Wednesday, January 06, 2010

The Conservatives stick their finger in the dyke

"A modern Conservative Party should support marriage. We should use the law, the tax and benefits system, and other mechanisms to encourage families to get together and stay together."

- David Cameron, speaking at a Policy Exchange meeting in June 2005

I have to admit that, as a conservative (small c) political party, such an approach makes sense. However, it does seem to contradict the views of those of a more libertarian bent. You see, such a stance smacks of social engineering, of persuading individuals to behave in a manner that is not necessarily in their best interest in the long-term.

As a liberal, I believe in freedom, within certain limits, of course. I don't believe that the State has the right to tell me how to live my life, or how I should arrange my personal affairs. Yet, if a bribe to heterosexual couples is the best that might be on offer, what impact do they expect that to have?

Firstly, one has to accept that £200 per annum is not going to sway many people. As Rosemary Bennett notes in today's Times, a tax break of £1,000 would cost about £5 billion annually. Under the current circmstances, that isn't going to happen.

Secondly, data indicates that 70% of people actively want to get married, and only a minute proportion believe marriage to be an old-fashioned notion. So, there are very few people to be swayed.

Indeed, David Cameron has indicated that any tax break will be available to those in civil partnerships. So just how will that support marriage?

Society has become more complex. Increased access to divorce and abortion, improvements in contraception, all of these have made marriage a rather more fragile institution. Easier divorce laws mean that there are some who enter into marriage knowing that, if it all goes wrong, they can exit without stigma and, if both parties behave reasonably, much inconvenience. The notion that marriage is therefore no longer 'til death do us part' means that you don't necessarily have to look for Mr or Ms Right.

Access to abortion, something which has given women greater freedom (although not without personal cost), means that pregnancy does not oblige women to marry the father, in the way that it once did, likewise with improvements in contraception, which prevent such pregnancies in the first place.

Turning back the clock in these aspects of modern life is always going to be difficult. Yes, you could make divorce more difficult. The cost would be in those unhappy homes where children are raised in an atmosphere of tension, with the resultant impact on their educational and emotional development. You would also have to deal with a likely increase in spousal abuse. I don't think that Conservatives believe that these are good outcomes, and they come with their own costs too.

Tighten up the abortion laws? The time limit has been reduced, but most people would be happier to reduce abortion levels through better sex education, improved access to contraception and so on. Besides, how would this support marriage?

No, the answer is not to stick a finger in the dyke in defence of the nuclear family. Better to support those who wish to raise their children well, to support and nurture them, to have aspirations for them, regardless of how they choose, or are obliged, to order their personal affairs. Reduce the number of unwanted children by encouraging behaviour that will prevent their conception, and provide the support that will allow children the best opportunities that we can provide through health reforms and investment in education.

If the Conservatives want to really fix our allegedly broken nation, returning society to the moral straightjacket it was once in is not the way forward. Talking about supporting people to take control over their own lives, about freedom, they might even persuade Liberal Democrats as to their sincerity...

4 comments:

David Matthewman said...

"Indeed, David Cameron has indicated that any tax break will be available to those in civil partnerships. So just how will that support marriage?"

I'm not quite clear what you're saying here.

Are you saying that supporting civil partnerships undermines marriage? Or is your point that civil partnerships are so totally different from marriage that supporting them in no way supports marriage? I don't agree with either of those assertions, but it's possible that you mean something different; could you unpack it a little?

Mark Valladares said...

David,

Good question.

The purported aim of the exercise is to support marriage as a means to bolster the 'nuclear family', i.e. husband, wife, two point two children etc. Civil partnerships are by their nature, not going to fall into that pattern, especially as they are not available to heterosexual couples. Given that the Conservative Party is far from solid in its support for lesbians and gay men to adopt or have access to in-vitro fertilisation on the NHS, it seems odd to give an allowance to them if your aim is to support families with children.

Now, if it were down to me, I would give civil partnerships the full status that marriage currently has, and leave marriage for those who wish to have something more spiritual.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to marriage, and am happily married myself. I deeply believe in the notion of making a spiritual as well as legal commitment to the one I love. However, if the aim is to support parents and children in their development, we need structures and frameworks that reflect the differing circumstances of modern parents.

It is difficult for the Conservative Party to square the circle of being socially liberal and having socially conservative supporters. I wish them luck in the attempt, as social liberals need all the help that they can get, but I'm not optimistic.

David Matthewman said...

I see; thanks for explaining.

You may be right, but it seems to me that you're taking as read that the Conservatives could only ever have a narrow, heteronormative view of marriage, and that the civil partnership line is a sign that they're being inconsistent, rather than a sign that Cameron is possibly being more broad-minded than we all think. That strikes me as a somewhat circular argument, and I mistrust it for that reason.

"Now, if it were down to me, I would give civil partnerships the full status that marriage currently has, and leave marriage for those who wish to have something more spiritual."

You give civil partnerships the full status that marriage has by explicitly calling them marriages. You do it by allowing two people to marry regardless of their respective genders. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'leave marraige for those who want something more spiritual' - could you expand that at bit? If you give civil partnerships the full status of marriage, what 'more spiritual' bit do they then lack?

"However, if the aim is to support parents and children in their development, we need structures and frameworks that reflect the differing circumstances of modern parents."

In which case, supporting civil partnerships is a *good* thing, and goes some way towards doing that. I know you think the Tories can't possibly think gay people having children is a good thing, but I hope *you* don't think that yourself.

Mark Valladares said...

David,

Thank you for the gentle yet persistent probing.

On the last point, I am fully in support of civil partnerships. It is vital that those who seek to formalise their relationship have the same legal rights as married couples.

And as for the right to have children, the only consideration should be whether a child is brought up by loving and nurturing parents, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The happiness of the child is surely paramount.

For me, 'marriage' has some religious connotations. If people want their relationship to be sanctioned by some deity, fine, let them. The language itself is less important than the rights implied. So, if you want to call civil partnerships marriages, go right ahead. However, those who want a religious element in the tying of bonds will doubtless find some term to differentiate themselves from those undergoing just a civil ceremony.

I tend to the view that Conservatives are heteronormative, for the most part. Certainly, the evidence leads one to take that stance. That doesn't mean that David Cameron is being hypocriticial, merely that he is probably a bit ahead of his Party on the subject. On the other hand, the indication that such an allowance would be available to lesbians and gay men and married couples, but not necessarily unmarried heterosexual couples, seems to contradict the call from Ian Duncan-Smith's advisory group. Adding heterosexual couples to the civil partnership legislation would address that issue yet offer a credible alternative to marriage.

So yes, axe the current differentiation between marriage and civil partnerships. I don't see the point of such a two-tier system anyway.

I hope that I've clarified my position...