The Conservatives' plans to encourage marriage through the tax system are a sign of nostalgia, not a desire to help the poor.

By Hollie Slade

The trouble with the debate about 'Broken Britain' is it hovers around judgemental and hysterical stereotyping of people's private lives. How we view the family unit has never been more divisive. But is legislating to support the nuclear family the best way to support society or just an anti-liberal retrograde step?

Labour is accused of failing to acknowledge that the family is the best source of love and nourishment for children to grow up healthy and happy - a judgement doled out like cod liver oil and broccoli by a wide range of academic studies and family court judges.

The Conservatives' plans to provide tax-incentives for marriage leave them open to accusations from feminists that women are being dragged back to the 'home and hearth' shackles of traditionalism - an attack which sits awkwardly with attempts to rebrand the party as progressive and 'gay friendly'.

The media has muddied the water even further. Broken Britain is the hobby horse of the Daily Mail, which has run a twenty year campaign against the loss of 'family values'.

Feminism is the latest culprit, according to a recent vitriolic exposition in the Daily Mail entitled 'The First Ladette: How Germaine Greer's legacy is an entire generation of loose-knickered lady louts' by Quentin Letts.

According to Letts, Greer and 'feminist orthodoxy' more generally are responsible for a "destruction of modesty and decency," the outrage of which is felt in the milieu of accelerating teenage pregnancy rates and decline of family life, dragging Britain spiralling further down into the gutter.

Lett's article, though palpably hysterical at times, does contain elements of truth, namely that discussion of family values can't really get under way until the role of women is discussed.

This has become something of an elephant in the room and commentators are at pains to point it out. Pushed on Radio 4's Today programme on the point that 'all the evidence shows that children do better if there are two parents who are married to each other', Ed Miliband, then minister for social exclusion, would only say: "What the evidence shows is that children need stable family lives, and we all agree on that and marriage is one of the bedrocks of our society."

A Daily Mail journalist lamented: "He simply could not bring himself to say marriage was the most stable bedrock."

Tax breaks to 'boost' marriage and cutting benefits for teenage mothers are intended to 'de-incentivise' Broken Britain, according to Tory strategists. But marriage could just be symptomatic of a happy society rather than the cause. And would anyone really get married just because of a tax break?

Kate Smurthwaite, comedienne and feminist writer said: "I don't see Tory policies on removing benefits for single mothers and teenage mothers as "de-incentivising". I see these policies as purely punishing women for having sex. What would benefit single and teenage mothers is support to help them raise their children well."

This is the problem with the Conservative values train and it explains why Harriet Harman accuses them of 'hypocritical moralising'. Proselytising on the values of a good marriage from the Eton pulpit has nothing to do with providing children with support. Marriage is kind of irrelevant in the enclaves of 'Broken Britain' where real changes need to be made to help children. This is why Labour rerouted tax credits for married couples to increasing support and services after the 1997 election.

A recent study, 'Changing Poverty, Changing Policies', shows that the financial benefits associated with marriage have subsided since 1969. Two American social scientists looked at the falling marriage rate and rising levels of divorce and expected the number of people living in poverty to grow by 2.6 per cent. However, the data found a rise of less than half that amount.

Why? Because single women had more choices open to them outside of marriage. Women are able to work in more financially competitive jobs and have children later. Essentially, breaking down the institution of marriage had offset much of the poverty and deprivation associated with 'Broken Britain'.

This is why for feminists like Smurthwaite, closing the 16.4 per cent gap between men and women's pay and strengthening women's rights in the workplace are more likely to solve the problem.

"Addressing inequality in the workplace both in terms of the pay gap (we need gender pay, promotion and recruitment audits) and in terms of companies who fail to offer flexible working to carers and who discriminate against pregnant employees would make a big difference," she said.

Maria Miller, the Conservative party's families spokesperson claims "it is madness not to support marriage" through the tax system, citing the fact that "nine out of ten fifteen year olds want to get married" as reason enough.

Herein lies the problem - nine out of ten fifteen year olds would probably say they want to be Jordon when they grow up. The marriage agenda is no real agenda at all for fixing the problems of Broken Britain. It's a Tory straw man which diverts attention away from dismantling a system which provides needed support for working women.

It's also discriminating - as a study by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has found. The mechanism for 'recognising' marriage in the tax system means that women, who are usually the second earner, are likely to be taxed at a higher marginal rate than men. 'Broken Britain' is all about discontent and nostalgia for the values that have been lost - but women stand to lose a lot more if Britain retro-votes its way back to Tory 'family values'.