Sebastian Payne is Director of Onward.
The family is core to conservatism. No other institution within the bounds of the nation state has such an unequivocal record of providing the foundations for a strong society. Be it economic or social outcomes, a stable upbringing provides people with the best possible chances in life. Yet too often we shy away from advocating it in whatever form it takes.
A plethora of statistics bear out the costs on the state and society of broken families. The Marriage Foundation estimates that family breakdown costs the taxpayer £52 billion a year in welfare and in educational underachievement, mental health, social problems and poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, six out of seven lone parents are eligible for universal credit.
We have to act more keenly to promote families in two key areas. The first is childcare: British families still face some of the highest upfront childcare costs, according to the OECD. This in turn is creating what the Centre for Social Justice term a ‘fertility shortfall’: families have one or two fewer kids than they would like.
Thankfully, the Government has already seized on this with the generous childcare reforms to help families returning to work by extending free provisions up to 15 hours a week – a package so significant that the IMF cited it as one of the reasons the UK’s growth forecasts have picked up. Anecdotally among my thirtysomething friends and peers, it is one of the few recent policy announcements openly embraced and praised.
But more ambition is needed. Onward’s recent report First Steps set out more proposals to reform the broken childcare market, including a new simplified system of childcare credits and allowing families to frontload child benefit during the earlier years. Intervening at an earlier age will make things better for the state and the economy later.
The second area where more action is needed is on tax. The coalition era transferable tax allowance was designed to make family life easier and reinforce it through the tax system. It has not, however, proven wildly popular: under half of eligible couples have applied for it. Partly to blame is that amount a spouse can transfer is too small: just 10 per cent of the personal income tax allowance,or £1,260. That alone is no inducement.
Onward has proposed a broader and deeper family tax allowance with more generous breaks. Unmarried cohabiting couples also need to be recognised, especially given the number of children born into married couples has dropped from 72 per cent in the 1990s to 51 per cent. Allowing a 10 per cent transfer among non-married couples would acknowledge society as it is now.
Next, there are many ways to make the family allowance more accessible. Signposting its availability on marriage and birth certificates reminds people it is there. Ministers should examine ways to ensure that the rise in take home pay is paid to the lower earner in the couple, so more low earners seek to take advantage of the allowance.
And finally, there should be a massive expansion to allow certain families to transfer their full £12,570 allowance to their spouse – up to £2,514 each year per couple. This is not cheap, so ministers should prioritise it first for couples with younger children. The expansions could also initially cover families with informal caring responsibilities. Although the upfront costs of all options are high, the benefits in the future are worth the investment.
The importance of stronger families is one that senior figures in the party appreciate, hence why all the contenders in last summer’s leadership contest proposed marriage tax ideas. Although there may be limited capacity for major reforms this side of the election, expanding the family allowance should be a key priority come the next manifesto.
Policy is only part of the solution. Promoting the family requires more confident rhetoric too. Too often, Conservatives can be as moralistic when they talk about the family. Yes we passionately believe in the institution, but when the data and lived experience is on our side, we should not be afraid to highlight it. It may be the practical economic impact to society that makes the family more immediately appealing to many.
What defines a family has evolved – and Conservatives should not be overly prescriptive about whether it fits a traditional mold. The family unit has changed from the days of when an infamous little list struck an achingly backward tone at conference, as we acknowledged by being on the vanguard of same sex marriage.
Get this wrong and there is an obvious opportunity for Labour. In a recent Onward speech, the Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Philipson invaded prime Conservative real estate by attacking opponents within her own party and beyond who dismissed the power of family – reflecting her upbringing in Sunderland.
“I was lucky, because I had a family, and a school, that believed differently: that believed in the value and worth of every one of us,” Philipson argued. “What government needs to do is ensure families have the chance to succeed and the time to thrive together.” These are words you could expect to hear from any Conservative MP.
Philipson is right and it is a message we need to need to hearld clearly, stridently and cogently. Whether it is on rhetoric or substance, family should be at the fore of everything Conservatives do – be it a traditional, same sex or cohabited relationship. We should care about the family as an institution, and that means pragmatically adjusting our conception of it while time goes while conserving its core benefits: stability, care, and, above all, to reduce strain on the state and allow children to realise their potential.
Sebastian Payne is Director of Onward.
The family is core to conservatism. No other institution within the bounds of the nation state has such an unequivocal record of providing the foundations for a strong society. Be it economic or social outcomes, a stable upbringing provides people with the best possible chances in life. Yet too often we shy away from advocating it in whatever form it takes.
A plethora of statistics bear out the costs on the state and society of broken families. The Marriage Foundation estimates that family breakdown costs the taxpayer £52 billion a year in welfare and in educational underachievement, mental health, social problems and poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, six out of seven lone parents are eligible for universal credit.
We have to act more keenly to promote families in two key areas. The first is childcare: British families still face some of the highest upfront childcare costs, according to the OECD. This in turn is creating what the Centre for Social Justice term a ‘fertility shortfall’: families have one or two fewer kids than they would like.
Thankfully, the Government has already seized on this with the generous childcare reforms to help families returning to work by extending free provisions up to 15 hours a week – a package so significant that the IMF cited it as one of the reasons the UK’s growth forecasts have picked up. Anecdotally among my thirtysomething friends and peers, it is one of the few recent policy announcements openly embraced and praised.
But more ambition is needed. Onward’s recent report First Steps set out more proposals to reform the broken childcare market, including a new simplified system of childcare credits and allowing families to frontload child benefit during the earlier years. Intervening at an earlier age will make things better for the state and the economy later.
The second area where more action is needed is on tax. The coalition era transferable tax allowance was designed to make family life easier and reinforce it through the tax system. It has not, however, proven wildly popular: under half of eligible couples have applied for it. Partly to blame is that amount a spouse can transfer is too small: just 10 per cent of the personal income tax allowance,or £1,260. That alone is no inducement.
Onward has proposed a broader and deeper family tax allowance with more generous breaks. Unmarried cohabiting couples also need to be recognised, especially given the number of children born into married couples has dropped from 72 per cent in the 1990s to 51 per cent. Allowing a 10 per cent transfer among non-married couples would acknowledge society as it is now.
Next, there are many ways to make the family allowance more accessible. Signposting its availability on marriage and birth certificates reminds people it is there. Ministers should examine ways to ensure that the rise in take home pay is paid to the lower earner in the couple, so more low earners seek to take advantage of the allowance.
And finally, there should be a massive expansion to allow certain families to transfer their full £12,570 allowance to their spouse – up to £2,514 each year per couple. This is not cheap, so ministers should prioritise it first for couples with younger children. The expansions could also initially cover families with informal caring responsibilities. Although the upfront costs of all options are high, the benefits in the future are worth the investment.
The importance of stronger families is one that senior figures in the party appreciate, hence why all the contenders in last summer’s leadership contest proposed marriage tax ideas. Although there may be limited capacity for major reforms this side of the election, expanding the family allowance should be a key priority come the next manifesto.
Policy is only part of the solution. Promoting the family requires more confident rhetoric too. Too often, Conservatives can be as moralistic when they talk about the family. Yes we passionately believe in the institution, but when the data and lived experience is on our side, we should not be afraid to highlight it. It may be the practical economic impact to society that makes the family more immediately appealing to many.
What defines a family has evolved – and Conservatives should not be overly prescriptive about whether it fits a traditional mold. The family unit has changed from the days of when an infamous little list struck an achingly backward tone at conference, as we acknowledged by being on the vanguard of same sex marriage.
Get this wrong and there is an obvious opportunity for Labour. In a recent Onward speech, the Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Philipson invaded prime Conservative real estate by attacking opponents within her own party and beyond who dismissed the power of family – reflecting her upbringing in Sunderland.
“I was lucky, because I had a family, and a school, that believed differently: that believed in the value and worth of every one of us,” Philipson argued. “What government needs to do is ensure families have the chance to succeed and the time to thrive together.” These are words you could expect to hear from any Conservative MP.
Philipson is right and it is a message we need to need to hearld clearly, stridently and cogently. Whether it is on rhetoric or substance, family should be at the fore of everything Conservatives do – be it a traditional, same sex or cohabited relationship. We should care about the family as an institution, and that means pragmatically adjusting our conception of it while time goes while conserving its core benefits: stability, care, and, above all, to reduce strain on the state and allow children to realise their potential.