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}

If and when do have some spare money i'd rather buy a bigger house and have a nicer style of living for the sake of our children. what exactly would we gain by being married apart from more debt? (legally and finacially)

I'm tempted to ask where the money goes then if you're both working and he gets a fair wage...and you aren't entitled to any tax credits or anything

That should be buy a house, we don't own the house we in at the moment.

bills, 2 children, 2 cars, money to help run my business, presents, things that need repairing.

This past month alone has cost us a fortune -

christmas has cost about £400
dp's car exhaust fell off (he's gone to get it repaired now so we'll see how much taht costs!)
the washing machine broke down (which his parents have replaced, thank god!) but when the new one came dp didnt realise to take the screws out the back (the instructions got wet apparently) so it ripped our kitchen floor up
the element in our oven has gone so we're waiting for a part to repair that.
dd1 wanted violin lessons
and its my birthday this week.

the list goes on and on.............

btw i know most people consider 2 cars a luxery but i couldn't run my business so efficently without my car and dp works over 30 min drive away and there isn't very good transport links where we are.

also meant to add we are entitled to tax credits we just don't GET them because they overpaid us in 2003 apparently so we are still repaying that.

dp just phoned there goes another £82

That is one expensive phone contract!

Sorry I think there's a lot of cant going on here.

The idea that a lone mother who meets a man should suddenly declare to the Benefits Agency that they've met one, and lose their benefits and financial indpendence (from him) at the beginning of a new relationship, is just absolutely insane. Of course it takes time to negotiate how a relationship is going to pan out and the notion that lone parents don't declare new relationship because they "just want more money", is bollocks. They don't declare new relationships because they don't know how long they are going to last, if the bloke is going to hang around, if he is going to be a permanent part of their lives, what role he is going to have vis a vis their children, etc. etc. It might take 2 or 3 years to get to a stage of commitment where each party in the relationship feels safe enough to make the public commitment of officially moving in and stop claiming benefits and set up home together. Where children are concerned, it seems to me that it's a responsible thing to take things slowly and gradually with relationships, and I'm surprised that people think it's more important that you cross t's and dot i's vis a vis benefits.

But Caroligula, I thought the lone parent only had to declare the relationship if he/she is living with the new partner.

If they're just going out w/someone, then no problem, right?

I don't see where a person has to live with every single person they go out w/to see how it will pan out.

But people were talking about moving in together but pretending they hadn't, so you give the children the impression that you are in a relationship which is significant and you behave as though it is but continue to claim single parents benefits.

No, the way the benefit system works is that if a man stays the night at your place regularly (let's say a couple of nights a week) he can be counted as being a partner, even though he doesn't live there full time and is not contributing to the household.

Lots of relationships go through the phase of people staying round at each other's houses before making the commitment of moving in together. It doesn't mean people are supporting each other or consider themselves (or function as) a financial unit. The benefits agency can insist they are though. And can decide to cut your benefits on the basis of being at that stage of the relationship.

I knew someone years ago whose boyf would go round every evening once the kids were in bed, and he would generally leave at around 11. They would chat, watch TV, have sex etc. This stage lasted a year before she was confident enough to introduce him to her children. Nowadays, this stage would not be allowed by the benefits agency.

(She's now married to him btw)

I agree Caligula, when you are in a precarious financial situation anyway, you can't take risks if you can avoid it.

I think that a debate on this is totally stifled by not wanting to offend anyone. And maybe that is right? I think most people do their best for their children. There are loads of complex issues here, and it is not as straightforward as promoting marriage.

People are muddling through some very difficult situations here, and there is no simple answer to it, no matter what the Tories would like to believe. They may as well have said "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all be middle class, married, religious, live in a 3 bed semi in suburbia and have perfect little Boden children?"

I do think that it is a pity that a normal family with one income cannot make ends meet without reliance on benefits or tax credits of some kind. I think that trapping ordinary people in a kind of perma-reliance on the state is a bit of an own goal. I think if I were in charge of social policy, I would try much harder to structure tax and costs of living such that people had a realistic prospect of being able to survive independently.

Marriage could well be an independent variable here, correlated to family problems rather than having a causal link.

this is a quote from a benefits advice agency

"My boyfriend?s benefits have been stopped because they say that I live with him. I spend a lot of time there but I live somewhere else. What counts as living together?
This is a common problem. Sometimes people will tell you that it counts as living together if you stay there for more than 2 or 3 nights a week ? this is a myth. In order to be treated as a couple for benefits you have to be living together at the same address. If you have another address where you receive your post, keep your things, pay bills etc you clearly don?t live with your boyfriend. Other situations can be more difficult to prove to the Benefits Agency. If you have this problem you should go to an advice centre."

Yes, genuine summary of Lawson's comments on Today about Pinochet. Kind of 'of course he had his faults but at least he stopped the Communists'. Which is a lie anyway, the democratically elected government Pinochet ovethrew was a coalition with some elected representatives from the Communist party.

Everytime the Tories come out with this I think of the following:

Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keys (love child called Flora)
Alan Clarke had numerous affairs
Tim Yeo fathered a love child and like Parky, resigned
David Mellor and Antonia Sanchez
Michael Brown had a gay affair with a 20year old man

But the daddy of them all was John "Back to Basics" Major. Lecturing to the country about family values and morals in the knowledge that he had had a 4 year affair with Edwina Currie.

2006 - Boris Johnson seems to be following in their illustrious footsteps.

Seeing as some of their MPs are responsible for creating single parent families it is a case of do as we say but not as we do.

You are right speedymama. Their attitude is that it is okay for rich people (Charles and Camilla?) but "those pesky proles won't behave".

Really interesting debate. Much of the discussion has focused on women who find themselves in single-parent households. What do you think of this comment? It's by from the Centre for Policy Studies / Civitas who've done a lot of research in the area:

"Marriage is no longer regarded as a serious option for girls in
their teens, but motherhood is. Yet embarking on motherhood
without the security of a committed partner is strongly associated
with increased risks to the baby."

Controversial one this (expecting avalanche of abuse!), but having recently moved to Kentish Town in inner london and am absolutely overwhelmed at the army of teenage mothers. I can't help but believe that the benefit system is what's making "motherhood a serious option" for them if they haven't succeeded at school and see no alternative future.

Difficult one, because you can hardly go back to the days of foundling hospitals either.

I do agree that it is an area of social policy that needs to be trodden on, but angels would fear to do so on MN.

probably explains why the politicians have no intention of going there either and are using smoke and mirrors (marriage debate)

Glenn, what they say on paper and what they do in reality, is different. And yes, you can go to your MP but that's not much comfort when it might take weeks and your only access to money is a dodgy money-lender and you end up in endless debt because of it. Especially when you are being asked to account for your sexual behaviour. Lots of lone parents don't bother to complain. There was a thread on Mumsnet a few months ago with exactly this situation and the consensus was, was that she had to move the guy in permanently as she was in danger of being reported, even though he was only staying at her's three nights a week or whatever. Lone parents sometimes feel bounced into having men move in with them before they are fully ready because in the RW, someone who has no money is very easy to intimidate.

One young mum I know would be better off if she was living on her own with ds and not working rather than with her partner and working. But she chooses to work because she doesn't want to bring him up on benefits in a non working household and she sticks with her partner despite the pressures of money problems and debt and being young because they really want to work together to bring up ds. This is hard for them. Her partner has another child 1 year older than ds and so it has not been easy at all. But they try. They are however surrounded by others who are happy to see having one baby or more and claiming benefits as an alternative lifestyle. She knows people who are playing the system like this. It doesn't mean everybody is though.

It is ironic that the benefits system does present a temptation to have a single parent household.