Jon Cruddas, the head of Labour's policy review. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How Labour will strengthen family life and relationships

We are developing a whole family approach to policy making that puts equality, relationships and mutual self-help at the centre of preventing social problems.

Today, Labour’s Policy Review is running a symposium on family life and relationships. In this period of austerity, we need to support families, and use the power of their relationships and the networks they create to help strengthen people’s capacity for resilience,  care, and good neighbourliness.

We are building on the pioneering work of women in the feminist movement and the Labour Party who, along with men like the late Malcolm Wicks, redefined family policy. It was their work that established childcare as a major political issue. Women’s aspirations for work and a career were pushed onto the economic and social policy agenda. Labour argued for longer maternity leave and higher maternity pay to protect women from having to go back to work too soon.

In the symposium, Harriet Harman will set out our good record in government. Our National Childcare Strategy included Childcare Tax Credit, funds to councils for childcare and Sure Start Centres.  We doubled maternity pay and maternity leave.  We introduced paternity leave for the first time and gave a right to request flexible working for those with family responsibilities. Labour took up feminist arguments for greater equality between men and women and they resulted in major gains for women and children.

Today, families come in different shapes and sizes but they are all under pressure from the cost of living crisis and the demands of care. Many are left feeling insecure and vulnerable. At the same time, family life is changing. In 1996, 71 per cent of families with dependent children were headed by a married couple, by 2008 it was 60 per cent. The expectations of men and women are changing too. Most men no longer earn enough to fulfil the traditional male role of family breadwinner. The norm is increasingly both parents earning. A third of all mothers with dependent children - over 2 million - now earn the majority share of household income.

We need a national conversation about family life and relationships which includes both men and women. The task is first to identify the social and economic forces that stop some mothers and fathers balancing work and family life and doing what they think is best for their children. And second to devise policy where these forces are amenable to change.

Family relationships are the bedrock of society. Children need good family relationships to develop feelings of safety and belonging, and to know they are worth being loved. Family relationships are also important for economic development. Inequality in the home limits women’s access to employment and opportunities and so has a negative impact not only on their own lives, but on the increase in productivity and tax revenue we need to build a better society.

Men want fulfilling home lives and women want fulfilling working lives, but policy still pushes mothers into the home and fathers into work. Our employment practices, public services and institutional arrangements treat men, women and children as if they exist in separate silos and not as part of a whole family.  Families thrive when there is a partnership and teamwork amongst adult relations. Policy needs to use the power of relationships to help strengthen the resilience of men, women and children to withstand adversity and to facilitate their readiness to take up opportunities. The best way of preventing social problems from developing is to support social, couple and family relationships.

Poor relationships in childhood leads to poorer employment outcomes, higher levels of unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, substance abuse, and over eating, and poorer mental health. Children who suffer poor parenting have a struggle in life. We know that poor attachment or traumas in childhood such as cruelty and domestic violence does long term damage to mental health. Children who have these bad experiences can grow up struggling to cope with life’s stresses and they can find it difficult to make good relationships. Over 30 per cent of young people under 25 suffer from one or more psychiatric illnesses: 1 million children and young people are mentally ill.

This is a very high cost to pay for the failure to deal with problems early in families and in a child’s life. We need to do more to support couples, and more to strengthen the bonds between parents and also between fathers and their children. By the time British children are 16, around half no longer live with their father and a third do not see him at all. We know that those who grow up with involved fathers do better than those who do not. Boys without fathers are more likely than their peers to be involved in crime, heavy drinking and drug use. And both boys and girls are more likely to have low educational attainment and suffer low self-esteem.

This government is wasting money on reactive high-cost services because it is failing to fix social problems earlier on. In contrast, Labour is developing a whole family approach to policy making that helps to build inter-dependence that is fair and maximises the care that children receive within the family and its networks. Helping people to help themselves, not abandoning them, is the best way to reduce dependence on services provided by the state.

Prioritising relationships means taking equality seriously. We will value a father’s family role as highly as his working role, and a woman’s working role as highly as her domestic one. Fathers are good for children and shared parenting is good for mothers. We will actively encourage women into work and actively encourage the involvement of fathers in the care, education and health of their children. We will do more to tackle  violence in the home, for example, with compulsory sex and relationships education in schools. 

The Policy Review is working alongside Ed Balls and Chris Leslie and their Zero-Based Spending Review to incorporate the principle of prevention into spending on public services. Investing in prevention in this context means reforming services to unlock the potential of relationships as powerful catalysts of change, alongside professional resources. Labour’s Local Government Innovation Task Force has published its first report setting out a framework for this approach.

The excellent Troubled Families programme run by Louise Casey through local councils is pioneering work of this kind. Greater Manchester’s scheme reports significant reductions in levels of anti-social behaviour, improvements in school attendance and reductions in exclusions and a five year saving of £88.7m against costs of £62m. Nottingham Council and local MP Graham Allen have championed the early intervention approach. Shifting the focus from crisis intervention with troubled children and families to building their capacities to make good relationships and break cycles of deprivation. The voluntary sector is innovating new approaches. For example,the Home Start project runs in local authorities across the country. It matches young single parents with experienced parents from their own community for practical help, and as a source of comfort and reassurance. 

Emotional life lies at the heart of the bonds that bind a society together and policy has to be attuned to it if we are to succeed in building a better society and solving some of our more complex and intractable social problems. Labour is developing a whole family approach to policy making that puts equality, relationships and mutual self-help at the centre of preventing social problems through early intervention. The politics of One Nation begins with family, offering the world equally to daughters, and teaching sons that courage in love and relationships is a sign of a man's strength.

Jon Cruddas is Labour's policy review coordinator and MP for Dagenham

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.