Another panic-induced u-turn

Perry

Matthew, - yes, well noted, - and following news of yet more U-turning in the Telegraph this morning, one wonders just what light illuminates the ‘movers and shakers’ in Government. Surely not something as mundane as electoral popularity, - especially given that they (the Government) are convinced they are correct in all respects? One chokes on the images of po-faced and / or smiling politicos gushing platitudes (also ref. DT).

David Lindsay

Fiscal support for marriage was never about children; there were, and are, separate provisions for that. It was about supporting marriage. Per se. Burnham, as a practising Catholic, understands this, and is saying so. Cameron, as a very liberal public school Anglican, has probably never even thought about it. I'd be fascinated to hear of when the Tories have ever actually been a pro-marriage, pro-family party. Ever. People who think that they used to be, and so should be again, are like people who think that Labour used to be a Marxist party, and so should be again. Evenm if they were right historically, it wouldn't prove anything. And in any case, they are just plain wrong historically. Of course, there should in fact be a pro-family party in British politics. But it will never be the Tories.

Nick Gulliford

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? Maybe Mr Burnham has a conscience which will affect all of them. If the Conservatives now mean what they say, why are they not implementing some of the 29 other proposals of Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Policy Group concerned with relationship education in the local authorities which they control?