A major UK-government document called ‘Families in Britain: an evidence paper’ was published in December. It has been written completely and exclusively from a family-diversity perspective. That is, it refuses to be alarmed by the decline in marriage, or by the decline in the number of children being raised by both of their parents, and it wants to believe that family structure (it calls it ‘composition’) is of no real importance. 

However, a close reading of the paper reveals two things. The first is that the truth that family composition does indeed matter can’t help leaking out here and there, and the second is that the report authors know it, but still tie themselves up in knots trying to minimise this finding. 

The ‘money quote’ is on page 8 of the report. It says: ‘Family composition, circumstances and processes all matter for families. But strong and healthy relationships matter most.’ Having acknowledged that family composition matters, it then does its best to pretend it didn’t really say this. 

The foreword to the report, by two junior ministers, tells us in typical PC- speak that the changes to the British family represent ‘diversity and not decline’. They then declare: “There is no single family form that guarantees happiness or success.” This is true, but as usual avoids the issue. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life. But some things improve our chances of doing well. One thing that improves our children’s chances of doing well is being raised by their married mother and father. 

When the report says that “strong and healthy relationships matter most”, it is undoubtedly correct. But add strong and healthy relationships to marriage and you’ve got the best combination of all for children. 

What is notable is that this same report, while doing its best to play-down the fact (a fact it doesn’t ultimately deny), that marriage matters, it makes no attempt to play-down the ill-effects of poverty. It could easily say, for example, that poverty is no guarantee of bad life outcomes, and that affluence is no guarantee of good life chances. For example, children raised by poor but loving parents will surely do better than children raised by rich, but deeply dysfunctional parents. 

This would be true but it wouldn’t really matter because poverty is most certainly associated with disadvantage, in general, and there is simply no getting around this fact. 

The fact that this report does its best to down-play the effect of family structure, but doesn’t even attempt to down-play the ill effects of poverty (nor should it), simply shows that it is weighed down with ideological baggage which stops it seeing things as they are, and which prevents it from recommending a family policy that gives special status to marriage. 

This would be true but it wouldn’t really matter as poverty is mostly certainly associated with disadvantage, in general, and there is simply no getting around this fact. 

The fact that this report does its best to down-play the effect of family structure, but doesn’t even attempt to down-play the ill effects of poverty (nor should it), simply shows that it is weighed down with ideological baggage which stops it seeing things as they are, and which prevents it from recommending a family policy that gives special status to marriage.