May has ditched the family so only the big State is left
Laura Perrins, TCW:
[…] So let’s just say it again: without strong families based on marriage you can expect free markets to die and State interventionism to grow. Write this down: the weaker the family, the bigger the State.
We have to have a big State if you have social liberalism, as it is the only thing left to fill the gap left after the family falls apart. Why is this so difficult for the big wigs to understand?
Let’s just take the issue that kicked The Conservative Woman off – the State subsidy of external childcare. When Cameron signed up to the feminist agenda in order to ‘detoxify the party’ by pushing more and more mothers out to work, you need someone to look after the kids, and it turns out that will cost.
In fact, it will cost the taxpayer about £6 billion a year. Do you see the straight line there between feminism/social liberalism and the interventionist State? It is very straight indeed, so straight that the ruler used to draw it just poked out the eye of the economic liberals.
Now you could have said, we are conservatives so we’ll let the family decide (not the same as mothers must be at home, mark). We will let the married couples pool their tax allowances and then they have choice what to do. This will strengthen marriage and delegate decisions about care to the family, where they belong. They can both work and pay for care, work and get a relative to care, or have someone at home and someone at work. It could be the mother, it could be father, it is up to you. But no, no, no we had to have all the mothers in work. So enjoy that 6 BILLLION pound subsidy.
By the way, if you have all the mothers at work, they can’t help look after older relatives either. So you have to give employment leave for that now too. It is unpaid but interventionist. Unpaid year-long leave to care for elderly relatives is the latest wheeze from Mother Theresa. And there is plenty more where that came from.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
