Clegg lurches to the left after Oldham East and Saddleworth By-election

Isn’t it interesting that DPM Nick Clegg chose his first outing following the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election to endorse the left-wing think tank Demo’s report on families.

The report unsurprisingly dismisses the important role of marriage and concluded by saying, “The Conservative Party’s current emphasis on incentivising marriage is a distraction from the real challenge, which should be to ensure that children grow up in stable and nurturing environments that support their social and emotional development.”

But the DPM went even further than the report saying that the Government’s role was to ‘empower’ parents rather than impose ‘prescriptive’ solutions.

And he is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying there is, “No magic wand solutions. No preaching. Just some help, because we understand the pressures you are under - finding a job, giving your child a good education, making your relationship work. We will do whatever we can to make things easier. The rest – the decisions, the choices, the lifestyle – is up to you.” (Read the more in the Daily Mail by clicking here.)

But Mr Clegg and Demos have fallen into the trap of saying only family process matters when family structure is also important. 48 per cent of all children born today will see their parents separate before they are 16. If we are to tackle our enormous problems of family breakdown we have to do it in the holistic way we propose in our work – with official recognition of marriage and better relationship support.

Research by the highly respected Centre for Social Justice challenges the conclusion of the Demos report that it is the quality of their parents’ relationships and not their structure that matters to children. These two things are inextricably linked because of the importance an explicit commitment makes both to the stability of that relationship but also to its quality. When couples envisage a shared future together it changes the emotional landscape of the relationship. It makes it more likely that they will sacrifice for each other (husbands as well as wives) because there is far less risk entailed in such an investment – everyone knows where they stand. Tax breaks for married couples not only signal the kind of family formation that is most likely to produce good outcomes for children but they also recognise and reward that investment.

And they say that “Tax breaks are a clear way for government to back the pattern of family formation that makes it most likely that children will live with both of their biological parents throughout their minority. 97 per cent of couples still intact by the time their child is 15 are married, only 3 per cent are cohabiting. The notion that this small but important signal will keep highly conflicted parents together has no substance. A signal from government that marriage and therefore stability matters will however make it more likely that couples will work at their relationships and access support and counselling.”

I wonder does this clear slap in the face to David Cameron and the Tory Right have more to do with appeasing his own restless back benchers who are alarmed that the Lib Dem’s vote in the by-election only held up by because thousands of Conservatives voted tactically in an attempt to oust Labour. Were it not for this tactical voting, the Lib Dem candidate could well have finished a disastrous third?