Cameron goes 'back to basics'

JR Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:23:15 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The Tories are to launch the biggest crusade for personal morality since John Major's ill-fated 'back to basics' campaign, demanding the right for citizens to tackle teenage yobs physically and calling for a reduction in family breakdowns.



It is crucial that the Labour government attacks this from the start and I think it will be a big weakness for Cameron to push this agenda.

Cameron spoke today about how we as a society should promote marriage through such things as tax breaks for married couples. This is wrong on so many different levels it is untrue.

Firstly, marriage is a very personal thing and should not be encouraged or discouraged by a government. What should count is that the family is stable and loving regardless of whether the parents are married or not. Saying that, it doesn't really matter whether it is a couple raising the kids. A family can be stable or loving whether it involves married parents, a single parent or gay partners together. I thought we'd moved away from the 2.4 children nuclear family and it's desperately poor of Cameron to bring it back up again. It shows the Tories are still the same old moral fascists that they've always been.

Secondly, on a more practical level, I find it very difficult to believe that any couple will feel encouraged to get married because of the gains they will recieve in tax breaks. Life isn't as simple as that and the Tories would find it difficult to prevent the high number of divorces if they ever got back into power (God forbid). Unless of course, they were to go down the draconian route of making the divorce process more difficult, which given that they are Tories isn't that incredible.

Finally, remembering back to John Major's Back to Basics campaign, it was astonishing how many of his own MP's failed to live up to these standards and committed adultery - I predict exactly the same again. With 198 Tory MP's, I find it hard to believe that not one of them will have an affair before the next general election. When one does, the Tories will yet again be exposed for the hypocrites that they are.

I hope that Labour fully attacks the 'new, modern, trendy' Cameron for dragging British politics backwards by supporting an agenda like this. We shouldn't stop until 'Victorian (not-so) morals' are assigned to the dustbin of history.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Cameron goes 'back to basics' | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#1)

by Loz on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:01:40 PM GMT

IDS AND CAMERON think we can solve britains marriage problem by throwing money at it. The tories think they can save marriages by tweaking taxation.  

And this from the party always moaning about Blair throwing money at things to solve problems.  

And nice to see how seriously the Tories take gay couples with children which isn't even on their 'richter scale' of how to bring up kids.

They spent all this money, and all the found was that divorce is not good for society. Well done Sherlock.  


Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#2)

by Mark Wadsworth on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:08:02 PM GMT

And the problems that Blair has solved by throwing money at are ...? Yapping on about marriage is of course dumb, but it is fair to say that the tax and benefits system as it has evolved treats a single mother and an absent father (taken together) far more generously than a married (or indeed cohabiting) couple. Would you have any objections to the playing field being levelled up?


Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#3)

by Loz on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:16:08 PM GMT

Which is nonsense, because the benefits of given to married couples have almost always outweighed those given to single parents.

All Labour has quite rightly done is as you say level the playing field.

Single parents are naturally at a disadvantage as a opposed to married couples.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#4)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:09:15 AM GMT

Examples please, Loz, examples.

Maybe I'm wrong but the way I understand it if Mum lives with average earning Dad, she gets little or nothing in benefits. If Dad moves out, suddenly single Mum gets up to £200 a week in benefits.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#11)

by Loz on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:38:19 PM GMT

I don't know the specific figures offhand, but the point I'm making is that you are far nore likely to be financially secure/r with partner than without.

If the system were to work properly, single parents would get the money they deserve, but  are done a massive diservice by failing organisations like the CSA.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#15)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:11:29 AM GMT

Well, I work in tax and I do know the figures in quite some detail; I have researched all this in depth, and am also with the Citizen's Income trust as far as welfare simplification and reform goes.

Other European countries have a simple rule for child maintenance, absent parent pays a fixed amount per week and no backchat else jail beckons. I fork out £100 a week to my ex-wife in Germany for our two sons that she took (kidnapped?) back over there and that is the end of that. I don't see why we can't have something like that. I think about £35 per week per child would make up the shortfall in benefits that a single parent gets over and above a married couple.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#5)

by swatantra on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:40:24 AM GMT

I think we have to seriously look at this issue of morality and co habition, which in most cases is just an attempt to ripp off the State for extra benefits.
We have to actively promote the family and a stable marriage, with two parents. IDS has probably done the only memorable thing in his entire career by penning his name to this report.
Otherwise, breakdown in society is going to increase with an increase of an underclass with no concept of responsibility. Labour has to face up to the fact that the permissive society has just got too permissive, and bring in legislstion to reign it in. Many in the Party are going to have to face up to this very uncomfortable truth.


Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#6)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:11:02 AM GMT

How about a compromise between Loz's position and yours?

Just treat everybody the same whether single, cohabiting or married. And that means the SAME. The total tax burden and benefits entitlement of a co-habiting or married couple should be no more or less than that of a single mother and an absent father.

It is not up to the State to "encourage" marriage (it was the Conservatives who brought in independent taxaxtion, don't forget!), but at least it could refrain from actively discouraging stable family life, or refrain from actively encouraging (what you have probably correctly referred to as) irresponsibility.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#7)

by Glass House on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:17:03 AM GMT

"co habition, which in most cases is just an attempt to ripp off the State for extra benefits."

That is probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#8)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:40:08 AM GMT

GlassHouse, there are various ways of counting the number of single mothers, and the discrepancy between e.g. the number of single mothers claiming corresponding benefits and single-adult households e.g. per the census is hundreds of thousands of households. So while "most" may well be an exaggeration, it is definitely "some" or "lots of", I know benefit claimants and I know what they get up to.

Anyway, surely you've heard stupider things than that?


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#9)

by Glass House on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:23:09 PM GMT

it was the "most" that made it incredibly stupid.

But yes, I have heard stupider things. :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#10)

by swatantra on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:35:55 PM GMT

People in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones. Get real, we are not in a Socialist Utopia where each citizen shows respect and shoulders their share of responsibility; not yet at any rate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#12)

by Glass House on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:15 PM GMT

MOST!?

You don't really stand by it do you?


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#18)

by swatantra on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:49:53 PM GMT

You're absolutely right I should have said a 'minority of'


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#19)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:52:48 PM GMT

I can fully agree with that. I would imagine it's noth an insignificant minority either.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#20)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:13:52 PM GMT

Swatantra, GlassHouse, I am touched! You got there in the end!


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#13)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:48:27 AM GMT

We should never look at co-habitating couples as simple benefit-grabbers (even if some of them are). If couples choose to co-habite or raise a child as a single parent then it should not matter. People are free to choose their relationships and families as it is a private matter and not something the government should be interfering with, especially with petty tax incentives.

IDS is as big an idiot as ever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#14)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:07:28 AM GMT

JR, I couldn't agree more, but do you also think that the government should be encouraging certain forms of relationship via quite significant benefits incentives?

What's wrong with treating everybody the same and trusting them to make the best of things, married, cohabiting, gay, divorces, single, or just sharing a house?


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#16)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:02:52 PM GMT

I agree entirely. I fully support all kinds of relationships (if any) being treated equally. What the Tories are now doing is supporting marriage above everything else and this is unacceptable in 21st century Britain.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#17)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:48:07 PM GMT

What the Tories are actually suggesting is neither here nor there. I guess neither of us have read the small print.

My point is,  the current tax and benefits system (and this has developed over decades, both parties are to blame) rewards just about any relationship OTHER than marriage. Fact.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#21)

by Juvenal on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:55:24 PM GMT

There's a clear electoral strategy here - target that great voting group we often call 'Britain's hard-working families' (gags).  It is this group of centre/soft right swing voters which both parties need if they are to win an election.  Going for the marriage/family thing is an obvious trick.

JR is right to say that the challenge for the Tories will be to practice what they preach.  And I think that they are fundamentally wrong in assuming that marriage is somehow the cause of strong family relationships.  It isn't.


Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#22)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:37:47 PM GMT

Carts and horses.

It is quite clear that making people go through the formalities of getting married achieves nothing.

Conversely, it is true that people who get married first, save up and discuss for a bit, buy a house and then have kids are more likely to stay together (and I should know, I've tried both). These people get naff-all in the way of  benefits or tax breaks.

However, it is also quite simply true that the benefits system and absence of any sort of compulsion on absent fathers to cough up encourages people to have kids, who, in the absence of these super benefits and in the presence of enforcement of paternal maintenance would not have kids.

And I ask you, value judgments aside, who makes the better parents, who tends on the whole to have the happier, more succesful kids. I mean generalising and on the whole, who?


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron goes 'back to basics' (#23)

by swatantra on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:49:37 AM GMT

New Statesman's Person of the Year Camilla B says there is no father figure around in these troubled childrens lives and Trevor P of CEHR also laments the lack of father figures. That's why kids go astray. We have to promote and support marriage and keep families together. Easy divorces and cohabitation are a cop out and show a lcak of committment.


[ Parent ]

Camilla Batman......... (#24)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:32:50 AM GMT

I think her name starts "Batman ..." but I don't know what happens then. I am a big fan and one day I will do the decent thing and learn her full name off by heart.


[ Parent ]

Cameron goes 'back to basics' | 24 comments (24 topical)