So is marriage the solution to all social evils?

[BrummieOnTheRun]

"...in the wake of a Tory report that says unmarried parents are driving a generation of children into crime and drug dependency...The Tories claim the rise in cohabitation and single parenthood is unleashing a social and economic crisis.
In an appeal to grassroots supporters, the party will this week put the promotion of marriage back at the heart of its agenda, warning of dire consequences if more couples are not encouraged to wed."

So is the solution marriage, or encouraging more household back into employment?
We married this year after 15 years of sinful co-habiting and I don't feel marriage makes a blind bit of difference to a good relationship. I see the lack of any working role models in these households as being the bigger issue.
But then I'm sure some of these kids are from single-parent households where the mother is killing herself with multiple jobs trying to make ends meet, so...???
Any opinions?
Full article here: /link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2496320,00.html}

Dangerous ploy, though. One nosey neighbour and she's in Court for Benefit fraud.

well as I suspected mad santa you are talking about benefit fraud which is a crime

and I dplore it

they shouldn't be pretending they aren't together and deserve the book thrown at them

because other people have to live and pay for their feckless and criminal behaviour

Usual Tory soundbite b**cks to capture headlines imo.

The people who's children cost the welfare state the most money to look after are amongst the poorest and most marginalised in society. Whether or not they are married is irrelevant. The question is not about whether or not they are married but what is causing them to be poor parents resulting in the 'costs' to the state.
There are plenty of good parents who are financially poor, I don't think it's an issue of how much benefits are paid. It's a lot more complex than that, so agree with SMBK, Blu, Tinker, Pruni et al. A lot more research needs to be done.

Since when have the Tories ever cared about these people? Don't buy the Cameron touchy feely approach at all.

i have absolutely no problem with people deciding to get married (which is jolly nice of me!) and sharing the 'benefits' of single parent-dom. I do have a problem with the Tories deciding that marriage is the natural state for children to be brought up in and casting the ills of society of my doorstep as a single parent. My children are respectful, do exceptionally well at school, don't run around the streets in the middle of the night wielding machetes and keep their drug-intake to occasional calpol.

I absolutely resent the implication that I am a bad parent and my children are bad children because my ex DP couldn't keep his cock in his pants.

good parents do the best they can, regardless of what other adults they cohabit with or marry. by all means give parents within a legalised relationship ( marriage or co-habiting) all the tax breaks etc you want - but give those parents doing it all on their own equal tax breaks and take account of the fact that they are relying on one income, rather than, in some cases two.

It's not benefit fraud unless they are claiming single parent benefits while living together, or not declaring an income etc. Some people's financial and social circumstances change too quickly for anyone to catch up with them. A mix of private renting, staying with family and council housing means that they are unlikely to be traced.

I'm trying to say that the benefits and tax credit system incentivise people keeping relationships on a more casual footing and not getting married. Especially once a relationship has broken up between the biological parents and subsequent relationships are forged.

I know people who would like to have got married according by tradition, but they feel that it is too risky from a financial point of view. At the end of the day these people, unlike most of the co-habitees on here, are part of the "underclass" as described by the Times.

I am just giving anecdotal evidence that people on the financial edge are much more likely to perceive marriage as something that prevents them from ever claiming benefits in the same way. Not all of them, but a great number. I am asserting that the benefits system as it stands is destabilising their families, but I could be wrong. Society could be doing that in other ways. Poverty itself puts a lot of stress on a relationship, especially with children involved.

We'd be a lot better off (i'm a student, Dh lowish pay) if we lived separately, esp at certain times when we've been hit by WTC mistakes, but although we know we would be it isn't something that's going to happen, too difficult for the kids, plus if there's one thing I am not,its a liar. Would be easy though.

I can see why a couple together on benefits would take the decision not to marry or cohabit (is it 3 nights a week you can have before its official?), logical decision for some i guess. It also occurs to me that if a chap meets a woman with a few children, no matter how much heloves here its a huge thing to take o financial responsibility for those children isn't it? Some would be put off.

Santa - I agree with what you're saying. A relation of mine has a two year old son and is in an on-off relationship with his father. A big factor in the instability of the relationship is that they feel they cannot set up home together permanently because she will lose benefits, and they will really struggle as a result.

I personally think that people should be encouraged to get married. As other people have said, it does not have to be a big deal - a civil marriage is effectively a legal agreement and it can be treated as such. If you have children it puts them in a much more stable position. However, I would never agree with people getting married just for the sake of the children if the relationship is not inherently stable - that does nobody any favours and leaves more mess if things go wrong.

Having said that, someone I know who has children from a previous relationship at a time when fathers did not automatically get parental responsibility unless they knew to ask. Now that they have split up and she has married he has absolutely zero rights over those children, although he is still being chased for maintenance. I'm sure he wishes he had married the children's mother.

BTW, I am not saying that I agree with the decisions of my relation and her partner - just that it is an example of what Santa is talking about.

I think the Tories support the current plan to give cohabiting couples similar rights to those married if they split up which is not fair and not a good thing. If I move a man in here and don't want to have to fork out what I had to on my divorce last time around I will lose that option if we're together long or had children under those plans.

Then not raised on this thread but a lot of people in the UK are religious and living in sin is morally wrong for them and the children are illegitimate and this country has always made that distinction. The children's rights are different if the parents aren't married. There's no presumption automatically that a particular man is the father, no inheritance of titles etc

Why did I stay married so long? Complicated question. Perhaps in part because of the institution of marriage, financial issues (I knew it would cost a fortune and it was bearable for a while to stay together), religious issues - no one on either side of the family ever got divorced, children - mostly they do better with unhappy parents together than if parents split up most studies show, and although it sounds barely credible because I felt abused and anyone in those kinds of relationships knows how hard they are to leave.

I have to agree Xenia. If people want the same rights as married people they need to get married. If people choose not to marry for whatever reason (and if that is their decision I fully support them) then they should accept that they will not be treated the same in the eyes of the law. I don't think this is unreasonable.

I don't know how the Government plans to make any new system work - when exactly does a couple become cohabiting? I presume they would need to introduce some kind of opt in system like the new civil partnerships - but why reinvent the wheel?

Xenia "I think the Tories support the current plan to give cohabiting couples similar rights to those married if they split up which is not fair and not a good thing. If I move a man in here and don't want to have to fork out what I had to on my divorce last time around I will lose that option if we're together long or had children under those plans. "

I think if you commit to a relationship and you live together and have children together or even if you don't then it is reasonable to think that is a financial commitment too. If you don't feel you can commit then the answer is not to move in together. Relationships break down and the resulting dissolution of the partnership has to take place by some means either by mutual agreement and/ or under the legal system. There isn't really a way round this just because you no longer want your partner.

I think that the idea of risking the family relationships and the children's stability in order to claim extra benefits is a very poor trade off. If some families value stability of living together and sharing together more than extra cash gained by deception then I think it is wrong for others to take money they don't deserve out of the system. It's not fair.

Why should that hypothetical example of the "man" who is earning a good wage of 25k keep it all while the state supports his girlfriend whom he lives with. They are not being fair to others who are living along side them and not trying to defraud the system. It is people like them who are responsible for society developing and maintaining nasty attitudes to people who need benefits.
A man earning 14k pays his tax and his partner doesn't get benefits because they are providing a home together for the children. They live on less than your example. Why should your example take more out of the system and live more easily? It's not fair.

I agree GC.
On the cohabiting legal change plan which I'm sure will go through, I believe the current plan (I hope a lot of mumsnetters give their comments on the consultation - so many people complain but then never contribute to the consultative process).. is that classic situation - live together as man and wife for 20 years nad have 3 children, wive gave up work 20 years ago. Currently she usually won't get any share in any assets in his name and no maintenance for herself, nust the children. If instead they married then ight get 50% of their joint assets and maintenance. I was out with someone a month ago who had divorced and then they got together but never remarried. It made a massive financial difference when they split up the second time.

I think the automatic rights would come if you live together for a particular period or have children or made career sacrifice but not otherwise but it's not clear yet. I am not sure they would let a vulnerable young woman opt out when she is 22 so that when she's 44 with 4 children and a SAHM and her other half is worth £20m, he could rely on the opt out. Perhaps it will be a good excuse to turf someone out of your bed each night back to their own place. I suppose some of us can forum shop and pick a country with the laws most favourable to our own position but it's a pity they will be ridding us of that choice in the UK Of whether to take on the financial consequences of marriage or not in a nanny state sort of view - we must protect silly men or women who choose to live together without procuring the marriage promise and financial rights against each other.

On civil partnerships if you are different sex couples these are not available to you.

Honestly, Glenn, I really agree with everything you are saying about how wrong it is to defraud the system. I am certainly not supporting people's right to claim anything they are not entitled to. I am just saying that married people in this sort of situation are worse off, because it is much harder to pretend that the man isn't living there than it would be if they weren't married. The man in some cases can actually move out to a relative's house in order that the woman can claim benefits which are more than his salary - especially if he is self-employed or on temporary contracts.

I am actually convinced that a lot of these families would be better off if they were incentivised to get married, rather than living this unstable and casual life.

Better for the husband - more rights over the children and a proper role in the family rather than peripheral. Less likely to be replaced by a different man.
Better for the wife - more financial and emotional security and better legal rights. Stability and predictability.
Better for the children - a greater likelihood of growing up with biological parents, and less changes in their family situation with associated arguments and stress.

This sort of situation is not uncommon, although it is well hidden in official statistics, for obvious reasons!

But they don't have to get married just live together without the shennanigans of trying to claim benefits they aren't really entitled to.

Or are you suggesting that more benefits should be paid. The benefits system and the tax credit system and the pensions system has always accepted that single person households are more expensive to run than couples. Who is going to pay more taxes to fund more benefits for higher earners than at present?

To be honest the situation where a woman is getting benefits as a single parent which she doesn't want to give up when she gets a new partner is just that she wants more money. Simple as that she wants to have a new partner and benefit from his money and keep her own. If that is her attitude then there isn't much you can do about it. Her children will get their values from her. It's nothing to do with marriage , she just thinks she deserves that money and thinks she can carry on getting it.

here is some other stuff on the subject

I think the association between break of cohabiting couples with children under five and break up of marriages is slightly flawed. If those people were getting married then I think they would still be breaking up. It's not getting more people to marry which is required it's getting fewer people to have children before they have established a stable relationship which isn't quite the same thing.

Is the argument about getting more people married or having fewer single parent households?

You're right Glenn in the sense that if people want to chase (semi-fraudulently or honestly) the extra money available to lone-parent households, there is little that the govt/benefit system can do to stop that. It is more expensive to run a household on your own, and short of massively increasing the amount available to all, there is probably no way to make benefits not incentivise casual relationships.

What is socially acceptable has changed rapidly, and so far it has been based around the concept of the right to individual happiness. And I don't think an open and honest debate is possible on the damage done to children, because no-one is ever going to listen to someone telling them that they have provided a sub-optimal environment for their children.

I certainly don't like people telling me that going back to work and putting the children in childcare has damaged my children. It might be objectively true, but I have already made that choice and now I would rather not dwell on it.

Equally, no-one wants to hear that living in a "broken home" (as it used to be called) is damaging to children. But it might be. It has become unacceptable to say that a married couple in a stable relationship is ideal for children. Not essential, but ideal.

Just heard Nigel Lawson on the Today programme defending Pinochet's mass murders and torture. Timely reminder of the true nature of the Tory party. After all, savage dictatorship with something like 3,000 mothers, fathers and children 'disappeared' is SO good for family values.

edam

My god, edam, REALLY?!

We were living in S. America during the height of Pinochet's Reign of Terror. ALL those people who just 'disappeared' and suffered unimaginable torture.

I'm completely aghast!

Yes, agreed that the Tories and anything they say need to be treated be with great suspicion.

didn't he advise pinochet on finance|?

he has always denied his crimes and supported him

Just want to add breifly

i want to be married but can't afford it, im self employed and dp earns a fair wage but we still struggle to pay for everything.

I DO NOT agree with studies that show children are better of with unhappy parents. My parents were together until i was 7 and they argued most of the time, my mum was upset and often packed her bags - they were married, how was this stable? in the end she did pack her bags and left while we were in bed (we did go and live with her eventually)

I'm glad she left i love both my parents but they are definatley much better off without each other and we were better off not living in that enviroment. i would have hated to grow up knowing my mum stayed for our benefit - a right miserable upbringing that would have been!! and the guilt i would have felt for making my mum feel she had to have an unhappy life - WTF?? when a mother is happy her children are happy surely?!

On the benefits front - it's a bit complicated really isnt it.
IF i was a single mum and i meet someone new, how do i know its going to work out? how long is it going to last? what if he just walks out? why should a man i have known (for eg) 4 months be responsible for me and my children, isn't that going to push him to leave me and thus end up on my own again?

say i am honest and i tell them then 3 weeks later he does walk out it will take them another few weeks to sort my claim out in the mean time who would pay the bills, buy the food etc?

its not as clear cut as some people make out.

Now im not saying benefit fraud is right i'm just saying think about it, put yourself in their shoes.

living on the breadline is not easy for any of us, single or not.

but the amount of money you have doesn't change because you get married..it would be the same if you lived together. I just don't get this can't afford to marry business. Spell it out if you like and see if i can follow.

if i married dp we would be living on exactly the same as we are now

we moved in together after a short relationship but it didn't occur to me to pretend we were living apart to get benefits and I wouldn't have done so anyway

cant afford to get married - as in cant afford a wedding - not even a spare £100 for the registery office.

we are stoney broke we live day to day trying to avoid debt (which hasn't gone well i have to admit) a wedding is not a luxery we can afford right now. I intend to get married but it's not high on our priorities at the moment.

We don't get any help towards the cost of living, childcare etc.