade his Conservative colleagues to support the amendments I am proposing to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill.
In the nick of time, so it seems, as according to the BBC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 15:51 GMT 16:51 UK:
"More UK children live in poverty" - "Figures showing a 200,000 rise in UK children living in relative poverty last year have been described as a "moral disgrace" by Barnardo's."
It's difficult to know what and who to believe.
Let's try Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) speaking in the House of Commons on 26th March 2007:
"I want to focus on the measures to reduce child poverty. I welcome the decisions that will lift 200,000 children out of poverty, and the recommitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and to abolishing it by 2020 ............. It is clear from the criticisms that we have heard that Her Majesty’s Opposition basically do not understand the phenomenon of child poverty, which is presumably why they allowed it to treble under the last Tory Government. It has also become clear to us that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has completely misled his colleagues by suggesting that family breakdown is the prime cause of child poverty in this country. In January, there was a lot of talk about the UNICEF comparisons of child well-being among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but I have looked at the more up-to-date comparisons between European countries by Jonathan Bradshaw of York university. They were published in a journal called Social Indicators Research in January this year, and they show that family breakdown is not the prime cause of child poverty in any of the European countries. Indeed, if we strip out the experience of the United Kingdom, we see that there is a positive correlation between child well-being and the number of single-parent families, with Finland and Sweden at the top of the table............... The key factors influencing child poverty were found to be income inequality, child poverty itself, obviously, gross domestic product per capita - at is, the overall wealth of a country - social spending and spending on children and families. That is why the strategy announced in the Budget for tackling child poverty is the right course of action."
So there we have it! Or do we? Is Professor Jonathan Bradshaw the last word we need to hear on the subject?
If the Labour "strategy" is so virtuously and manifestly the correct one, how is it that Barnado's are complaining about the "moral disgrace" that 200,000 more children have just slipped into poverty?
Let's hear it from another professor:
The Extraordinary Effects of Marriage [January 2002 in Accountancy] By Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics, Warwick University. Visit his website at www.oswald.co.uk
"A new branch of research is finding that marriage has powerful and beneficial effects on human beings. Currently this work is done by applied statisticians, and appears only in arcane journals. But its findings deserve to be read by everyone in western society. The work proceeds in a way common in modern social science. Large random samples of families are followed through time. They are interviewed every year about their lives, and their incomes and psychological wellbeing levels are measured.
The first finding is that marriage makes you richer. In virtually every country ever studied, workers who are married earn between 10% and 20% more than those who are single. This figure holds after many other influences are factored out (in other words, it bears in mind there are lots of other forces that affect pay, including someone’s age and education and gender and so on). Economists argue about what this finding means. Some say that it is because ‘better’ people -- healthier, more tenacious, more conscientious, better looking, more productive, stronger -- are the ones who get married. Marriage itself, on this line of argument, is not doing anything to a man or woman's earning power. Those with large pay packets simply choose to get hitched more than do those on low earnings. That sounds plausible, but actually it does not fit the facts. For one thing, if you study people in their early 20s, then those who are married barely earn more than singles. It appears that the ‘marriage wage premium’, as it is sometimes called by researchers, actually gets stronger through time as the years pass and the marriage gets longer. This suggests that marriage is more a cause than an effect of higher pay....
The second main finding from modern statistical research is even stranger. Marriage makes you live longer. Although most members of the general public are probably not aware of it, there is now some consensus among epidemiologists that you can prolong your life by marrying. Marriage keeps you alive about 3 extra years, on average. Numerous studies have shown this. One of the most intriguing followed male graduates of Amherst College in the United States in the late nineteenth century. At age 18, all these men had their health, height and weight measured. Their later occupation was also recorded, and much else about them. Then they were followed through their lives. All are now dead, of course. Strikingly, those who married lived much longer, even bearing in mind other influences.
There is plenty of British evidence too. In the late 1960s, 20,000 middle – aged male civil servants had a medical examination and were then tracked for the next two decades. At the end of that time, 14 out of every 1000 married men had died, compared to 21 for widowers, 17 for those single, and 21 for those separated. This study is interesting because it appears to pin some of the blame, if that is the right word, on cardiovascular disease. Unmarried men had much higher blood pressure. The current conventional view in the epidemiological journals is that marriage works through some kind of protective effect on mental wellbeing. It lowers stress and worry – presumably because sharing worries halves them, just as tradition says. Partly, too, married people smoke less and eat in a healthier way."
So you can take your choice, if you want to reduce deprivation and end child poverty:
(1) Trust Helen Goodman and Gordon Brown to continue to tinker creatively with taxes and benefits, or
(2) Ask Iain Duncan Smith whether he is going to try to persuade his Conservative colleagues to support the amendments I am proposing to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill.
4 Mar 2007
"Blair U-turn over forced marriages" - The Observer 4th March 2007
Some excellent news in The Observer:
"Tony Blair is to back moves to make forced marriages illegal. The move, a U-turn in government policy, will ensure the introduction of a new law [Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill] enshrining powerful rights for victims, many of them under age, who have been compelled to marry against their will.
The Prime Minister's change of heart, revealed in an exclusive interview with The Observer, means that legislation introduced in the Lords by the Liberal Democratic peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will obtain the government backing it has previously been denied."
'We listened to what people were saying,' Blair said. 'I was told we were in the wrong place on this, that the bill should be supported and that we should think again. I reflected and realised that, if you approach the problem through civil law, it's very sensible. It [forced marriage] is a terrible thing.'
Very rarely do Governments support Bills by private Members of Parliament. Even more rarely do they back down from a position of opposition. So, 'two cheers' for the Prime Minister for this - thus far.
There is more joy in heaven etc....
The next question is will HMG back the amendment that I am proposing should be added to Lord Lester's Bill?
I am suggesting two additional clauses should be added to section 2 of the draft Bill concerning 'guidance', which starts with 2 (a) the difference between arranged and forced marriage:
(e) the opportunities and advantages for the parties to protect themselves and each other against any possible accusations about the marriage being one that is forced or bogus by participating together in a research-based educational programme of marriage preparation - including an independently validated psychometric inventory - to assist them in confirming to the Registrar or deputy Registrar the voluntary nature of their commitment to the marriage.
(f) the advantage of obtaining a certificate from the facilitator of the programme of marriage preparation that they have satisfactorily completed both the educational programme and the inventory.
And the question after that is will HMG support the amendment that I am proposing should be added to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill?
The opportunity arises with the Statistics and Registration Service Bill to insert a clause for publishing a Social Capital Index. There is already a clause [19] to provide for the Retail Price Index. My proposal is:
[20] Social capital index
(1) The Board must under section 18
(a) compile and maintain a social capital index by neighbourhood, and
(b) publish it regularly, together with
(c) statistics and an index for social and domestic cohesion.
The amended Bills would have the effect of:
(1 ) enabling local authorities which decide to follow the guidance to train registration officers to introduce marrying couples to the benefits to them of undertaking an approved programme of marriage preparation, and
(2) measure the changes by neighbourhood in social and domestic cohesion as a result of the LA's policy and the marriage education programmes local voluntary groups are providing.
The US government has sponsored a Healthy Marriage Initiative and included a list of approved assessment tools. Two of these psychometric inventories - FOCCUS [which I and Marriage Care and Scottish Marriage Care provide] and PREPARE are widely available in the UK.
Please see Criteria for Inclusion of Relationship Assessment Tools on the National Healthy Marriage Web site.
"Tony Blair is to back moves to make forced marriages illegal. The move, a U-turn in government policy, will ensure the introduction of a new law [Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill] enshrining powerful rights for victims, many of them under age, who have been compelled to marry against their will.
The Prime Minister's change of heart, revealed in an exclusive interview with The Observer, means that legislation introduced in the Lords by the Liberal Democratic peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will obtain the government backing it has previously been denied."
'We listened to what people were saying,' Blair said. 'I was told we were in the wrong place on this, that the bill should be supported and that we should think again. I reflected and realised that, if you approach the problem through civil law, it's very sensible. It [forced marriage] is a terrible thing.'
Very rarely do Governments support Bills by private Members of Parliament. Even more rarely do they back down from a position of opposition. So, 'two cheers' for the Prime Minister for this - thus far.
There is more joy in heaven etc....
The next question is will HMG back the amendment that I am proposing should be added to Lord Lester's Bill?
I am suggesting two additional clauses should be added to section 2 of the draft Bill concerning 'guidance', which starts with 2 (a) the difference between arranged and forced marriage:
(e) the opportunities and advantages for the parties to protect themselves and each other against any possible accusations about the marriage being one that is forced or bogus by participating together in a research-based educational programme of marriage preparation - including an independently validated psychometric inventory - to assist them in confirming to the Registrar or deputy Registrar the voluntary nature of their commitment to the marriage.
(f) the advantage of obtaining a certificate from the facilitator of the programme of marriage preparation that they have satisfactorily completed both the educational programme and the inventory.
And the question after that is will HMG support the amendment that I am proposing should be added to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill?
The opportunity arises with the Statistics and Registration Service Bill to insert a clause for publishing a Social Capital Index. There is already a clause [19] to provide for the Retail Price Index. My proposal is:
[20] Social capital index
(1) The Board must under section 18
(a) compile and maintain a social capital index by neighbourhood, and
(b) publish it regularly, together with
(c) statistics and an index for social and domestic cohesion.
The amended Bills would have the effect of:
(1 ) enabling local authorities which decide to follow the guidance to train registration officers to introduce marrying couples to the benefits to them of undertaking an approved programme of marriage preparation, and
(2) measure the changes by neighbourhood in social and domestic cohesion as a result of the LA's policy and the marriage education programmes local voluntary groups are providing.
The US government has sponsored a Healthy Marriage Initiative and included a list of approved assessment tools. Two of these psychometric inventories - FOCCUS [which I and Marriage Care and Scottish Marriage Care provide] and PREPARE are widely available in the UK.
Please see Criteria for Inclusion of Relationship Assessment Tools on the National Healthy Marriage Web site.
3 Mar 2007
"The best chance to grow" by Terry Prendergast in The Tablet
Would that more journals concerned with religious and moral issues could attract writers like Terry Prendergast [The Tablet 3rd March 2007] to dig a bit deeper than most of our politicians on the subject of marriage:
"But take a closer look at the politicians' chief concerns about marriage or the lack of it. When National Marriage Week was launched last month at the House of Commons, the former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith spoke about his recent report, Breakdown Britain, which highlighted that the cost of family breakdown appears to have risen by about £7 billion in a 10-year period. However, what was most striking about his comments was that he stressed the importance of marriage for the stability of society, never once mentioning the importance for the couple themselves, their health or their well-being.
This is a typical approach for a politician, as government, and would-be governing parties, tend to be concerned more with social stability than with personal and emotional health. And that reflects a clear failure to understand that the former depend on the latter. "
What to do then?
Well, I have suggested in an earlier post that people can write to their MPs [it's easily done, see this page on the right] and to the Odysseus Trust to ask them to support an amendment to Lord Lester's Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. This would include in the 'guidance' for all couples getting married information about the benefits of undertaking a research-based programme of marriage preparation, including a pre-marital inventory.
There is also an opportunity with the Statistics and Registration Service Bill to insert a clause for publishing a Social Capital Index. There is already a clause [19] to provide for the Retail Price Index. My proposal is:
[20] Social capital index
(1) The Board must under section 18
(a) compile and maintain a social capital index by neighbourhood, and
(b) publish it every year, together with
(c) statistics relating to social and domestic cohesion.
Again, it is a simple matter to write to your MP about it.
There is a further reason for taking action now:
The Statistics and Registration Service Bill "will also establish proper employment status and rights for registration officers (as local authority employees) in England and Wales." Whereas in the past registration officers - not being employees of local authorities - could not be required by local authorities to promote marriage education programmes, it will soon be much easier for a local authority to do this, if it has thought through and published a coherent policy for social and domestic cohesion for its area.
In an earlier debate [4th November 2002] Ruth Kelly said:
In our White Paper, [Delivering Vital Change] the Government explained that the registration service is ideally placed to act as a focal point for information about services associated with births, deaths and marriages, such as ........ marriage preparation...... I believe that there is a genuine opportunity for local authorities to develop those services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities, now and in future. A wider role for the registration service will improve on the current piecemeal approach by local authorities and will be underpinned by the proposed national standards.
Sadly, the proposals - which were contained in a Regulatory Reform Order, not a Bill - eventually failed to come into effect. The conclusion was:
"The Committee reports that the proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registration of Births and Deaths)(England and Wales) Order 2004 is not an appropriate subject for a regulatory reform order. The proposed order should not be proceeded with."
Fortunately, the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill together - if passed with the amendments I am proposing - could start to transform the culture in favour of marriage.
But I suspect our parliamentarians will need much 'encouragement'!
"But take a closer look at the politicians' chief concerns about marriage or the lack of it. When National Marriage Week was launched last month at the House of Commons, the former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith spoke about his recent report, Breakdown Britain, which highlighted that the cost of family breakdown appears to have risen by about £7 billion in a 10-year period. However, what was most striking about his comments was that he stressed the importance of marriage for the stability of society, never once mentioning the importance for the couple themselves, their health or their well-being.
This is a typical approach for a politician, as government, and would-be governing parties, tend to be concerned more with social stability than with personal and emotional health. And that reflects a clear failure to understand that the former depend on the latter. "
What to do then?
Well, I have suggested in an earlier post that people can write to their MPs [it's easily done, see this page on the right] and to the Odysseus Trust to ask them to support an amendment to Lord Lester's Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. This would include in the 'guidance' for all couples getting married information about the benefits of undertaking a research-based programme of marriage preparation, including a pre-marital inventory.
There is also an opportunity with the Statistics and Registration Service Bill to insert a clause for publishing a Social Capital Index. There is already a clause [19] to provide for the Retail Price Index. My proposal is:
[20] Social capital index
(1) The Board must under section 18
(a) compile and maintain a social capital index by neighbourhood, and
(b) publish it every year, together with
(c) statistics relating to social and domestic cohesion.
Again, it is a simple matter to write to your MP about it.
There is a further reason for taking action now:
The Statistics and Registration Service Bill "will also establish proper employment status and rights for registration officers (as local authority employees) in England and Wales." Whereas in the past registration officers - not being employees of local authorities - could not be required by local authorities to promote marriage education programmes, it will soon be much easier for a local authority to do this, if it has thought through and published a coherent policy for social and domestic cohesion for its area.
In an earlier debate [4th November 2002] Ruth Kelly said:
In our White Paper, [Delivering Vital Change] the Government explained that the registration service is ideally placed to act as a focal point for information about services associated with births, deaths and marriages, such as ........ marriage preparation...... I believe that there is a genuine opportunity for local authorities to develop those services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities, now and in future. A wider role for the registration service will improve on the current piecemeal approach by local authorities and will be underpinned by the proposed national standards.
Sadly, the proposals - which were contained in a Regulatory Reform Order, not a Bill - eventually failed to come into effect. The conclusion was:
"The Committee reports that the proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registration of Births and Deaths)(England and Wales) Order 2004 is not an appropriate subject for a regulatory reform order. The proposed order should not be proceeded with."
Fortunately, the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill together - if passed with the amendments I am proposing - could start to transform the culture in favour of marriage.
But I suspect our parliamentarians will need much 'encouragement'!
27 Feb 2007
Tony Blair disputes "general social breakdown"
"Marriage policies 'not the cure' " screams the BBC, affronted that anyone could possibly dare to challenge its attempts to bury any discussion of 'marriage'.
Poodle-like it presents the debate which has at long last started - thanks to David Cameron - from the perspective of the Prime Minister. But let's give credit to Andrew Selous MP who first demanded there should be a debate in November 2003.
At his monthly press conference Tony Blair said, when it came to the most dysfunctional families who were "shut out" of mainstream society, specific intervention was needed at an early stage.
"In my view, the debate is not about marriage versus lone parents. The debate is about how you target measures specifically on those families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples."
As usual Tony Blair talks about how to 'target measures specifically on .... [dysfunctional] families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples', rather than promoting universal marriage and relationship education. The former is not only patently what is not required, and the latter is also what the wiser members of Parliament - across the political parties - have been saying for twelve years or so. Which policy is more likely to stigmatise lone parents?
If Tony Blair is right - and there is no 'general social breakdown' - how is it that West Yorkshire police are having to deal with 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence each year? Why is it that one in five pregnancies are aborted? Who says that the 42% of children born to parents who are unmarried would not prefer their relationship to be an enduring one? Why is the UK in bottom place in just about every league table that might be used to measure 'social capital' in western democracies? And - possibly most telling of all - why have the Downing Street website gurus erased all references to its social capital project?
The Conservatives control the Local Government Association. So why aren't Conservative LA's promoting marriage education programmes through Register Offices in which they have paid staff? And why isn't David Cameron and the LGA demanding that a full range of indices and neighbourhood statistics are published so that local changes in social capital can be properly measured?
I'm sorry there is still such a long way to go. But at least and at last the debate has begun.
Poodle-like it presents the debate which has at long last started - thanks to David Cameron - from the perspective of the Prime Minister. But let's give credit to Andrew Selous MP who first demanded there should be a debate in November 2003.
At his monthly press conference Tony Blair said, when it came to the most dysfunctional families who were "shut out" of mainstream society, specific intervention was needed at an early stage.
"In my view, the debate is not about marriage versus lone parents. The debate is about how you target measures specifically on those families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples."
As usual Tony Blair talks about how to 'target measures specifically on .... [dysfunctional] families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples', rather than promoting universal marriage and relationship education. The former is not only patently what is not required, and the latter is also what the wiser members of Parliament - across the political parties - have been saying for twelve years or so. Which policy is more likely to stigmatise lone parents?
If Tony Blair is right - and there is no 'general social breakdown' - how is it that West Yorkshire police are having to deal with 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence each year? Why is it that one in five pregnancies are aborted? Who says that the 42% of children born to parents who are unmarried would not prefer their relationship to be an enduring one? Why is the UK in bottom place in just about every league table that might be used to measure 'social capital' in western democracies? And - possibly most telling of all - why have the Downing Street website gurus erased all references to its social capital project?
The Conservatives control the Local Government Association. So why aren't Conservative LA's promoting marriage education programmes through Register Offices in which they have paid staff? And why isn't David Cameron and the LGA demanding that a full range of indices and neighbourhood statistics are published so that local changes in social capital can be properly measured?
I'm sorry there is still such a long way to go. But at least and at last the debate has begun.
8 Feb 2007
13% rise in post-Christmas abortions charity records
Charity records 13% rise in post-Christmas abortions says the Guardian: which is interesting in the context of the previous item on this blog.
Phil Woolas [Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government] said [please see previous item], "the Government do not collect statistics on numbers of family breakdowns outside of divorce, given that relationship breakdowns outside of divorce are difficult to define and record. Community cohesion measurements primarily focus on how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area......."
Difficult to define or record abortions? Surely not! Abortions - along with sexually transmitted infections [STIs or STDs - depending on the language you speak] and along with a great many other statistics - such as missing persons and domestic violence - are routinely recorded. They are all manifestations of relationship or family breakdown that could be used to compile an index of social and domestic cohesion.
So why doesn't HMG want to publish such an index in order that changes in neighbourhood social and domestic cohesion or social capital can be measured?
The only possible explanation is that New Labour doesn't like the electoral implications.
Phil Woolas [Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government] said [please see previous item], "the Government do not collect statistics on numbers of family breakdowns outside of divorce, given that relationship breakdowns outside of divorce are difficult to define and record. Community cohesion measurements primarily focus on how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area......."
Difficult to define or record abortions? Surely not! Abortions - along with sexually transmitted infections [STIs or STDs - depending on the language you speak] and along with a great many other statistics - such as missing persons and domestic violence - are routinely recorded. They are all manifestations of relationship or family breakdown that could be used to compile an index of social and domestic cohesion.
So why doesn't HMG want to publish such an index in order that changes in neighbourhood social and domestic cohesion or social capital can be measured?
The only possible explanation is that New Labour doesn't like the electoral implications.
"Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer" - Alistair Burt MP [Shadow Minister for Communities & Local Government]
Dan Boucher, CARE’s Director of Parliamentary Affairs said, “Given its undisputed positive impact, with all kinds of public policy benefits, we believe that government should work to support and strengthen the institution of marriage in Britain today both through fiscal policy and through greater investment ‘proactively’ in marriage preparation as well as ‘reactively’ through marriage guidance counselling. At the beginning of National Marriage week [5th February 2007] we would urge the government to back its rhetorical commitment to the value of marriage with robust marriage friendly policies.”
On the same day as the launch of National Marriage Week, James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative) [Shadow Minister - Homeland Security] asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, "how she measures the extent of family breakdown in the context of her policies on community cohesion; whether figures on family breakdown are collected by (a) region and (b) local authority area; and if she will make a statement?"
Phil Woolas [Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government] responded lamely, "The Government do not collect statistics on numbers of family breakdowns outside of divorce, given that relationship breakdowns outside of divorce are difficult to define and record. Community cohesion measurements primarily focus on how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area......."
So never mind the fact that there were 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in West Yorkshire last year and the year before, let's talk about 'how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area'; so much easier to 'define and record'!
The ONS don't even publish divorce figures by neighbourhood or local authority, so the fact of the matter is that HMG is seriously not interested in trying to "measure the extent of family breakdown in the context of .... policies on community cohesion", indeed, nor in any other context.
And this is despite what Phil Woolas said on Thursday 20 October 2005 in a debate about the Social Exclusion Unit, "The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire [Alistair Burt] concluded his thoughtful speech by making some suggestions for the future. I shall certainly respond to his requests. I am particularly interested in his third point, because he said something important. It is clear to us all, and from the evidence and analysis provided by the social exclusion unit, that stability in a child's life is a key driver.......... Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family. Sometimes, I have to acknowledge that, unintentionally, it may seem to do so and, on occasion, probably does. The policy is for a stable and normal environment for children and young people with difficult lives."
"Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family." He must be joking!
[The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams, was bitterly ironic at the launch of Mational Marriage Week: "the fluidity and changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London, but you don’t have to go very many miles to see what the cost is for people who can’t take that sort of thing for granted."]
Alistair Burt had said, "....... let me deal with the toughest nut of all. The Minister talked about digging deeper and thinking more radically, so let me ask him this question. What role does the unit believe family and relationship breakdown in the UK play in long-term deprivation and social exclusion? The Minister and the unit must now realise, after so many of its projects and researches, that such breakdown has had a catastrophic effect, that it is getting worse, and that there are no substantial policy initiatives to address it. There are initiatives to ameliorate the symptoms and to compensate for the losses incurred, but that is not enough. Years of study have now made it clear just how damaging relationship and family breakdown is. The Government, the Opposition and Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer."
But they are all still on tiptoe. There are no policies from any political quarter.
On the same day as the launch of National Marriage Week, James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative) [Shadow Minister - Homeland Security] asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, "how she measures the extent of family breakdown in the context of her policies on community cohesion; whether figures on family breakdown are collected by (a) region and (b) local authority area; and if she will make a statement?"
Phil Woolas [Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government] responded lamely, "The Government do not collect statistics on numbers of family breakdowns outside of divorce, given that relationship breakdowns outside of divorce are difficult to define and record. Community cohesion measurements primarily focus on how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area......."
So never mind the fact that there were 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in West Yorkshire last year and the year before, let's talk about 'how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area'; so much easier to 'define and record'!
The ONS don't even publish divorce figures by neighbourhood or local authority, so the fact of the matter is that HMG is seriously not interested in trying to "measure the extent of family breakdown in the context of .... policies on community cohesion", indeed, nor in any other context.
And this is despite what Phil Woolas said on Thursday 20 October 2005 in a debate about the Social Exclusion Unit, "The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire [Alistair Burt] concluded his thoughtful speech by making some suggestions for the future. I shall certainly respond to his requests. I am particularly interested in his third point, because he said something important. It is clear to us all, and from the evidence and analysis provided by the social exclusion unit, that stability in a child's life is a key driver.......... Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family. Sometimes, I have to acknowledge that, unintentionally, it may seem to do so and, on occasion, probably does. The policy is for a stable and normal environment for children and young people with difficult lives."
"Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family." He must be joking!
[The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams, was bitterly ironic at the launch of Mational Marriage Week: "the fluidity and changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London, but you don’t have to go very many miles to see what the cost is for people who can’t take that sort of thing for granted."]
Alistair Burt had said, "....... let me deal with the toughest nut of all. The Minister talked about digging deeper and thinking more radically, so let me ask him this question. What role does the unit believe family and relationship breakdown in the UK play in long-term deprivation and social exclusion? The Minister and the unit must now realise, after so many of its projects and researches, that such breakdown has had a catastrophic effect, that it is getting worse, and that there are no substantial policy initiatives to address it. There are initiatives to ameliorate the symptoms and to compensate for the losses incurred, but that is not enough. Years of study have now made it clear just how damaging relationship and family breakdown is. The Government, the Opposition and Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer."
But they are all still on tiptoe. There are no policies from any political quarter.
4 Feb 2007
"Dismemberment of the traditional family" by the bishop of Motherwell
"Families matter because almost every social problem that we face - soaring teenage pregnancies, abortions and single mums, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, binge drinking, vandalism, violence and crime, the burgeoning of mental illness and sexually transmitted diseases among the young, educational failure, the breakdown in civility, and increasing harassment and contempt for the elderly, the vulnerable and the weakest members of our communities - all come down, in part at least, to the dismemberment of the traditional family.
Consecutive governments' policies, certainly for the best part of two decades, have put our country on the fast track to social dislocation. Inequality has not been reduced. Family breakdown, addiction and dependency have increased. Social divisions have not been healed. Nor can the Conservative opposition take the moral high ground given their earlier opposition to measures aimed at tackling poverty such as the minimum wage, maternity leave and flexible working.
Our governments in Westminster and Holyrood have dared not whisper the terms marriage and the traditional family for fear of being branded politically incorrect by the liberal secular lobby. They have signed up to the dangerous fiction that all lifestyles are equal and that all types of family are equally good at bringing up children. It is time to challenge them to change the direction of their social policies and recognise the damage caused by their compliance with liberal secular policy advisers.
With elections looming, voters must impress on all parties the need to promote family stability through strategies which incentivise and support marriage as well as a socially just, wide-ranging package of policies dealing with poverty reduction, deprivation and exclusion. My vote will go to the party that commits itself to detailed, credible and concrete policies that place marriage, committed parenthood and the family at the heart of its social manifesto. And my public criticism will remain focused on those who do not.
The right reverend Joseph Devine is bishop of Motherwell." He is writing in The Sunday Herald [4th February 2007].
I agree almost completely with the bishop of Motherwell, but the Labour government is also trying to have it both ways: it is deterring teenage motherhood on the grounds that the outcomes for children are poor, whilst at the same time maintaining the mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another". The outcomes for children of unmarried parents generally are worse than for those with parents who are married, so why not promote marriage and deter cohabitation?
In England the Conservatives control the Local Government Association, so they could be doing much more to promote similar policies to those outlined by the bishop of Motherwell - if they wanted to.
Consecutive governments' policies, certainly for the best part of two decades, have put our country on the fast track to social dislocation. Inequality has not been reduced. Family breakdown, addiction and dependency have increased. Social divisions have not been healed. Nor can the Conservative opposition take the moral high ground given their earlier opposition to measures aimed at tackling poverty such as the minimum wage, maternity leave and flexible working.
Our governments in Westminster and Holyrood have dared not whisper the terms marriage and the traditional family for fear of being branded politically incorrect by the liberal secular lobby. They have signed up to the dangerous fiction that all lifestyles are equal and that all types of family are equally good at bringing up children. It is time to challenge them to change the direction of their social policies and recognise the damage caused by their compliance with liberal secular policy advisers.
With elections looming, voters must impress on all parties the need to promote family stability through strategies which incentivise and support marriage as well as a socially just, wide-ranging package of policies dealing with poverty reduction, deprivation and exclusion. My vote will go to the party that commits itself to detailed, credible and concrete policies that place marriage, committed parenthood and the family at the heart of its social manifesto. And my public criticism will remain focused on those who do not.
The right reverend Joseph Devine is bishop of Motherwell." He is writing in The Sunday Herald [4th February 2007].
I agree almost completely with the bishop of Motherwell, but the Labour government is also trying to have it both ways: it is deterring teenage motherhood on the grounds that the outcomes for children are poor, whilst at the same time maintaining the mantra "we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another". The outcomes for children of unmarried parents generally are worse than for those with parents who are married, so why not promote marriage and deter cohabitation?
In England the Conservatives control the Local Government Association, so they could be doing much more to promote similar policies to those outlined by the bishop of Motherwell - if they wanted to.
31 Dec 2006
".......aspects of social exclusion are deeply intractable" [or are we just failing to measure them properly?]
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in a speech entitled, "Our sovereign value: fairness" :
"...... some aspects of social exclusion are deeply intractable. The most socially excluded are very hard to reach. Their problems are multiple, entrenched and often passed down the generations."
There is a hint - with "generations" - that the most intractable problems are connected with parenting, though nothing to suggest that the difficulties in parenting could be connected with the relationship of the parents.
In contrast, the Conservatives seem to be suggesting that both the relationship of the parents and the family structure are important, and they point out that the break up rate of couples with children is much greater for cohabiting as compared with married couples.
Tony Blair identified 4 groups with special problems:
"1. ...... 61,000 children in care at any one time. They run very high risks of being unemployed, having mental health problems and becoming teenage parents. We need to be frank - we are not yet succeeding. 1 in 10 children in care get 5 good GCSEs compared to 6 out of 10 of other children. Only 6 per cent make it to higher education compared to 30 per cent of all children.
2. Second, families with complex problems - the Respect Task Force identified 7,500 such families. A child born into the most disadvantaged 5 per cent of families is 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than a child from the 50 per cent best-off families. One of the biggest problems we face is parents who misuse alcohol. One in eleven children in the UK live with at least one such parent. These children have to take on more responsibility for running their family, they worry that the secret might be revealed, they often struggle at school and many start to use alcohol and drugs themselves.
3. Third, teenage pregnancies, of which there are 40,000 in the UK at any one time. Like looked-after children, teenage parents are more likely to end up unemployed, have mental health problems and themselves have children who have babies as teenagers. We have made some progress here - conception rates are at their lowest for 20 years.
4. And fourth, mental health patients. Between 125,000 and 600,000 people in Britain have a severe and enduring mental health problem. About 70,000 are on Incapacity Benefit and employment rates among the mentally ill have been falling, despite the fact that the majority are keen to work. The links with other problems are notable: half of those mis-using drug and alcohol have mental health problems.
The fact that we have yet to succeed with these groups is not for want of spending. The state spends £1.9bn acting in loco parentis for children in care. It costs about £110,000 a year to keep a child in residential care. And there is very little relationship between spending and outcomes. Families with complex problems cost between £50,000 and £250,000 each. Every teenage pregnancy costs an average of £57,900 in the first five years. A mental health bed costs £1,365 a week.
The problem is not that we are not trying, nor that the money is not being committed. It is that we need a radical revision of our methods. The Social Exclusion Plan will be guided by five principles: early intervention, systematically identifying what works, better co-ordination of the many separate agencies, personal rights and responsibilities and intolerance of poor performance.
......... The protective factors are not surprising - affectionate families, adequate attention from parents......
......... It might mean that a more intense health-visitor programme is arranged. Or it might mean parenting classes are offered.........
......... Of course prediction will never be perfect. But the combination of risk and protection means that we can now be reasonably confident that we can identify likely problems at a very early stage.
At any one time, children in care make up about 0.5 per cent of all children. But one quarter of the adult prison population has been in the children's care system at some point.
Around a third of looked-after children end up as NEETs (not in employment, education or training).
The daughter of a teenage mother is twice as likely to become a teenage mother compared with a daughter of an older mother.
Children from the 5 per cent of the most disadvantaged households are more than 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than those from the 50 per cent of most advantaged households.
Boys with a convicted father are over three times more at risk of being convicted of a crime than those with a non-convicted father.
125,000 children have a parent in custody - and 65 per cent of children with parents in prison go on to offend.
We then need to be clear about schemes that work and encourage the spread of good practice. We will provide a government hallmark for programmes that have proved to be effective........ We will incentivise good practice.............."
[Like marriage? Preparation for marriage?]
It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality. All that has changed and rightly. But where children are involved and are in danger of harm or where people are a risk to themselves or others, it is our duty not to stand aside. Their fate is our business."
There is a stark anomoly - amounting to hypocrisy - in what Tony Blair is saying:
a) "It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality.............." [i.e. 'cohabit if you wish'] and, in the same breath
b) "We will incentivise good practice" [but in practice do the opposite by incentivising cohabitation and single parenthood].
In fact, far from "systematically identifying what works", Tony Blair and his colleagues take a myopic view of the research that points to the benefits of marriage and of research informed marriage preparation programmes.
Is it adhering to the "sovereign value: fairness" when you only look at research which supports your point of view?
"...... some aspects of social exclusion are deeply intractable. The most socially excluded are very hard to reach. Their problems are multiple, entrenched and often passed down the generations."
There is a hint - with "generations" - that the most intractable problems are connected with parenting, though nothing to suggest that the difficulties in parenting could be connected with the relationship of the parents.
In contrast, the Conservatives seem to be suggesting that both the relationship of the parents and the family structure are important, and they point out that the break up rate of couples with children is much greater for cohabiting as compared with married couples.
Tony Blair identified 4 groups with special problems:
"1. ...... 61,000 children in care at any one time. They run very high risks of being unemployed, having mental health problems and becoming teenage parents. We need to be frank - we are not yet succeeding. 1 in 10 children in care get 5 good GCSEs compared to 6 out of 10 of other children. Only 6 per cent make it to higher education compared to 30 per cent of all children.
2. Second, families with complex problems - the Respect Task Force identified 7,500 such families. A child born into the most disadvantaged 5 per cent of families is 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than a child from the 50 per cent best-off families. One of the biggest problems we face is parents who misuse alcohol. One in eleven children in the UK live with at least one such parent. These children have to take on more responsibility for running their family, they worry that the secret might be revealed, they often struggle at school and many start to use alcohol and drugs themselves.
3. Third, teenage pregnancies, of which there are 40,000 in the UK at any one time. Like looked-after children, teenage parents are more likely to end up unemployed, have mental health problems and themselves have children who have babies as teenagers. We have made some progress here - conception rates are at their lowest for 20 years.
4. And fourth, mental health patients. Between 125,000 and 600,000 people in Britain have a severe and enduring mental health problem. About 70,000 are on Incapacity Benefit and employment rates among the mentally ill have been falling, despite the fact that the majority are keen to work. The links with other problems are notable: half of those mis-using drug and alcohol have mental health problems.
The fact that we have yet to succeed with these groups is not for want of spending. The state spends £1.9bn acting in loco parentis for children in care. It costs about £110,000 a year to keep a child in residential care. And there is very little relationship between spending and outcomes. Families with complex problems cost between £50,000 and £250,000 each. Every teenage pregnancy costs an average of £57,900 in the first five years. A mental health bed costs £1,365 a week.
The problem is not that we are not trying, nor that the money is not being committed. It is that we need a radical revision of our methods. The Social Exclusion Plan will be guided by five principles: early intervention, systematically identifying what works, better co-ordination of the many separate agencies, personal rights and responsibilities and intolerance of poor performance.
......... The protective factors are not surprising - affectionate families, adequate attention from parents......
......... It might mean that a more intense health-visitor programme is arranged. Or it might mean parenting classes are offered.........
......... Of course prediction will never be perfect. But the combination of risk and protection means that we can now be reasonably confident that we can identify likely problems at a very early stage.
At any one time, children in care make up about 0.5 per cent of all children. But one quarter of the adult prison population has been in the children's care system at some point.
Around a third of looked-after children end up as NEETs (not in employment, education or training).
The daughter of a teenage mother is twice as likely to become a teenage mother compared with a daughter of an older mother.
Children from the 5 per cent of the most disadvantaged households are more than 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than those from the 50 per cent of most advantaged households.
Boys with a convicted father are over three times more at risk of being convicted of a crime than those with a non-convicted father.
125,000 children have a parent in custody - and 65 per cent of children with parents in prison go on to offend.
We then need to be clear about schemes that work and encourage the spread of good practice. We will provide a government hallmark for programmes that have proved to be effective........ We will incentivise good practice.............."
[Like marriage? Preparation for marriage?]
It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality. All that has changed and rightly. But where children are involved and are in danger of harm or where people are a risk to themselves or others, it is our duty not to stand aside. Their fate is our business."
There is a stark anomoly - amounting to hypocrisy - in what Tony Blair is saying:
a) "It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality.............." [i.e. 'cohabit if you wish'] and, in the same breath
b) "We will incentivise good practice" [but in practice do the opposite by incentivising cohabitation and single parenthood].
In fact, far from "systematically identifying what works", Tony Blair and his colleagues take a myopic view of the research that points to the benefits of marriage and of research informed marriage preparation programmes.
Is it adhering to the "sovereign value: fairness" when you only look at research which supports your point of view?
Like Labour the Conservatives tend to quote national figures.
The most powerful motivator would be to publish all the relevant neighbourhood statistics for social and domestic cohesion - combined with an index - so local leaders, GPs and health visitors, parish councillors, school governors, faith and other community leaders can easily measure whether their area is becoming more or less cohesive, and to what extent local policies and programmes are working.
Labour have created a precedent for this with their local authority league table of performance in reducing teenage pregnancy.
But teenage pregnancy is only one aspect of social and domestic cohesion; figures for the other elements and an index should be published, and by neighbourhood, as well as by local authority.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
