Sorry IDS but you've got this one wrong

If Iain Duncan Smith is genuinely concerned about changing lives through the promotion of social justice he needs to rethink his approach; widen his focus from just the family and family breakdown; and stop falling back on idiology to find solutions to what the Tories term 'Broken Britain'.

His speech to conference yesterday pointed out just how short sighted he is in his understanding of what constitutes social injustice and what should be done to tackle it. During his speech he linked the riots, gangs, antisocial behaviour, child neglect, poor parenting, kidnap and murder to social housing, poverty and dependency on the welfare state. The link between them ? Family breakdown, family breakdown and family breakdown.

It appears that IDS sees family breakdown as the root of all evil, as the catalyst for the formation of a social 'underclass' that is 'governed by a perverse set of values'. Now despite the glaring obvious question about crime and the middle and upper classes, it is IDS' language really worries me.

His speech really makes me wonder just how he defines social justice and who he sees as being its focus. My feeling is that for Mr Duncan Smith it means the protection of the majority from the actions and discourse of this 'perverse underclass' who lack the moral fabric and aspirational steer that can only come from a traditional family where parents are united in marriage; and that actively changing behaviours and aspirations is primarily for the benefit of society and not the individual. This position is at odds with the general definition of social justice which is enabling individuals to have the opportunity to make the most out of their lives.

Now whilst I can't argue against the fact that a loving, caring upbringing can have a positive impact on the life chances of the individual and their potential to be law abiding citizens I vehemently reject the idea that such upbringings are only available from married parents and that tackling social injustice requires nothing more than simply to offer married couples and ideological tax break in the misguided hope that this will encourage them to stick together for the benefit of the children.

If IDS is serious about tackling social injustices he must recognise that social justice is about making the individual the primary beneficiary and accept that from this society will also gain. If he has money to spend on supporting social justice perhaps he should think about working to reduce poverty as a whole