Yorkshire Shepherdess serves lunch to two of her daughters at their farm on April 15, 2014 near Kirkby. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour needs to use family policy to support and strengthen relationships

There are not purely economic answers to the problems families face. Poverty and social disadvantage are linked to emotional health.

The recent Labour policy review symposium outlined a new and compelling narrative for family policy. Family policy is currently a hodgepodge of issues – it means very different things to different people and its preoccupations change in relation to current concerns, pressures and media attention. For the coalition government, and to some extent the Labour Party, current family policy can seem to be all about childcare. In earlier times, it has focused on maternity rights or parenting. Quite often, it becomes equated with a popular, media friendly issue such as the current cross-party concerns about the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

These are undoubtedly important issues but focusing so narrowly has meant policymakers have failed to address what is often the core concern of most families. This is a simple but absolutely vital thing - their relationships with one another.

If Labour forms the next government in 2015, it will be governing a stressed and anxious population. The impact of six years of falling living standards will become more evident.  There are already signs that we are going to see a sharp increase in divorce and separation as we move out of the worst of the economic decline. Having struggled unhappily through the tough years, couples wait the recession out and then, when circumstances improve, separate.  The OECD figures on UK childrens' wellbeing, which had improved, will, I suspect, begin to fall again as the delayed impact of the recession hits the next generation.

But whilst it would be foolish not to recognise the impact on families of economic stress, it is also now time to acknowledge that there are not purely economic answers to these problems – a new perspective on family and social life is needed if we are to make radical improvements in our wellbeing.

The quality of relationships within a family is the single most important factor in whether a family thrives or not.  Of course financial worries cannot be overlooked, but however good the material circumstances of families, if the relationships are poor, things go awry for both adults and their children. They also go awry for the state; the cost of family breakdown and poor relationships is an enormous drain on the public purse, impacting on everything from adult and child mental health to heart disease and childhood obesity. The Relationships Foundation has calculated that the cost of family breakdown amounts to as much as £46bn each year.

The last Labour government largely treated social problems associated with poverty as if they only arose because of economic disadvantage and social exclusion; the priority was to increase the pound in the pocket of the poor. With fewer pounds to distribute, policymakers, such as Jon Cruddas, are thinking more broadly; addressing the complex inter-relationship between poverty and social problems. There is a new narrative being developed, which calls for policies that include a relational approach to social policy and that recognise that poverty and social disadvantage are not only linked to economic  difficulties but also to emotional health.

Emotional health and the strength of people’s relationships, whether these be intimate or familial or within communities is closely correlated. If governments fail to create the conditions that promote nurturing families, the capacity for healthy interpersonal relationships is harmed. This has political as well as personal consequences because good relationships are fundamental to the development of communities based on reciprocity, tolerance and cooperation.

Family policy should now focus on supporting and strengthening the quality of family relationships, increasing family resilience and the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Central to this must be to offer support for adult relationships, so that we can now build a vision of marriage and adult partnering that is democratic and inclusive. Families need to be able to access this support whatever their make-up or size.

It is no longer credible in the 21st century to think that a good society can be achieved without thinking about how people psychologically flourish and thrive  – we now have enough evidence to understand how the emotional health of a family is intrinsically linked to children’s long-term outcomes. And we know that a secure, loving family environment is crucial for the psychological health which enables both children and adults to make best use of the opportunities that are presented to them.

Family policy must aim to build emotional health and resilience in families and this is a long-term project. Real outcomes cannot be achieved within the five year electoral cycle, which is why supporting strong family relationships needs to be a cross-party agenda with a focus on early intervention at the heart of it. To make this fundamental shift in thinking, we need to start by putting family policy right up the political agenda. One way to do this would be to put a Minister for Families into the cabinet to coordinate policy and promote change.

Susanna Abse is a couple psychotherapist and CEO of the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood