“Marriage is a noble daring” wrote Agatha Christie. If one looks at the statistics the famous author was not far wrong. In 2004, 270,700 marriages were registered in England and Wales, 109,400 of which were re-marriages for one or both parties, and 153,399 divorces were granted. 1 in 5 men and women divorcing in 2005 had a previous marriage ending in divorce. There has been a long-term, steady decline in the marriage rate from the peak number of 480,285 marriages in 1972 to 311,180 weddings in 2004. In that time, a trend towards marrying at a later age has occurred, and furthermore, an increasing number of couples have chosen to ‘just’ live together. Last year, Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice reported that Britain had become a world leader in family breakdown, with the highest level of divorce and lone parenting in Europe. It begs the following questions: what role does politics have in trying to address this social problem? Is it a problem that politicians should address? What practical difference can they make?
The failure of relationships in society is a problem that politicans cannot ignore. I suspect all families have been scarred by divorce at some point. From memory, over 20% of my primary school class members had divorced parents. This is not a new phenomenon. The difficulty for politicians is that most studies indicate that with an increase in marital breakdown has come an increase in adverse outcomes for society. These range from poor educational attainment in children from broken homes to increased rates of crime. Male delinquency, in particular, has been associated with the absence of a male role model during formative years. In my own professional experience, relationship breakdown can lead to all manner of adverse health outcomes.
The practical difficulty for politicians is that wading into the debate over marital problems brings with it the charge of interfering in people’s lives. That charge, accompanied by, for example, an expose of a politician engaging in an extramarital affair, often elicits the accusation of hypocrisy. And, furthermore, not all divorces lead to the problems highlighted above, so any policy announcement could unintentionally offend a number of people. Consequently, most politicians have concluded that interfering in people’s private lives tends not to attract their votes.
To make matters more difficult for national politicians this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury provoked a debate over the absence of “commitment” in relationships . He said, “if you want to grow, to move, to expand, to be enlarged as a human being, if you want to pass on that enlarged sense of what humanity is all about to another generation, well this (marriage) is the way to do it.” He was also scathing about marriage critics, “The fluidity, changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London but you don’t have to go many miles to see what the cost is for people who cannot take that sort of thing for granted.” By the “commentating classes of North London” I presume he meant journalists and influential members of the Labour Party.
I am not so sure I am with the Archbishop on this one. Politicians are elected to represent people and to serve their best interests. Yes, taking a moral lead can be part of that duty, however, to start criticising people for their choices in life would not only be inappropriate, it would be seen as judgemental. Furthermore, whether we like it or not, active religious observance has become a minority pursuit in this country. Some surveys have indicated that regular church attendance is undertaken by little more than 5% of the population. Consequently, I am not convinced that the Archbishop is speaking for the majority on this issue.
Having said that, I do wish that the divorce rates in this country were lower. Marriages between people should be the bedrock of our society. It is also preferable that children do not come from ‘broken’ homes. However, solutions to these problems cannot, and should not, just come from government. British society also needs to take stock. What do we all want from life? In support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I would agree that the senior religious figure of this country certainly has a role to play in discussing that broad question.
Where I think government can address the ramifications of marital breakdown are in the areas of taxation and family law. By taxation, I mean the reintroduction of the marriage tax allowance. By family law, I mean legislating to recognise the legal rights of a mother and father to share equally the up-bringing of any child, irrespective of the success of the marriage. Child rearing should not just be about organising finance. By doing those two things, I believe that government would encourage marriage and its continuance. That is, however, as far as I would advocate any political party to go. Remember, unlike the Archbishop, politicians are subjected to regular votes of confidence by the public.
