The Tories on social justice (try not to laugh)
So, the excitement of the day has been about the Tories’ publication of their policy commission report on what they call “breakdown Britain”. And their policy prescription to end poverty in the UK? Well…
Reinstatement and full public use of the term ‘marital status’ and associated terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’, sending a clear and unambiguous signal about marriage.
Okay, so that was a cheap shot, but it says so much about the report that frankly embarassing nonsense culled from the letters page of the Daily Telegraph (”SIR: the other day, I was filling in a form for the Government, and did you know, my wife has become my PARTNER! It’s political correctness gone mad! I remain…”) has made it into the final version of policies that the party is recommended to adopt.
I will admit to feeling torn about this: much as when the Tories began to be reasonable rather than red in tooth and claw about women’s issues and lesbian and gay rights, the campaigner in me is pleased that they are seriously engaging with the issues (and don’t be mistaken: this is a serious engagement with the issues, and the Tories giving up on bashing poor people, if this is what this is, is to be welcomed). But at the same time, as a Labour member, I know that their prescriptions are going to be wrong - how could they not be, starting from such as dismal view of the world? - but may be enough to fool people who care about poverty in the UK into thinking that they’re reasonable, and electable… and that way lies ruin.
All day the mood music has been about marriage. You know I’m not one to worry about the nanny state, so I don’t believe that the way to argue against promoting marriage is to worry about what the state should or should not get involved in. I think we’re better off talking about how incredibly cheeky it is to pretend that you’re interested in ending poverty, whilst preparing the way for a cash bung to people who don’t need it - Chris D puts it better than I can. It’ll take £4bn or thereabouts to halve child poverty in the UK by 2010 - Labour’s target, which the Tories have signed up to, by the way. But these proposals for tax breaks and increased WTC for married couples will cost about £6bn, and given the depth and breadth of poverty in lone parent families, giving it all to married couples is literally taking desperately needed food out of the mouths of babes. Some of it may go where it’s needed; most of it won’t, and not only will the young people that need it not benefit from it, what will the Tories cut in order to pay for populist vote-grabbing marriage promotion?
And what a shame that the genuinely good stuff in the report (increased carers allowances, increased benefits for severely disabled people, stopping payment of HB in arrears, more help to pay for childcare for disabled children, suggestions for practical support for struggling families) and the stuff that we need to have a debate about (whether we should pay parents to stay at home with their children, whether childcare tax credits should pay family members to provide care, how to ensure that getting people into work doesn’t mean getting them into the first minimum wage job and leaving them there) is obscured by numpty nonsense about marriage, plus a daft dogmatic proposal about stopping state nurseries competing with private ones, when we’ve barely got enough nuresry places as it is. Oh well, what did we expect?
One of the things I love about this blog is that it is my personal space to talk about the issues that matter to me, so you’ll understand that none of these points reflect the views of either the Oxford city Labour group, nor of my longsuffering employer. I’m glad that’s clear.
Interesting viewpoint, although I had to duck and dive to avoid the cheap shots. Sometimes they take away from the very serious points you make.
Just one thing, though: You say ‘what will the Tories cut …’. Implicit in that is the belief that all current public spending is good spending. Can you really not think of an area where Government spending at the moment is a little (shall we say) ill-advised? (I hesitate to use the word ‘waste’ as I know that that is like a red rag to a bull on a left of centre blog
).
The point I am making is that perhaps it is possible that whatever it is the Tories will ‘cut’ could be something that needs cutting, anyway? Surely there must be some areas of public spending that are ripe for cutting? Just a thought.
Thank you for the article. It’s given me a few things to think about.
I was conceived after the union of a man and a woman. However, I was brought up by my mother only - my father having legged-it after my birth. In spite of this my mother instilled the values of marriage, no sex before marriage, respect for women, childbirth within wedlock, marital fidelity. My brother and I were taught various religions and chose to be Christians, holding Christian values to be most precious, including the politically incorrect stance against homosexuality. Unfortunately, these values have been eroded by so-called liberal-minded feminists such as yourself. Consequently the moral decay in our society seems irreversible, with our young having no values, no respect, no manners, no basic consideration and - above all - no morals. I applaud Cameron’s aim to restore the sanctity of marriage, even though I am a socialist. Unfortunately, he will never be Prime Minister because he is more left wing than anyone in New Labour, who abandoned their principles by out-torying the Tories - in order to achieve power. Greed, Corruption and cronyism are the principles of New Labour, and I pray that Gordon Brown will return us all to traditional moral values.
Sorry Robin, how does civil partnership, for example, a mechanism by which two people can commit and dedicate their lives to each other, undermine the values of stability and mutual dependence that you claim to hold? How does teachng kids that something as fundamental as how and who they fall in love with is inherently wrong increase respect for others?