Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

What will the tories do today?

Page: (1)2 3 4 5

Tryphena Absent

09:23 / 10.07.07

I was reading the BBC site and I found yet another profoundly useless press statement concerning the Conservative party. I thought to myself, couldn't we have a Tory-watch thread in which we merrily laugh as they fuck up for the 508th time this year? It's so easy to mock them yet I get such a kick from it.

So I kick you off with Married couples should get a £20-a-week tax break when one parent stays at home to look after children, a Conservative policy group suggests.

Wow! The Tories want to reward people for getting married and having children again?! That's a pleasant surprise. I'm definitely going to marry to get that tax break! Yay! I don't know any Daily Mail readers who would think this was interesting, they already have a lot of voters in their 80's who read the Express so why even bother?

Jawsus-son Starship

10:44 / 10.07.07

Would this tax break apply to couples in civil partnerships? If they addopted a kid, or had children from previous relationships? Because as long as it's for everyone, not just hetrosexual couples then I have no problem with it.

When my fiance and I get married I plan to be a stay at home dad, I earnfar less than my fiance does, and we also get free housing because of her job. So anything that lets me look after my kids as opposed to putting them in day care is a good thing in my eyes.

Or have I missed something?

Tryphena Absent

10:53 / 10.07.07

Most of the rational objections have been laid out by the Labour party and are stated in the article. 1)Everyone doesn't want to get married, where's their tax break? 2)It says nothing about civil partnerships. 3)Single parents?

If you have a tax break that is centred on children then it should be for every child under a certain age, not for people who are married and have children. That's a marriage break and completely unrealistic in the UK in 2007.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:58 / 10.07.07

a) That it won't apply to civil partnerships, as far as one can tell - only married couples.
b) That it will also therefore not apply to people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to get married.
c) That it rewards a lifestyle choice.
d) That, having said that, the reward is basically nugatory.
e) That it will increase the tax burden on single parents and unmarried parents, among others, to the tune of £6 billion, and as such could do with better support.

I disagree with Nina, though - one of the defining characteristics of many parents is their sense of entitlement, and I can see a £1000 bribe, in many cases simply for going ahead with one's existing desires (if one is already planning to be a stay-at-home dad, one is not being incentivised to stay at home, but rather to vote Conservative) working potentially quite well.

11:03 / 10.07.07

So anything that lets me look after my kids as opposed to putting them in day care is a good thing in my eyes.

Arguably though daycare allows children to begin the important process of socialising. More of a Lab topic that though.

Personally, as a single person with no intention of either marrying or having children, I'm hacked off that no-one ever offers me tax breaks for not raising bloody children. Even worse is the looming spectre of extra tax on booze because, according to the Tories, the spirit of the vine is breaking families into itty-bitty-pieces (which, it may be, so tax them but not me).

I suspect that what Boy Cameron means by "family" is Classic Het.

Tryphena Absent

11:28 / 10.07.07

one of the defining characteristics of many parents is their sense of entitlement, and I can see a £1000 bribe, in many cases simply for going ahead with one's existing desires (if one is already planning to be a stay-at-home dad, one is not being incentivised to stay at home, but rather to vote Conservative) working potentially quite well.

If you're already planning to stay at home it might work but I doubt it very much. If this makes a difference it's only going to make a difference to people who already have the luxury of choice. The Conservatives rolled out all kinds of policies like this when Iain Duncan Smith was leader and they didn't work, now they're putting him at the forefront of this story in the news, it's not going to add credibility to an ill thought out suggestion. The problem is that the party is not electable and now they're proceeding with policies that they have been using for decades and clearly don't work in opposition to a government that is more modern in its social policy. Basically I think you're incorrect, this is the most thoroughly mockable thing I've seen from them in months (which is saying something when you consider the grammar school twittery).

Jawsus-son Starship

12:49 / 10.07.07

Arguably though daycare allows children to begin the important process of socialising. More of a Lab topic that though.

Ah, see if it was up to me then the kids would be home-schooled.

I'm hacked off that no-one ever offers me tax breaks for not raising bloody children.

But you're not providing a service for the country. Is it not the case that children raised in a stable home enviroment are better citizens?

In all seriousness, this wouldn't make me vote tory. My grandfather would spin in his empty grave.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:01 / 10.07.07

But you're not providing a service for the country. Is it not the case that children raised in a stable home enviroment are better citizens?

You've made basically the same mistake as the Tories there - confusing correlation and causation. This document is claiming that married couples are more stable, ergo more people should get married. This fails to understand cause and effect. More stable relationships are more likely to result in marriage. There is nothing intrinsically more stable or indeed better for a child about having parents who are married rather than, for example, simply cohabiting.

The next question is about what constitutes a good citizen, but that may be outwith the field of the inquiry.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:04 / 10.07.07

In all seriousness, this wouldn't make me vote tory. My grandfather would spin in his empty grave.

I think it's better that we all vote according to our own principles, beliefs and ideas rather than those of our grandparents, wouldn't you agree?

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:09 / 10.07.07

Can I also point out that Evil Scientist did not say:

I'm hacked off that no-one ever offers me tax breaks for raising bloody children on my bloody own or as part of an unmarried polygamous bloody commune.

He said:

I'm hacked off that no-one ever offers me tax breaks for not raising bloody children.

I am extremely suspicious of this idea that breeding constitutes "providing a service for the country" - it seems inaccurate and unpalatable to me whether one means in and of itself, or with the icky assumption-laden caveat that this should only be done within a "stable home enviroment".

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:09 / 10.07.07

But you're not providing a service for the country.

I'd disagree with that. Some people have to have children, some have to not have children. When left up to personal preference and environmental factors, this seems to balance out quite nicely.

If everyone in the country had children, we'd be a bit fucked, really.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:09 / 10.07.07

Ah, crossposted with Fly, who said it better.

13:19 / 10.07.07

But you're not providing a service for the country.

I regularly donate blood, I vote. Considering neither of these "services" are done by a lot of people should I not get tax breaks?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:22 / 10.07.07

I'd say I was DEFINITELY providing a service to the country by not unleashing my almost-certainly-nightmarish spawn onto it.

Jawsus-son Starship

13:43 / 10.07.07

I am extremely suspicious of this idea that breeding constitutes "providing a service for the country"

Breeding in itself doesn't provide a service for the country, but surely raising, and by raising I mean nurturing children so that they become well rounded people who will then go on to lead useful lives, raising children is a positive thing for a country? Wouldn't it be a bad thing for a country to lack children?

I'd say I was DEFINITELY providing a service to the country by not unleashing my almost-certainly-nightmarish spawn onto it.

I think the country needs these nightmare spawns if it's going to survive the coming arch-bishop lead enviro-apocalypses. If not for them, then arn't we all doomed?

Jawsus-son Starship

13:44 / 10.07.07

With regards to Haus;

You've made basically the same mistake as the Tories there - confusing correlation and causation. This document is claiming that married couples are more stable, ergo more people should get married. This fails to understand cause and effect. More stable relationships are more likely to result in marriage. There is nothing intrinsically more stable or indeed better for a child about having parents who are married rather than, for example, simply cohabiting.

I agree. If this tax break wasn't open to those in civil partnerships etc., then it wouldn't make much sense. I'm all for any stable enviroments for children.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:45 / 10.07.07

Wouldn't it be a bad thing for a country to lack children?

See the rest of my post.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:56 / 10.07.07

Just to be clear, Mathelete: you don't believe that single parents, parenting arrangements involving more than two adults, or even simply couples who do not enter into a marriage or civil partnership, are capable of providing stable home environment or nurturing children so that they become "well rounded" people who will then go on to lead "useful" lives? (Let's leave aside the problematic nature of those two terms for now...)

14:06 / 10.07.07

I agree with alot of the points in this discussion but like Evil Scientist I have no intention of having children and my partner doesn't want them either. It is annoying that you read so much about tax breaks for married couples with children and yet nothing for people who chose to be childless. I honestly can't think of a solution myself that won't cause more problems though.

If the tax break is for all couples in a marriage type agreement then I can see it is a good way of balancing things as those in partnership/civil arrangement will have an equal footing as heterosexual couple.

On the other side if people end up staying together because whilst raising a child because they are better off financally won't this badly affect a child? So much for a balanced stable home environment for a child that the tories wish to create.

14:06 / 10.07.07

raising children is a positive thing for a country?

I'm sure it is, however the problem with the Tory model is the entirely incorrect assumption that only a married het couple can raise children in the "proper" manner.

Interesting comment from Polly Toynbee in the Guardian.

From that article:

However, although reactionary mood music may play well, it would be hard to devise actual policies that would bear election-time public scrutiny. Take a brief look at his marriage bonus, and the nonsense at its heart is brutally exposed. More money for married families means less for children of single parents who are much the poorest. If it's a small sum, it will have no "incentive" effect. If it's large enough to push couples up the aisle, children of single parents will fall even further behind the rest. The child abandoned by its father suffers, while the philandering father marrying for the fourth time gains. Cameron says married parents are far more likely to stay together, but it doesn't need a professor of logic to spot the flaw: making cohabitees marry to collect a bonus is unlikely to sprinkle fairy dust and turn them into the same people as those who are already married. Almost everyone wants a lifelong good relationship, yet many fail. Now the small-state party that says governments can't run a whelk stall suddenly imagines the state can control the most wayward of human behaviours and superglue parents together for ever. Look at strict societies that succeed - and shudder.

Jawsus-son Starship

15:08 / 10.07.07

Just to be clear, Mathelete: you don't believe that single parents, parenting arrangements involving more than two adults, or even simply couples who do not enter into a marriage or civil partnership, are capable of providing stable home environment or nurturing children so that they become "well rounded" people who will then go on to lead "useful" lives? (Let's leave aside the problematic nature of those two terms for now...)

No, that's not being clear that's trying to put words in my mouth. To be clear - If this tax break wasn't open to those in civil partnerships etc., then it wouldn't make much sense. I'm all for any stable enviroments for children. - I don't care about whether the people raising the children are single, married, gay, straight, whatever, as long as the enviroment provided is stable.

Speaking from personal experience, my mother would have struggled to raise me on her own if it wasn't for the large extended family we had (grandfather included). When my mother meet my stepfather, our family unit at home was much more stable. My mother and my stepfather didn't remarry until I was 15, about 10 years after they got together and about 9 1/2 years after my stepfather moved in.

What are problematic with the terms well rounded and useful? I think we can agree at least what these words mean in terms of society?

In terms of my being a married couple with tax breaks, marriage doesn't mean the religious ceremony it used to be. I won't be marrying in any kind of church. Why do people still kick up a fuss about marrying a partner they would in all likelyhood be spending the rest of thier lives with? I'm sure if there's something about a certain union you didn't like you could find a way to change it to fit your circumstances?

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:16 / 10.07.07

I'm sure if there's something about a certain union you didn't like you could find a way to change it to fit your circumstances?

Absolutely. Please tell me how I can change the law with the power of my mind in order to give gay men and lesbians absolute equality in the eyes of the law, including the right to marry in the established church. Also, how to allow more than two people to be recognised as each other's partners and co-parents.

I was actually on your side for about thirty seconds there. For reference, though "kick up a fuss" is a handy synonym for "I have not thought this through". If you find yourself using it, do not post. Go away and think about why people might be doing what looks to you like "kicking up a fuss". Or ask somebody to explain what the issues are, rather than telling them that there aren't any.

Jawsus-son Starship

15:35 / 10.07.07

Please tell me how I can change the law with the power of my mind in order to give gay men and lesbians absolute equality in the eyes of the law, including the right to marry in the established church.

True story. Didn't think about that. Sorry. I was thinking from a strictly hetro view, and didn't take into account the whole civil partnership vs. marriage angle, and opened my mouth a little to quickly, and as such I retract my "kick up a fuss" paragraph and again say sorry.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:52 / 10.07.07

Groovy. So, to get back on track in terms of policy:

I don't care about whether the people raising the children are single, married, gay, straight, whatever, as long as the enviroment provided is stable.

I _think_ from that that you mean that you feel that a stable environment can be provided by any sort of parenting unit or group, and that stable environments should be encouraged because they lead to more socially useful citizens - more law-abiding, higher paid, healthier, fitter, happier, more productive, sort of thing. However, in that case you can't identify a particular parenting unit or group as intrinsically stable or unstable - so either you peg payment of the benefit to some sort of stability metric, or you assume that finanical security helps to increase stability (not a bad concept) and just have either universal or means-tested child support. Which is fine, although the money would have to come from somewhere, but is not what the IDS is proposing.

Jawsus-son Starship

16:02 / 10.07.07

WARNING - SLIGHTLY CONFUSED THINKING THAT ISN'T SUGGESTING ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE BUT IS ASKING A QUESTION (but not doing the annoying devils advocate thing);

Surely if one type of enviroment has proven itself to be more stable in terms of raising children then it would be better to try to increase the amount of people who chose this type? From an evoloutionary point of view wouldn't marriage (or at least long-term monogamous relationship) be that kind of enviroment, as it is the longest lasting interpersonal relationship for raising children (that I am aware of)?

Tryphena Absent

16:07 / 10.07.07

For you Mathlete, the marriage thread.

Mathlete, fly may seem aggressive but you really weren't clear about your stance. I disagree with you though, the system you propose can't exist, the money just has to be given to people with children if it goes anywhere at all. It's not bureaucratically workable in any other way.

16:10 / 10.07.07

State run orphanages are pretty stable, and raise dozens of children with much greater efficiency than a family unit. That doesn't mean they're best.
Isn't the happiness of the child more important than encouraging everyone to live one particular way, Mathlete/SharkJesus?

Jawsus-son Starship

16:14 / 10.07.07

Isn't the happiness of the child more important than encouraging everyone to live one particular way, Mathlete/SharkJesus?

Defo. My argument (which actually doesn't apply to this tory-lead example) is that if there was one way which was better for raising children, wouldn't it be better to encourage people to do that?

16:39 / 10.07.07

No. That would be encouraging everyone to live the same way, the 'best' way. Turns out there are lots of good ways to raise children, and the 'best' way IMHO is to support any and all diverse arrangements that make happy children (or 'productive' or 'useful' children) which doesn't entail giving tax breaks to one particular arrangement at the expense of others.

They are Tory scum. It's back to basics family values weren't the fifties great risible nonsense.

16:40 / 10.07.07

PS- I know your argument doesn't apply to this tory led example, I was aiming at the topic and wanted to vent a little at tory nonsense.

jentacular dreams

17:44 / 10.07.07

The key points linked to on the bbc article are interesting. A definite mix of (IME) good (front loading tax breaks into the younger years of a childs life) and bad (lone parents expected to work 16 hours a week when youngest child reaches five and 30 hours a week when youngest child reaches 11). Though I think the latter outweighs the former.

That said, I think it might be unworkable. Moral problems aside, didn't both conservative and labour governments give tax breaks to couples in the 1970-80s to try and reduce the divorce rate?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

07:54 / 11.07.07

Shark Jesus - Jawsus From an evoloutionary point of view wouldn't marriage (or at least long-term monogamous relationship) be that kind of enviroment, as it is the longest lasting interpersonal relationship for raising children (that I am aware of)?

I'm not entirely sure that you can use 'evolutionary' there as marriage (as opposed to monogamy/polygamy? Anyone?) is not something that creatures have evolved to do, it's a social custom which was mainly used to express the transaction of moving a female from one family to another. You are also aware that heterosexual couples can divorce and queer parents are capable of staying in long-term stable relationships aren't you?

The problem with this whole kind of thing is just that there's so many people around that you could do a report proving that lesbian trinaries say, are the bestest/worstest parents as your personal prejudices dictate. The worstest people in the world sometimes come from stable families with a mother and a father, sometimes they don't. Trying to dictate that one type is better or worse than another because of their social grouping is a hiding to nothing.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:05 / 14.07.07

Back on the Conservative party, and David Cameron has clarified that, yes, this allowance would indeed apply to gay couples in cicvil partnerships as well as married couples.

Basically, I think he had to do this - it's embarrassing that it wasn't clarified in the first place that this was the case. Cameron has been a supporter of civil partnerships, and besides which, if he had not it would have been hilariously easy for Labour to say, quite correctly, that the proposed rule was not in fact about trying to give children two parents, but about discrimination against children with gay parents.

Of course, a lot of the Tory base would be absolutely fine with some discrimination against gay parents, and will be very cross at the idea of civil-partnered gay couples getting a tax benefit to raise their children. They won't switch to Labour or the Lib Dems, but they might be sufficiently disgusted that they will not turn out to vote at all.

Would the number of married parents or potental arents why are interested enough in this to think about voting Conservative, but who would have been turned off if the proposal had not included civil partners outnumber that group of disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells? I don't know...

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:43 / 16.07.07

Boris Johnson is standing as Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. He's not rhe buffoon he likes to pretend he is, but then he did manage to offend the North. If he's going to continue his 'upper class twit of the year' persona, would you vote for that to be mayor of London (presuming you are one of the secret London cabal that runs things round here)?

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

18:13 / 16.07.07

Hmmmm, did anyone else hear anything about Ian Duncan Smith babbling about how massive tax hikes on booze would be a good way of reducing binge drinking? As a policy it would seem to be more designed to firstly keep the Tories entirely unelectable (which I suppose is what IDS does), and secondly if implemented to rather encourage the use of illegal and thus tax-immune mind altering substances as opposed to alcohol among those on a budget to me. I haven't heard anything about Cameron endorsing this idea, so it's possibly just a weird idea of IDS's rather than an actual policy.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5