LibDem/Tory Coalition, aka. The iron hand in the velvet glove

So, it looks like its finally resolved. Brown’s gone. Cameron’s in. And LibDem’s have jumped into bed with the Tories. Oh dear. Yes, I can see why it may have happened. But as part of the more left-wing part of the party, I can never support a LibDem/Tory coalition. I genuinely think this is the start of a serious destruction of the LibDems. We are going to be seriously squeezed in the next election. Labour will replace us in the north – we have already lost control of councils such as Sheffield – and the Tories will replace us in the south.

We are going to be the soft face of a nasty government. But there again, how soft are we in practice? There have been reports that Labour, rightly, did not do a deal with us because we want more wide-ranging, deeper public services cuts – starting this year (whatever happened to Cable’s rejection of the Tories’ economic polices?). You can tell Clegg went into the Labour talks not wanting a deal, instead, they happened just to purely satisfy the members. Well, Clegg has made his choice. He will get his power, as rumour is it he will be deputy leader. But, he will lose a lot of the core. The core who have been so vigorously opposed to most of what the Tories stand for.

The LibDem MPs have been well whipped so far, but there will be defections. It will be interesting to see who does defect. You can tell that many of the more centre left MPs are grimmicing when they throw their ‘support’ behind the coalition proposals. Whilst it sounds promising that Tory policies such as inheritance tax has been put on ‘hold’, and they will look at implementing a compromised version of our tax reforms (“look at” and “compromised” is key here), I think that the fixed parliament reform, which was much-needed, will secure us into a long and painful death.

One thing we have to remember however, is that this was a real opportunity for PR wasted. We didn’t really push Labour far enough to try to get PR on a referendum – as I said, it was clear the leadership never really wanted to go with Labour. Instead, we will have to settle for AV, well a referendum on AV.

Regardless, I sense things to come for the LibDems may not be as rosy as the leadership may think and hope. When we come to important issues such as Europe, immigration, environment and higher education funding (will Clegg uncap the tuition fees and push his core membership even further away?), it is going to be very interesting to see how well the Tory whip is sustained across the LibDem MPs.

I hope I am wrong. I hope this coalition is good for the country, and the LibDems. But personally, I feel this will be nothing short of a disaster. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with Nick.

Will Clegg listen to us?

Power 2010′s electoral reform demonstrations today really captured the mood of many voters, particularly those who voted LibDem, when it comes to electoral reform and more extensive political reform. Even if the Tories do offer us electoral reform, which I find very unlike seen as Cameron would most likely face a leadership challenge if he did, they will not implement the extensive political reform the Libdems’ want and the country needs. This is not to mention all the other areas of political disjuncture between us and the Tories, which I think most of our members have voiced their concerns about.

Whilst Nick Clegg addressed these protests with the words that has made him and us such an exciting force in the election, I will no longer believe them until he stops these pointless talks with the Tories and realises that the only way we can possibly deliver most of our policies and principles is with what Alex Salmond has rightly called, a ‘progressive alliance’. Power 2010 claim:

“For the first time in a long time it feels like the politicians are listening to us.  Nick Clegg heard our demands. He took the petition that tens of thousands of us have signed. Clegg holds the balance of power and the fate of Proportional Representation in his hands. But today as the crowd chanted, “Don’t sell out” – people power forced him to speak to us.”

Well, personally, if Clegg continues these talks and actually does what it appears he is going to do – and that is back the Tories – he hasn’t listened to us. He has stabbed his party members in the back, most of who have campaigned on policies that are essential for political reform. If he joins the Tories, all those hopes and aspirations will die, it, in my opinion, will start the destruction of this party. If Clegg does listen however, as Power 2010 right say, it will be he and the LibDems who have taken this historical moment to seize the much-needed change to the voting system.

If Clegg is to claim, when he was addressing the rally:

“I’ve campaigned for a better, more open, more transparent, new politics, every single day of this general election campaign. I genuinely believe it is in the national interest.”

Then trying to form a deal with the Tories is a waste of time. Labour would replace us as the party of reform, our chance of becoming the new ‘progressive’ party will be destroyed, and Tories would replace us in the south – as why bother voting for the LibDems if they are just the mini Tories? Furthermore, we will see mass membership defections and most likely MPs and councillors defecting. This really would be, in my opinion, the end of the LibDems as we know it.

If LibDems support the Tories, it will top of a very demoralising election

Lets be frank, this is shaping up to be a rather demoralising election. Not only are our results nothing like what we expected, Clegg looks like he is going to pass up the chance for reforming our electoral system. Clegg’s argument that Cameron has more of a mandate seems hypocritical when you consider that the voting system has once again resulted in our vote share being a lot higher than our share of the MPs. We get around 7% less than Labour but end up with around 200 seats less than Labour – this is why electoral reform is so key.

I have talked to a few people who I managed to convince to vote LibDem – including my mum and my sister. After talking to them, and my own personal view, if the LibDems prop up a Tory government, I will feel ashamed to have argued that voting the LibDem’s would be a forceful anti Tory vote. Both my mum and sister have commented on how they wish they had voted Labour. These views, you will find, are pretty universal when considering Clegg’s cosey approach towards the Tories. If Clegg supports the Tories, this will seriously damage the party’s chances of becoming the ‘real’ progressive party in politics. You will see the rise of Labour, as people wont think the Liberal Democrats are any more committed to their central values than the other two parties.

It is not only the historical event of electoral reform that we will throw away, it is the ability to achieve economic stability. Vince Cable has already made it clear he is against the Tories budget, as are most sensible economically minded people. It appears as though Clegg is making economic deals the basis of the deal. Well then that shows how the ‘deal’ should be even more of a no brainer. Vince Cable has to be listened to, yes Clegg has gained popularity recently, but Cable is hugely respected and has warned about the dangers that the Tories’ economic policy would result in. It is rather interesting that Vince Cable seems to have vanished.

Hopefully, even if Clegg tries to pass this Tory deal the democratically structured LibDem party will reject it, as most of us are progressive left/centre minded people and would feel sick at the thought of supporting a party so ideologically in conflict with our values. Clegg really needs to think carefully before jumping into bed with Cameron. He needs to remember that he will not have a much better chance for political reform, he definitely would be able to get STV onto the referendum paper with Labour too. All he will get with the Tories is a Jenkins commission 2 – and I am of the understanding that thankfully this is a key area that is causing disagreement with talks between us and the Tories.

Speaking in general terms, we are obviously going to be disappointed with the election result, but at the same time I think we should be happy about the gains and the holds that we managed to achieve (Sarah Tether for example). I think the loss of Lembit Opik is a testament of many of the concerns that were voiced by people such as myself. My specific issue, as many of you know, was his attitudes towards women – especially his column within the Daily Sport where he often used patronising language to dehumanise women. I don’t think that writing in a ‘newspaper’ such as this really corresponds to fighting for the equality of women – I am not proposing for the abolition of porn etc but what he effectively was doing was undermining key areas of our campaign such as the Real Women campaign. Opik’s seat loss was more a personal not a political incident.

Clegg may think that the LibDems wont be tarnished if we don’t support the Tories in a formal coalition, instead just allowing them to have minority rule - but he should think again. He will have let so many people down who are ideologically committed to electoral reform, people who have switched from smaller parties to change the system for the better. People, including me, are going to wonder why they bothered for a party who were wiling to compromise all their values on the basis of a so called  ’mandate’ – even though it is important to highlight, no-one actually achieved a majority! We need to think again, or I am afraid, Clegg will see many of his supporters feeling rightly cheated – the Tories will destroy the lives of so many, and I, as I am sure most LibDems agree with, really do not want to be part of a positive endorsement of that!

13 Reasons Not To Vote Conservatives

Change. This is Cameron’s central argument. “We have changed”. Well no, they haven’t. They are still the same old Tories, and they will do everything they have done in the past again. They want to rebuke our civil rights, even though they claim to uphold them – they oppose almost any liberal value, arguing they have led to what they term ‘broken Britain’. They want to impose cuts before we have even left a recession, and so threaten our economic recovery. They oppose any real political reform. They really are the dinosaurs of politics.

Osborne. Ok, I confess – I was getting stuck at thinking of a word that began with O, but Osborne fits the bill quite nicely. He is seen as a novice and very unreliable by most people, do you really think you could trust him with the economy?

Nick Clegg. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, the only possible party that can provide change is the Liberal Democrats. If you want a fairer society with more responsibility placed on the bankers, free tuition fees, reform of the political system – and lots more, VOTE NICK CLEGG AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

Sun newspaper. Let us show Murdoch that it is not his newspapers that determine the election. Who wouldn’t like to see him lost for words?

Equality. You will find that the Tories are ideologically opposed to equality. Yes, I know they claim to be this nice new modern party. But look again. They have joined a right-wing homophobic fascist party in Europe, they want to reduce the abortion limit, they want to promote marriage as some ‘ideal’, they have a long history of homophobia with section 28 being a prime example (and still some of their PPCs talk of its wonders), and who can forget Grayling’s comments around B&Bs being allowed to turn away homosexuals on the grounds of sexuality. This is the same old Tory party, they don’t like change, they don’t want to see the growth of liberal equality.

Reform. There is no chance of getting any real political reform. They, contra to their rhetoric, opposed the Liberal Democrats reform on allowing you to recall MPs and on donation reform (hardly surprising when Ashcroft is funding most of their campaign). There is no real chance that the Tories will ever support a proper proportional representational system (STV), as their ‘safe seats’ would be gone, and there would be a good chance they would never get into power again – as they will find that a great deal of the UK are progressives left/centre – so make your vote count and don’t vote for the Tories!

VAT. Whilst they may be sounding all nice with their National Insurance mantra, there is no real denial that they won’t increase VAT to the high levels that they have done in the past, and the high levels that shadow Tory ministers have been heard contemplating. The NI increase by Labour, whilst not desirable, is much more preferable than a VAT rise – a VAT rise would hit the poorest and the most vulnerable the hardest, the NI only really hits those who can manage.

Atypical policy judgements. Most of the Tories’ ‘polices’ rest on atypical examples of what they see as case exemplars of ‘broken Britain’. There is nothing broken about Britain. What the Tories are good at though, are stigmatising those who have the least power to say anything back.

Taxes. Their tax reforms are abysmal. They want to increase the inheritance threshold so those on super high earnings get even more money (no self-interest I am sure)!

Inequality. Cameron made it pretty clear the other day that he was willing to increase inequality to allow for economic growth, as what happened in the 1980s. If you don’t want a 1980s repeat, then make sure not to vote the Tories on Thursday!

Victimisation. The Tories will attack the most vulnerable in society. Their welfare policies are an example of that – an attack on those who receive incapacity benefit is highly unfair – there would be no difference to them and the Thatcher government that increased economic problems and inequality to an extreme level.

Economy. About 100 economists that are well established have come out against the Tories plans on the economy. They intend to start cutting as soon as possible if they got into office. This would risk a double dip recession.

Society. Their ‘big society’ idea will only lead to the reduction of the state in vital areas, whilst other policies such as the marriage tax, will result in an increase of the state in areas that threaten our civil liberties. At the heart of the ‘big society’ are the interests that uphold the Tories’ – the businesses and entrepreneurs who are funding them. The ‘big society’ will allow for privatisation through the back door and will dangerously damage key state functions.

Remember, VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

Sour grapes from the Labservatives

Whilst there is a consensus that Clegg fared better than the other two leaders in the Leader’s Debate, the other two parties seem intent on rubbishing Clegg as a potential threat. However, actions speak louder than words. Brown has only today accepted the Paxman interview (a week after Clegg actually went onto Newsnight) – obviously, his decision has nothing to do with Clegg’s success last night (Brown really isn’t very good with subtlety). Cameron and Brown are also mobilising celebrities, Gary Barlow and Eddie Izzard respectively, to distract attention away from their failed performances last night.

And what is all this rubbish about Brown being about substance, whilst Clegg is about style. The LibDems are the only ones, as Clegg repeated rightly, who have outlined how they would fund and implement their policies. Clegg was the one who answered the questions with the most clarity and precision, whilst Brown and Cameron were talking and arguing over each other. I say let them scrutinise our policies, least we have some to scrutinise.

Apparently, to Gove, our policies are ‘eccentric’, including policies such as scrapping Trident. On Trident specfically, they need to wake up and realise that we aren’t in the Cold War anymore! Whilst Clegg didn’t raise this – scrapping Trident is also good environmentally and morally. The Tories would think our policies are ‘eccentric’, after all the policies are about helping further fairness for the majority not the rich minority.

But what we should remember, as Nick Robinson has outlined on BBC news tonight; “condemnation is the highest form of flattery”. (We are officially the second party after tonight’s poll!).

Brown and Cameron’s failing marriage

Most polls are reporting that Clegg was the clear winner from the TV debate tonight, and rightly so – Clegg was the only one (as usual) to answer the questions whilst the other two leaders bickered with each other as though they are in a failing marriage. Brown consistently addressed Cameron, making out that it is a Labservative election. Wrong, as shown by the feedback tonight, this is a three party race.

As Clegg remarked:

“the more they attack each other, the more they sound exactly the same”

Brown and Cameron really showed their true colours, for one – they both lied. For example, take recall; they are both promising it now, but both the Tories and Labour failed to support the LibDem’s bill so that recall would have been available for the public NOW! The same goes for political reform. We know about Cameron’s lack of commitment to political reform, but there was Brown again, trying to strike a claim that they are the party to vote for to initiate political reform. Well, how about the last 13 years? If you cared about that so much, why haven’t you done so when you had the chance?

Whilst Brown was orienting his comments towards Cameron, I think both Cameron and Brown need to be aware of the rightful recognition Nick Clegg is gaining and will get in the last remaining days of this election – the LibDems are not a wasted vote!

Cameron on homophobia: Cultural ‘magic’ dust, lies and more…

What a contrast. A few weeks ago, Clegg announced a very competent set of policies that address the inequalities that homosexuals still face. Whilst Cameron does support the law that would enable asylum seekers to settle here if they are fleeing prosecution because of their sexual orientation, he is less committed to removing the ban that stops homosexuals and bisexuals from giving blood due to the scare of AIDS. Instead, he says that he has to wait for a report to decide whether we can remove the ban. Why does he need a report to see how wrong the ban is? It is pretty obvious that there is no scientific basis to it – it is just pure homophobia. All the blood is screened anyway, heterosexuals have many AIDS’ sufferers too. It is pretty simple, as Clegg showed, the ban should be removed.

When it comes to the issue of homophobic violence, the old let some ‘magical’ cultural change dust do the work instead of the state was employed in his discourse. Cultural change is fundamental, however, it only works as long as there is a means of achieving it. I am always bemused when people use the ‘magical’ cultural change argument in response to those who desire state action to help bring about that cultural change. Yes, legislation is not the answer to all change, however, it is a big part in assisting cultural change. There has to be a method behind mobilising change, just simply talking about it does little.

The article by Johann Hari that this blog is based on has an interesting point around faith schools too, this is something that Nick Clegg should take into account before imposing homosexual teaching in faith schools. There is a lot of research that shows that if the Tories idea of giving money to those who want to run their own schools was implemented, mainly religious groups and fundamentalists would take up the offer, who are most likely to be homophobic. Thus, policies by the Tories, as well as their inability to state how they would achieve cultural change, would actually appear to run the risk of making homophobic violence worse.

As stated previously in my blog, it is important to remember the history of Cameron’s attitude and voting record towards homosexual rights, especially in terms of Section 28. No matter what apology he issues now, you always have to doubt his pro homosexual rights rhetoric when considering that he was an avid supporter of the Section and other anti homosexual laws, even as late as 2008. LabourList have a nice little piece on Cameron’s voting record on homosexual rights that further illustrates the doubts one must have when viewing the dramatic ‘change’ in position Cameron has made of late in terms of his stance towards homophobia.

His answers on Europe show how little he really cares about homosexual rights. He tries to claim that whilst they do not agree with their new European partners extreme views on homosexuals (which is debatable), it is the price to pay for:

“an open, flexible, trading Europe, rather than the endless progress towards a more federalised Europe”.

He, nor the Tories, will ever truly change…

Clegg, think very carefully…

The right-wing press wouldn’t miss a chance to argue that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are more inclined to partner the Tories than Labour if there was a hung parliament, would they? The Telegraph take the view that Clegg’s comments about Brown’s proposals for electoral reform being “worthless” signal that he is more likely to support the Tories. I think Clegg has to think carefully before dismissing plans for electoral reform. Brown’s aren’t the best, but any move in the right direction towards greater proportionality should be greeted positively. Furthermore, the Tories are the dinosaurs of politics, and so looking for them for any meaningful change in any of the four main areas, especially constitutional reform, of our fairness general election campaign is a wasted journey.

Vince Cable has already made it pretty clear he would oppose a Conservative budget, and rightly so when it will only help the rich whilst risking the possibility of a double dip recession. Whilst Clegg is right to not nail his colours to the mast, arguing that electoral reform is not a pre-condition for a deal in a hung parliament risks missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity. It rather seems worryingly pragmatic, as The Statesman points out, with Clegg not wanting to rule out a deal with the Tories. However, equally Clegg should not just declare which party we would side on if a hung parliament occurred, as I have said before, we will get a better deal if we let the Tories and Labour battle it out in an attempt to win us over. The Statesman seem to argue that the Liberal Democrats think bad reform (aka AV+) is worse than no reform (aka the Tories). However, I disagree. Arguably, if we supported a Labour government we could work to include an option of STV within the referendum, furthermore, we have more chance of achieving our aims with Labour than the Tories. Siding with the Tories because Brown’s attempts of electoral reform are not as good as we would hope seems self defeatist and will not get us anywhere. Furthermore, there are some within the Liberal Democrats who favour AV+ over STV. I am one of those in betweens, I have yet to decide.

Clegg has to think carefully. As mentioned, would the Tories ever support our manifesto for fairness? Why would the Tories want to help produce fairer taxes when they want to increase the inheritance tax threshold? Why would the Tories support our educational reforms that rightly need the help of the state to tackle the unfairness of the education system, when they want to decentralise education decisions and put schooling decisions into the hands of companies? Why would the Tories support our policies on constitutional reform such as removing big money from politics when most of their campaigns (many of which are Liberal Democrat/Conservative marginals) are funded by Lord Ashcroft? Why would the Tories support our policies on a sustainable and fair economy, when they want to and enjoy cut, cut cutting away at important areas of our economy? They just wont.

The Liberal Democrats lead the way on LGBT equality/rights

Our party have really hit the nail on the head with their pledges to tackle the still endemic homophobia there is in society. Clegg has announced in his interview with Attitude, a number of political reforms that will help provide more rights for homosexuals and bisexuals in society, they include (the list is taken from here):

• Force all schools – including faith schools – to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”.
• Change the law to allow same-sex couples the same marital rights as mixed-sex couples, including the right to use the word “marriage” rather than maintaining the segregation of civil partnerships.
• Reverse the ban on gay and bisexual men, and female partners of bi men, being allowed to give blood.
• Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.
• Review Uganda’s membership of the Commonwealth if its government was to bring in the death penalty as proposed in the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill”.

My only reservation is with the first proposal, as making faith schools have policies that directly contradict what they are teaching is problematic. Furthermore, it may be picky but arguing homosexuality is ‘normal’ is not the right discourse to be using either. Personally, I don’t think it is right to argue that any sexuality is ‘normal’ and instead sexuality should become increasingly associated with individual choice and whatever that individual wants to do, regardless of whether society sees it as ‘normal’ (within limitations of course, obviously I don’t support sexual abuse or other sexual activities that abuse the civil rights – thus, where one has not consented).

Other than that, Clegg has it spot on. I actually remember recently going to a public meeting at York and Clegg being asked about the ban imposed on homosexual and bisexual men and female partners of bisexual men that stops them giving blood because of the fear of AIDS. Clegg honestly admitted that he had not heard about it but promised to look into it, and that is what makes this proposal even better as it showed he listened and has acted. The other proposals are also very promising. Equalising the status of homosexual civil partnerships to marriage is an important move in the right direction. Why should it be called something different when it is exactly the same thing, two people consenting to be together in law because they love each other? I admit I have not exactly been a true supporter of marriage recently, but I support people being allowed the right to get married and support homosexuals and bisexuals being given the same rights that heterosexuals have. In addition, I do support the move on the Uganda, but I feel it could go a bit further such as imposing more wide-ranging sanctions. Killing anyone with the death penalty in my eyes is wrong, nevermind killing someone because they like the same-sex!

The research that these policies relate to, where the Liberal Democrats exposed the illiberal voting records of the Tories on homosexual rights, further helps illustrate how ideologically disconnected we are to the Tories. Furthermore, the polices we have outlined to improve the rights of homosexuals also shows how we differ to Labour, as whilst they have made important advances such as the introduction of civil partnerships, Clegg is right to refer to the problems around calling it civil partnerships and not marriage, and furthermore, they have failed to turn around discriminatory polices such as gay and bisexual men, and female partners of bisexual men not being allowed to give blood. Distancing ourselves from both parties is the right move, as it further shows how we need to withhold our ground in terms of maintaining our independent values if we do enter a coalition. However, at the same time, which is something I have stated before, it also shows how we are more ideologically closer to Labour.

Redundancy of free childcare policies, all-women shortlists, Cameron’s ‘poverty of parenting’: no, no and no!

Whilst Clegg’s speech took the right tone, simplistic and to the point, as Darrell Goodliffe has rightly argued, there is much to question, namely what has been left out. I want to focus on our childcare policies and how they have faced the chopping board, attaining the dreaded ‘aspiration’ title. To contextualise my argument, it is important to consider the following extract from Clegg’s speech:

“And, yes, that means that some multi billion pound spending commitments we have promoted in the past – like new free childcare entitlements, a new citizen’s pension or free personal care – will no longer be firm commitments in our manifesto, but will be put on hold until they become affordable again. And some of our other pledges such as the scrapping of tuition fees will have to be phased in over a longer period of time.”

Whilst I take the view that Clegg is right to promote four key areas to focus upon during the election campaign, this does not mean that we should not promise any other policies. Free childcare should be a fundamental right, it is the route of so many inequalities in society. For example, I disagree with the view of The Speaker’s Conference that all-women shortlists “may be the only way” to achieve equal representation of women in parliament. They have given up the fight of equality before they have even began fighting for it. It is simply discrediting and discriminatory to treat women as though they need ‘special’ treatment in order to become involved in politics. They should be there on their own merit, and nor is it fair on the men potential candidates who could be a better alternative. Instead, this links to the importance of policies such as improved childcare, there needs to be structural and cultural changes. Women need to have more resources to utilise in order to dedicate themselves to careers that involve a lot of work and time, such as politics, whilst also enjoying other things in life that they may so choose, such as having children. There needs to be more consideration of how organisational structures within politics, local and national, can disadvantage women. Attitudes within local politics can put women off, as it can at a national level. Making out that women need to be treated differently to men hardly helps with this cultural change, it reinforces the view that women are different and that actually they aren’t as good as the men, and thus, they need a foot up so they can get to the same career positions. What policy commitments such as childcare do is help tackle the real structural problems for women. People can huff and puff all they want about the level of representation of women and other minority groups in politics, but they cannot just give up at the slightest sight things may not be as quick or as easy as they would like.

This brings me onto my final point. David Cameron’s annoyingly increased interference into the life’s of families who are already stigmatised enough without some politician or the state telling them they have problems. It is no lie that working class families are more likely to face problems with parenting, but again, there seems to be again a total lack of regard for the structural factors that affect the parenting of these families. This utter load of rubbish from Cameron again, contradicts his whole small state rhetoric. Cameron’s discourse on his (another) new initiative illustrates the weaknesses in his proposals:

“Of course there’s a link between material poverty and poor life chances, but the full picture is that that link also runs through the style of parenting that children in poor households receive. Because the research shows that while the style of responsible parenting I’ve spoken about today is more likely to occur in wealthier households, children in poor households who are raised with that style of parenting do just as well.”

Cameron might recognise the link but I am afraid his conception of the link is wrong. Yes, poverty does affect family style, but therefore why can’t Cameron realise that the real changes that have to be made are to the factors that result in families becoming impoverished and disadvantaged. Furthermore, the second sentence stigmatises certain families, as he uses those families that have ‘successful’ parenting to highlight how it can be done, thus blame the ones who aren’t doing it ‘correctly’. He has a total disregard for taking into account the complex array of compounding factors that influence parenting style, it is so insulting to just blame the individual and then offer them classes or whatever to improve their ‘style’. It is again an issue that the state should not be interfering in at such a personal level, by all means provide help, but there is a line to be drawn. This shows how Cameron seems to becoming obsessed with interfering with the utter most personal areas of our lives, and the public just don’t want it, as shown by a recent UK Polling Report, which found:

“40% of people think it is right for the government to actively support marriage, but 57% thought it was not the place for the government to promote one lifestyle choice over another.”

Thus, it is important for all parties to recognise more the importance of tackling structural and cultural inequalities that affect people’s lives. Free childcare relates to both all women shortlists and parenting style, as it provides extra choice for parents – and it would be a policy change that would not see the state delve too far into the personal. It is important that we respect human agency and privacy, and that we do not treat people as though they need some kind of ‘special’ help, consequently stigmatising them. Empowering people is the way to deal with inequalities, and through structural and cultural changes we can do this without inappropriate state intervention.