So, in essence, the vast oeuvre of IDS on social exclusion amounts to:
Married people stay together, so co-habitees need to get married and then all the problems of poverty will be solved. To achieve this we'll give lots of married people who aren't poor lots of money so they will vote for us anyway even if it doesn't do much for the poor.
But I thought, as I swiftly turned off David Cameron on the telly before retching:
"Hang on - they're mixing up cause and effect".
People aren't poor because they are unmarried. They are poor because they are poor and happen to be unmarried (probably because they haven't got enough money to get married).
Some people might call the Tories "Social Exclusion" report conclusion "bovine scatology" or "b*ll****" but I wouldn't stoop to that sort of language. I would call it: "round spherical objects".
Polly Toynbee put it very well in today's Guardian:
But this torrent of facts mainly reciting the blindingly obvious has a gigantic logical nonsense at its heart. Its arguments are circular, confusing causes and effects, citing symptoms as if they were reasons.
...a great leap into logical fallacy concludes that lack of a marriage certificate is the prime cause of all the rest.
I must say it is a relief that the Tories are still the good old fashioned Tories at heart, as this report shows beyond all doubt.