Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP: Party of the Family?

“Don’t go Daddy, I promise I’ll be good,” sobbed the little boy as his father walked out of home and through the garden gate for the last time in order to move in with another woman. With his face pressed frantically against the window and tears streaming down his face, the lad wasn’t the last child to see his universe fall apart and, tragically and wrongly, feel personal guilt for his parents’ break-up.

His father didn’t return so the desperate boy, aged 4 and known to me, took to stabbing other children at school with a pencil and insisted on changing his first name.

Children are the vulnerable victims of family break-up, but others are affected too. Wider family, neighbours and friends, the local community and society at large are all involved in some way and pay significant emotional and/or financial cost. 

Although social libertarians, self-centred inadequates and anarchists may insist on mailing ‘Celebrate Your Divorce’ cards and throwing parties when families fall apart, for most it is a difficult and draining decision that they do not wish to repeat. It is also deeply personal. But no one is an island and it is not only personal.

The Relationships Foundation (RF) in Cambridge calculates that family break-up (‘family failure’ they call it) is at crisis level and currently costs the UK exchequer £48 billion a year  – that’s £10 billion more than the UK’s total defence budget. It’s the equivalent of nearly £2,000 a year for each UK taxpayer, and rising. You can find RF’s calculations here.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) – formed in 2004 by Iain Duncan-Smith MP – has produced ground-breaking studies around the theme of ‘Breakdown Britain’. It has warned of a “tsunami” of family failure, with the number of lone-parent families – currently over 2 million – growing at 20,000 a year. CSJ also has identified areas of the country that have become “man-deserts” with few visible male role models for children, especially boys. Parts of Liverpool, for instance, have no father-figure in 65% of households and primary schools have not a single male teacher.

Sir Paul Coleridge was a High Court Family Division judge for years, seeing daily before him the human calamity of family breakdown and especially its heartrending impact on children. In 2012 he set up the Marriage Foundation “to champion long-lasting stable relationships within marriage” as the best domestic arrangement for the nurture and flourishing of children. The next year he was formally disciplined for speaking out about his support for traditional marriage, so he resigned from the Bench.

How have we got here? How come a High Court judge cannot promote the marriage-based family, despite its protection by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How come the political class will not talk about the growing crisis of family breakdown, let alone tackle it?

This silence is mainly a result of Gramsci and Alinsky or, if you prefer, a consequence of Cultural and Transformational Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci, who died in 1937, was the original Cultural Marxist theoretician. His political children and grandchildren have dominated the post-war Left and undertaken his proposed ‘long march through the institutions’ of society in order to undermine, capture and destroy them – including of course the fundamental institution of marriage and family.

Fellow-travellers and useful idiots in the political class danced to the Cultural Marxists’ tune – often unwittingly – and this has led to today’s liberal authoritarianism that, like Communism, uses the power of the state to police language and suppress freedom of speech, especially politically-incorrect speech.

It also led to the Establishment’s supine surrender to the EU superstate (now gloriously reversed by the people’s Brexit vote) and to the prosecution of pro-family Catholics who opposed to gay adoption . Melanie Phillips explains the phenomenon clearly here.

The language of morality, virtue-signalling and political correctness is one of the weapons the Left uses to shut down opponents and capture our culture. Hillary Clinton’s college mentor, Transformational Marxist philosopher Saul Alinsky who died in 1972, was the arch exponent. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” was his rule which, being translated, means “Demonise your opponents so the media won’t give them column inches or airspace”.

If you opposed David Cameron’s 2013 same-sex marriage legislation, gay activist leaders Ben Summerskill or Peter Tatchell could smear you as a homophobic bigot and you’d find yourself ejected from the media mainstream and excluded from polite metropolitan society.

At the same time the elite – Conservative’s Cameron, Labour’s Ed Miliband and LibDem’s Nick Clegg, Gramsci’s ‘progressive’ grandchildren and lemming leaders of the political class – could link arms politically and celebrate together the destruction of faithful marriage as understood in these islands for over a thousand years.

“Spiked Online” editor and former Marxist Brendan O’Neill was a vocal critic of same-sex marriage. He slammed gay marriage campaigners’ Alinskyite demonization of opponents and exposed the state’s Gramsciite policing of language, for instance here.

What’s to be done? There is a great opportunity for UKIP to do again what it does best: ignore the demands of Political Correctness, stop worrying about tomorrow’s headlines, confront the political establishment head-on and insist on pushing a vital but avoided social issue onto the national political agenda whether the old parties like it or not.

We did it courageously with Brexit and uncontrolled immigration. We stood boldly alone over grammar schools and gay marriage. For the sake of our children let alone the cost to the tax-payer, we should repeat this by tackling the crisis of family breakdown and promoting the traditional stable family.

In fact we should become the Party of the Family.

What is the way forward?

First, Paul Nuttall should immediately appoint a ‘Spokesperson for the Family’ whose brief is to develop UKIP policies that protect and promote the traditional nuclear family. Also in our general election manifesto we should commit UKIP to appointing a Minister for Families.

Second, at its next meeting UKIP’s National Executive Committee should approve the application for SIG (Special Interest Group) status within the party lodged by the Support4TheFamily (S4TF) group of UKIP members. I helped establish S4TF two years ago with a view to giving legitimate voice to family values within the party alongside other voices.

Third, we should develop a UKIP Family Impact Assessment (like the Environmental Impact Assessment for major building projects) and apply it to all government legislation and regulation.

Fourth, UKIP should campaign immediately against our biased tax and benefits regime that makes it more advantageous for couples to live apart than together – the so-called ‘couple penalty’. The Marriage Foundation calculates it can be worth up to £7,100 a year for a couple with a child to stay separate rather than move in together.

Paul Nuttall has committed UKIP to stealing the patriotic working-class vote from Labour. In urban areas and council estates up and down the country, normal life is primarily about ‘my family and kids’.

If UKIP stands alongside the socially conservative working-class and middle-class, as distinct from the anti-family liberal establishment, we will soak up their votes and gain UKIP’s first proper seats in Parliament.


Photo by Kamaljith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Alan Craig (7 Articles)
Alan is UKIP Parliamentary Candidate for Witney, UKIP London Regional vice-chairman and UKIP Havering Branch secretary

17 Comments on UKIP: Party of the Family?

  1. Good article Alan but I thinlk you are hoping for too much from Paul Nuttall. The best thing that he can do is to resign and make way for someone who can and will do the job, including taking a serious look at your suggested policy.

    • Thanks Jack. I have submitted these ideas, including proposing the appointment of a Families Spokesperson, to Paul Nuttall and Peter Whittle via an intermediary. Apparently they were favourably disposed at least initially, but I’ve heard nothing more.

      I probably blew it by also offering to do the Families spokesperson job myself!

  2. Thank you, Alan Craig, for your well-researched, articulate,sensible and timely article about one of the biggest economic and cultural issues the nation faces, i.e the future of succeeding generations. You rightly highlight not only the financial cost of family breakdown but the cogent misery of those floundering in the wake of the flood of destructive family relationships. We all know friends, family or others caught up n such suffering.
    We cannot trust government to solve these problems any more than any others. Current government policies will in the name of education expose young children to unprecedented ideological psycho-social-sexual information of unproven benefit or safety, supposedly to protect them. Vigilence is sorely needed and UKIP has an opportunity to take the lead in having the promotion of family stability as one of its manifesto pledges.

  3. I absolutely agree, what an excellent article. There was a huge void in the political discourse regarding immigration which UKIP filled very successfully. There is now a similar void regarding traditional views of the family and sexuality, which UKIP could again fill successfully. Last year the ordinary people spoke out in the UK and the US, and I believe that in the ballot box, away from the glare of the Big Brother liberal media establishment, many people would show that they still cherish traditional family values. This would be an excellent point of difference from the mainstream parties.

  4. Excellent analysis of the human, financial and social costs (among other things) of the pan sexual revolution. We want the best for our kids and yet adult wants and desires are constantly privileged, as seen, say in the latest from the NUT. Its latest demands insist that children from nursery and older be ‘taught’ about LGBT rights. This is madness for all sorts of reasons, perhaps the main one being that children are not mini adults and do not have the intellectual or psychological capability to process complex sexual matters at the tender age of 4. In fact, it is poisoning the well and eroticizing child development at worst, and confusing it at best. This is not about bullying (which is dreadful and must be stamped out) but about the sexualizing of children. Well done UKIP for being the most child-and family-friendly party!

    • Not sure UKIP is yet, but that’s what we want it to be in the future.

      However in its 2015 election manifesto UKIP, uniquely, promised to ban all sex education in primary schools, which is a welcome start.

  5. Frances Huggett // April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm // Reply

    Thank you for this important contribution to starting the long hard push against cultural marxism in social policy. I would like a UKIP policy of a living wage to married mothers who stay at home to care for their children (including widowed mothers and those who’ve had to leave a violent spouse)

  6. Alan, I do believe you’re onto something here. A breath of fresh air when we need it most. Aside from the fact that as a foster carer I deal with the pain of which you speak on a daily basis and which reinforces your every word, it also has a political side.

    I think we at UKIP should be branding ourselves as the party that is prepared to go where the others either won’t or can’t in as many policy areas as we can identify and this, I believe, is a very important one. One where we can, quite literally, go where the devil himself fears to tread.

    It might sound a bit off-message here, but in marketing they call them USPs (unique selling points).

    On this one we need to sell the fruits of our policy, the benefits of family values to children, with care and sensitivity. No need for moralising and high horses. People will ‘get it’.

    As a Christian I for one would vote for a ‘Party of the Family’ even if set in a secular way and so might many more.

  7. So, Carswell is not going to stand in Clacton,yippee they have got rid of him. But I wonder what the real reason is for him doing so? Was he frightened of facing Arron Banks or more likely has he been promised something else by the conservatives when this is all over.

    You notice I do not say that he has done the honorable thing because I do not think he is capable of doing such a thing, I wonder what job he will be looking for after June 8th? Perhaps there is a vacancy as a specialist advisor going to the leader of North Korea, I think he would be good at that.

  8. I agree with all of your points, but would like to add here that I feel it is as equally important not to marginalise families with only one parent present if that is the case due to spousal death or domestic violence. My own experience has been that children suffer far more damage in the long-term with two parents present if one of those parents is violent, abusive or neglectful. The remaining parent should never be made to feel inadequate for removing themselves and their children from a potentially or actually dangerous situation. Ideally it would be far better for families to try to remain together, but sadly that’s not always possible – or safe.

    • Absolutely. Where there is a violent partner the other partner and children must be kept safe and leave.

      But the evidence is that most marriages separate because, for instance, the couple are both fully engrossed in their separate work careers. According to the Marriage Foundation research, 27% of divorcing couples cite ‘drifting apart’as the cause of divorce. The violent marriages are a very small proportion. 9% cite ‘high conflict’ as their reason for divorce, but this includes arguments, shouting, etc with no violence.

  9. Interesting and different aspect, Alan, which most can support and which should be plugged.
    Sorry to say however it would have marginal impact in fighting elections, even with the tax recognition, compared to judicious economic policies.
    Our leader has indeed talked of the working class vote – but hasn’t actually done a thing of any consequence to get it. I’m afraid appeals to virtue are rather less effective than pocket.

    • I reckon virtue, as you call it Quercus, and pocket coincide here. The cost of family breakdown to the taxpayer is truly staggering, and yet there’s absolute silence from the politically-correct consensus.

      The liberal Left reckons a family is defined as any group of people who share a fridge. They’ll go through the roof and into the stratosphere if UKIP argues a family is, well, a family – you know, mum, dad and kids.

      Which is a good thing as they live on another planet.

  10. Raymond Stewart // April 20, 2017 at 2:11 pm // Reply

    Delighted to read this and we hope and pray that those with Christian and conservative convictions will be recognised within UKIP

  11. An excellent and timely article Sir. I hope this article gets wide readership and debate esp in the inner sanctum of our leaders and ‘betters’ in Newton Abbot – but they have probably got more pressing matters to discuss such as ‘securing the muslim vote’.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.