LABOUR on the ropes. Tories; can you keep it up for two more years plus?

Knocked for six in the “polls” (to what extent do we believe them?) “New” Labour apparatchiks start coming out with viscerally Tory policies. Like tax breaks for marriage etc. All very well and good for the Tories, but as a week is a long time in politics as the last fortnight’s events have shown, banana-skins-a-plenty could still await.

As for “New” Labour, that just about shows up what sort of hollow, evil, twisting, self-serving outfit it always was and is. Either they believe their media-tropolitan chatteratis’ Fabian claptrap about all “forms” of family being “equally valid” and are now merely trying to salvage votes, or else they never believed it all along and are relieved at the chance to “let it all hang out”.

I don’t think libertarians would want to have any fixed views on what “kind of family structure” is suitable for “all people”, preferring to leave individual situations up to individual decisions. A tax system – assuming we levied any tax at all !!! (Minimal-Statists will presumably support some kind of defence budget) – would be fiscally neutral towards all kinds of household. In that way, the majority preferred houshold structure would be “discovered” by families themselves preferring to be organized one way rather than another. No other kinds would need to be either supported or penalized.

The only current role of a guvmint party in this ought to be the redress of financial and social wrongs towards the family structure that works best empirically in western civilisation, which is the Nuclear Family of children fathered by one resident father and one resident mother, and two parents of different sexes being morally bound in and present. once this desirable state of affairs is achieved, guvmints ought to just get the hell out.

5 responses to “LABOUR on the ropes. Tories; can you keep it up for two more years plus?

  1. I’ve written an angry comment on this on the Torygraph site, presenting the unpopular view that married already have advantages, and why should they get a tax break if one parent withdraws from the productive economy to stay at home with the children? This is a lifestyle choice. Nothing wrong with it. But it’s not the job of the government to levy general taxation to support it.

    The only way that marrieds are “penalised” is when one does not work. Yes, they have less money than a couple wherein both are working, and less money at the wage packet than two singles. But marrieds also gain considerable economies of scale (one home, one kettle, one car, one cooker, one bed etc) compared to two singles earning two pay packets, and only when a couple choose to live off one wage are they less affluent.

    People rent-seeking special money from the public purse (i.e. everybody else) invariably declare child-rearing to be nothing but a burden, the dubious “it’s much harder than going to work” and so on. Whether or not this is true misses the point. People have children because they selfishly (enlightened or otherwise heh) want them. We can thus conclude that they consider life with children preferable to life without. If that entails harder work, it’s no different from somebody choosing a strenuous hobby. Mountain climbing is hard work, but mountain climbers presumably do it because for them a life with mountaineering is preferable to a life without. If they complained that they have extra costs and harder work in their life as a result, and shoudl thus be in some way supported by the state in their mountaineering endeavours, no rational person would take their complaint seriously.

    Raising a family has costs and burdens, but also is done in the expectation of gain. Children are hard work, but the parents (hopefully!) gain the joy of family, companionship, continuation of the family line, and, ultimately, somebody to look out for them as they get old. I just nursed my mum through terminal cancer. If she’d been childless and alone in the world, her experience (which let’s be clear was pretty damned awful anyway, there’s no “nice” cancer death) would have been unimaginably worse without my sister and myself to act as carers, helpers and advocates (and in the ramshackle NHS, vulnerable very ill people do need advocates and people watching out for them, let’s be clear here). So, while my mum spent time, effort and money raising her children, she also got something back. If she’d been single and alone, she’d have been alone at the end, which would have been a serious disadvantage. But I don’t see anyone advocating tax breaks for spinsters to compensate for such disadvantages.

    There’s a lot of talk about how government discriminate against “the family” but I don’t see it. What we have is people demanding special favours for having children. I think the whole debate is skewed in favour of the conservative version of political correctness, which is euphemistically called “family values”.

    Just my tuppence.

  2. Richard Clement

    Your “tuppence”? Surely you mean “two pen ‘orth”. That’s what we say up here in the North Riding. I thought a tuppence was a fanny.

  3. Well, I thought if I said fanny I might get blocked or something.

  4. I don’t think this bolg has any policy on naughty words. For example, various stuff has appeared in earlier comments and I think we just let it go up. I’d draw the line at something like “bum” or “tit”, though.

  5. Pingback: sxa-roo » Blog Archive » LABOUR on the ropes. Tories; can you keep it up for two more years …