The Tories’ new old family policies
LAST DECEMBER the Tory Party’s Social Justice Policy
group published a 400-page report under the title, Breakdown Britain.
The report attempts to give the impression that the ‘new’ Tories are
deeply concerned with the terrible poverty in Britain. On closer
analysis, however, it repeats the old Tory mantra of the importance of
marriage and how this would radically combat poverty as well as reducing
spending on welfare benefits. Once again it is single parents and
‘broken homes’ that are blamed for poverty, crime and reliance on
welfare benefits.
Iain Duncan Smith, briefly leader of the Tory Party
and author of the report, believes there are five ‘pathways to poverty’:
family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, debt and
drug addiction. All could be significantly reduced if more couples got
married and stayed married: "Children from a broken home are twice as
likely to have behavioural problems, perform worse at school, become
sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression and turn to drugs,
smoking and heavy drinking".
In line with New Labour’s thinking, he looks to the
family and the voluntary sector to provide welfare, rather than increase
social spending. Without the family caring for the sick, old and
children, he declares, "the state would be overwhelmed".
Once again the blame for crime, poverty, drug
addiction and low educational attainment is placed on the increasing
breakdown of families and the rise in single-parent households. While
acknowledging that many single parents are forced to live on very low
incomes, the report concludes that a reduction in the number of single
parents is the solution. Even cohabiting couples should marry as they
would then be less likely to break up: he claims that one in two
cohabiting parents split up before the child’s fifth birthday, compared
to one in twelve for married couples.
Undoubtedly, many single parents (90% of whom are
women) and their children face severe poverty with over half of all lone
parent households being classified as poor. Welfare benefits barely
provide the basics. Accommodation is often inadequate and in run-down
areas. Labour may boast about getting more single parents into work but
recent statistics confirm that the pay is so low and childcare so
expensive and inadequate that many are forced to give up their job. The
latest survey from the childcare group Daycare Trust finds that the
costs of pre-school childcare are beyond the reach of most parents. In
fact, lone parents are twice as likely as other workers to leave their
jobs, which are often temporary or insecure. Yet John Hutton, Labour’s
work and pensions secretary, wants to cut benefits for single parents
once their youngest child reaches eleven, instead of 16 as at present,
to increase the number of single parents in work.
Poverty is the main contributing factor to poor
diet, ill health and crime, not single parents. The reason so many
single parents are struggling on very low incomes is down to the society
we live in.
The overriding reason that capitalism and its
political representatives promote marriage is to encourage the
traditional family to care for children and the sick and old. With the
introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) and state welfare in
the form of care of the elderly, social services, etc, some of the
burdens on the family were relieved. With continuing cuts in these areas
capitalism expects the family to take on more care, which will fall
disproportionately on women.
The family plays a dual role in capitalist society.
Most people see the family as representing relationships – between
adults and parents and children. Yet the nuclear family has not always
been the norm throughout the development of human society. Early
communistic societies accepted that children were the responsibility of
society as a whole, as well as parents.
On the other hand, today’s ‘traditional’ family is
used by the ruling class as an institution for social control, social
stability and to carry out the unpaid role of bringing up the next
generation and caring for the elderly and ill.
The fall in the number of marriages, the increase in
cohabitation and rise in single-parent families, and recognition of gay
relationships, represent a certain breaking away from the ‘traditional’
family. People feel they no longer should stay in an unhappy or abusive
relationship (although the pressures of capitalism itself often lead to
stresses in relationships).
More women are now working, looking for more
economic independence, despite many working in low paid jobs. Most women
would not want to return to the period where they had to rely on the
male head of the household for all of their needs. If we look at all
those currently working full time, women already spend 30% more time on
childcare every day than men. But New Labour and the Tories – both
capitalist parties – want to justify cutting back on the welfare state
by endorsing the necessity of families to play a more ‘traditional’
role. Duncan Smith’s complaints about taxpayers having to foot the bill
for single parents reminds us of one of Labour’s first acts when it
first took power in 1997, to cut benefits to lone parents.
Yet within the constraints of capitalism it is
increasingly difficult for married, cohabiting or single parents to
bring up children. Long working hours, lack of affordable housing with
adequate space, expensive and often inferior childcare and low pay, all
affect parents and children. The demand for a shorter working week with
no loss of pay to allow parents to spend more time with their children,
as well as adults to enjoy their relationships, is very important. The
latest British Social Attitudes Survey shows that more than eight out of
ten women and men would like to spend more time with their family (an
increase from less than three-quarters in 1989).
Duncan Smith accuses Labour of adopting a
‘partnership penalty’. When claiming income support or tax credits it is
often financially better to live apart, which allegedly deters couples
from getting married. He argues that the tax and benefit system is, in
fact, a "significant factor in the growth of one-parent families". Of
course, we should demand that welfare benefits are increased so that
people can live a decent life whether they live alone or with a partner.
Tory proposals are likely to include tax incentives
to get married and opposition to the recommendations of the Law
Commission to extend rights to cohabiting couples. This, Duncan Smith
argues, would encourage even more people not to marry and therefore doom
them to more unstable relationships. It would be better to lecture
cohabitees about their precarious legal rights to persuade them to get
married. The report points to welfare support for lone mothers having
resulted in a shift in ‘social norms’ and the acceptability of being a
single parent.
The report also complains about those single parents
on benefits living in accommodation that is too spacious for them. Why
should the parent who has left the family home be considered for an
extra room so that their child can visit?, he fumes. No doubt Duncan
Smith and other capitalist politicians live in homes with no unnecessary
extra space.
Mothers (no mention of fathers) should be encouraged
to stay at home with tax incentives to look after young children but, of
course, they would have to be married and the tax allowance would mostly
benefit the better off.
Crude logic is used to argue that children will get
a better, more affluent upbringing within a home of married parents.
This ignores the reality that within many marriages there is conflict,
including domestic violence and child abuse. It can be worse for the
children in many cases for parents to stay together in a stressful or
abusive relationship.
Duncan Smith asks "why the fourth largest economy
continues to have ever greater demands placed upon its social support
system, the welfare state, during a period of unprecedented prosperity?"
But surely such a ‘prosperous society’ should be able to ensure the
well-being of all those who cannot work rather than blaming them for
higher taxes? However, what Duncan Smith fails to address is why such
prosperity is enjoyed by so few while poverty is growing.
There is enough wealth to allow people to work less
hours; for adequate childcare as well as play facilities and organised
activities for children outside of school; for more and better and
affordable housing to be built; and for a decent wage. But big business,
represented by Duncan Smith, the Tories and now New Labour, are only
interested in maximising their profits. Tory and Labour politicians
would rather lay the guilt for poverty and crime onto ordinary parents,
particularly those bringing up children on their own, than admit that
the blame for increasing poverty really lies on the unjust and illogical
capitalist system.
Jane James
|