Finally...someone says what we've all been thinking on the marriage 'row'

Glass House Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:55:46 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Alan Johnson right. Blair and Cameron wrong.



At least someone in the mainstream is willing to stand up and say what we believe in.

Alan Johnson 'opposes marriage bias'

Family policy must not be biased in favour of married parents, Alan Johnson is to say at a Relate conference.

While marriage is the "pinnacle of a strong relationship," not all children raised in them fare well and not all other families are "doomed to failure".

Ahead of the speech he told GMTV politicians should stop "moralising" and concentrate on helping the child.

Last year Mr Johnson's colleague, Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton, said that having "two caring, loving parents" gives children a greater prospect of "making the most of their lives".

It's wrong to suggest that tax and legislation makes relationships, it's not, it's love
Alan Johnson

And recently Tory leader David Cameron said fathers should be compelled to look after their children, in an effort to tackle gang culture, and backed the idea of tax breaks for married couples.

But speaking ahead of his speech, Mr Johnson told GMTV: "It's wrong for politicians to suggest that if we say everyone should be married, they're suddenly going to go out and get married.

"It's wrong to suggest that tax and legislation makes relationships, it's not, it's love."


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Finally...someone says what we've all been thinking on the marriage 'row' | 23 comments (23 topical)

Re: Finally... (#1)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:33:46 AM GMT

I agree with Alan 100% on this, the Tories have been waging a soft propoganda campaign on this subject for months now with nothing in the way of a rebuttal from the government.

Alan cuts right to the heart of the matter and recognises that helping the child is the important aspect of policy.


What marriage bias? (#2)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:56:33 PM GMT

The Tories can say what they like, they are not in power. And I don't think they understand it properly either.

Simple fact is the tax and welfare system are HUGELY biased in favour of one parent families.

Tax and legislation DOES influence relationships (or the lack thereof). Can anybody honestly say that so many single young women would be having babies if we had a system like in the Netherlands, who don't lavish benefits on young single mothers and their child-born-out-of-stable-relationship rates are a tiny fraction of ours.

Can't the government just butt out and treat all adults (and indeed all children) the same?


Re: What marriage bias? (#3)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:13:11 PM GMT

Why would throwing money at married couple help?


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#5)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:43:00 PM GMT

I never said throw money at married couples and you know that perfectly well.

I said treat all adults (regardless of relationship status) and all children equally .

I said what I mean and I meant what I said.

See (for example) the Citizen's Income documents I sent you.


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#6)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:57:17 PM GMT

To me it's as simple as...

  1. Married couples with children should not be favoured over unmarried couples with children

  2. Single parents should get more help (for the sake of the child)


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#7)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:12:00 PM GMT

  1. Totally agreed, no quibbles there.

  2. "Help" is, I take it, a euphemism for money? And if so, how much more money "should", in your opinion, a single parent plus absent partner get compared to a cohabiting couple?

(In reply to my own question, under current rules, a lone mother plus and absent father get about £150 - £200 a week more than a cohabiting couple in terms of benefits and rent saved by being in a council house and so on.
Do you think this is
a) about right,
b) not enough, or
c) too much?)

3. Follow on question, how much of that extra money to which you think a lone mother should be entitled should the absent father pay?


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#8)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:11 PM GMT

Under what circumstances would the lone mother recieve the extra £150-200? If she was working? If she wasn't working? On what salary/wage?

Compared to what kind of cohabiting couple? Both working? Both unemployed? One working? One what salary/wage?


[ Parent ]

DWP Tax and Benefit Model Tables (#13)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:23:27 PM GMT

Broadly speaking, if an unemployed couple splits up, the net total income of the mother's household (who normally keeps the kids) and the absent father increases by £150 - £200.

This is not some wild opinion of mine, I have spent months trying to understand the intricacies of all these benefits.

There is a pahmplet by hard-right welfare commentator Jill Kirby ("The Price of Parenthood", CPS, 2005)that claimed all this.

I (of course) assumed that she was exaggerating wildly, so I ground the figures, checked the leaflets, looked up on www.entitledto.com, checked the DWP model tables, and blow me down, SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, as painful as that is to admit, SHE WAS TELLING THE DOGGONE TRUTH.


[ Parent ]

Re: DWP Tax and Benefit Model Tables (#17)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:53:48 PM GMT

OK, admittedly, that is more shocking than I imagined. * goes off to read the pdf *


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#9)

by swatantra on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:04:33 PM GMT

 Glasshouse, Your Point number 2 in fact, is self defeating . It is precisely because the State give more money to Single Parents that encorages them to choose that status. By denying them an extra allowance, they may think twice about getting pregnant or the woman going off on her own. I know its hard for the children involved, but the only way to break the cycle is to impose tougher measures.  We must not be blackmailed into supporting single status just for the 'sake of the children'. In fact, Alan Johnson is wrong and Blair and Cameron are right.


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#10)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:28:27 PM GMT

Jesus! How about...

It is precisely because the minimum wage benefits low skilled workers that encorages them to choose that status. By denying them an extra wage on what they would otherwise get , they may think twice about messing around at school instead of learning. I know its hard for the children involved, but the only way to break the cycle is to impose tougher measures.  We must not be blackmailed into supporting low skilled workers just for the 'sake of the children'. In fact, the Labour Party is wrong and Right wing Conservatives are right.

...instead?


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#14)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:25:03 PM GMT

Swatantra I love you.


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#15)

by swatantra on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:03:55 PM GMT

Steady on Mark!!!


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#18)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM GMT

OK let me rephrase that:

"Swatantra thank you for your helpful comments with which I wholly concur"


[ Parent ]

Re: What marriage bias? (#19)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:30:39 PM GMT

Mark - could you point me to the statistics for child-born-out-of-stable-relationship rates?  (I'd have thought that would be quite a hard thing to measure, is all).  The Unicef report cited stats about lone parent households, and the UK was about level with Sweden, which has a completely different welfare system and where child well-being appears to be much higher (suggesting that there isn't a correlation between prevalence of lone parent households and child well-being).

I think that it is quite wrong for swatantra to argue, and you to agree with, that there should be tougher measures which would cause extra hardship for children of lone parents.  I've not seen any convincing evidence that benefit levels are a primary factor when people choose to bring up their children as lone parents (again, if you've got any evidence which isn't just anecdotal, let's see it), and any reforms to the benefit system should act to reduce child poverty, not increase it.

To anticipate (part of) your response, I am interested in citizen's income, and familiar with the research and debate around minimum income standards.  But I think it is essential that proposals like that involve levelling up so that people on the lowest incomes don't end up worse off.  This is, I think, a real challenge for CI, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.


[ Parent ]

Lies damn lies and statistics (#20)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:47:56 PM GMT

Around 40% of children are born to non-married parents (some of whom are of course common law married). Of all children under 16 about 25%are living in a single-parent household. Figures subject of course to margin of error.

I have cracked the whole levelling up/levelling down problem, made it fiscally neutral and so on.

Send me an email to gmwadsworth@gmail.com and I'll send you the workings.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lies damn lies and statistics (#21)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:57:23 PM GMT

Thanks, will drop you an e-mail.  Have you got any evidence about lone parents having kids because of the supposedly generous benefits system?


[ Parent ]

Re: Lies damn lies and statistics (#22)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:09:29 PM GMT

I am satisfied with what evidence there is, others aren't. That's not really the point. This will never be "proven" in the scientific sense anyway.

The other point is that there are plenty of married women who cannot afford to give up work to have a baby. Again I only have anecdotal evidence of this. Under my suggested CI scheme, the fall in income that a married couple suffers when wife has baby is much less, in relative and in abolute terms (it's all in the stuff I can send you).


[ Parent ]

Re: Lies damn lies and statistics (#23)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:22:24 PM GMT

Surely the point about married women who 'cannot afford to give up work to have a baby' undermines the idea that the state 'lavishes' benefits on single young women with children.  I understand that leaving work to have a child often involves a considerable drop in their household income, and the risk of poverty faced by couples where one person works and one doesn't.  

But married women aren't, for the most part, choosing to have children and bring them up on their own due to economic incentives from the benefits system.  This is one of the many things which suggests to me that the relationship between benefit levels and family structure isn't nearly as strong as you seemed to be arguing.

Anyway, I've e-mailed you, and I'll have a look at the papers.  I'm sure that there are some kinds of CI which do help both increase the income of lone parents and also married couples on low incomes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Finally...someone says what we've (#4)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:25:49 PM GMT

And Blair changes tack too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6398869.stm


Re: Finally...someone says what we've (#11)

by JR on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:20:34 PM GMT

Yes, you were too soon to doubt Blair. He has never said anything like the pro-marriage rubbish that Cameron spouts out.

Johnson and Blair have got this right. Cameron's 'back to basics' is wrong in principle and wouldn't work in practice.

Harman on Channel 4 news completely embarrassed David Willets on this subject. The Tories don't have a leg to stand on.


[ Parent ]

Willets v Harmann (#12)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:18:35 PM GMT

let's be honest they were both pathetic


[ Parent ]

Re: Willets v Harmann (#16)

by JR on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:08:29 PM GMT

No, Harman did really well there I thought.


[ Parent ]

Finally...someone says what we've all been thinking on the marriage 'row' | 23 comments (23 topical)