Lord Farmer is a former Tory treasurer; he and Dr Samantha Callan are co-founders of the Family Hubs Network.
Tax and spending have, so far, dominated reactions to the two main parties’ manifestos and they do tell an important story about how each political tribe would govern. Less discussed have been the very different culture and values each espouse.
Those who still struggle to distinguish between the parties need to be clear-eyed about these cultural differences and the kind of country each party is shooting for. Manifestos do not just lay out a programme for government: they cast a vision for what each party believes is ‘the good society’, so voters can decide if that is the kind of country they want to live, work, raise their families and, fundamentally, invest themselves in.
Both parties cover similar ground: fiscal prudence and national security, stronger economic growth, improved prospects for children and communities, better healthcare, a reliable food supply, more effective welfare and benefits, sustainable energy etc.
In two areas the Conservatives cast a very different vision. First, straight after headline areas like tax and pensions they plunge into relationships and families. Typically, political parties glide over these, yet these have always been voters’ priorities.
In 2003, Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted that the New Labour Government had failed parents who wanted to be able spend time with their families instead of being pushed into continuous paid work outside the home. ‘What’s most important to people is their personal relationships, what makes most people happiest is a good marriage, a good family life,’ she said. ‘It’s not our job to preach to people one way or another, it’s about providing choices.
A relational approach is not prescriptive about what form families should take, although it should be willing to talk about the importance of commitment. Family breakdown is a massive problem in the UK: only 56 per cent of children spend their whole childhood in a stable home, compared to an average of over 80 per cent across the OECD and over 90 per cent of children in Finland.
A relational approach recognises parents do not just have financial worries, they also struggle because parenting and other family relationships can be very challenging. Add practical issues and difficulties accessing help from a range of different agencies, especially if there are health needs or disabilities, and it becomes clear that paid childcare alone will never be enough.
Labour’s manifesto only talks about financial support for families, and they would simply send tiny children into school earlier by building 3,000 school-based nurseries.
Whichever party wins power needs to continue with the Government’s Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, which build on Labour’s Sure Start Children’s Centres. These only helped parents (mainly mothers) of pre-schoolers to find their feet. Scant attention was paid to other family relationships that make or break childhood, for example between mothers and fathers and parents battling teenagers.
Family Hubs and Start for Life build on the best aspects of Sure Start and support families with children up to age 19 and to 25 if there are special needs: youth services as well as early years, help with relationships as well as housing and debt. Half of English councils have already received government funding to open these and the Conservatives would spread Family Hubs across the other half.
Polling has found very high net agreement (net +74 per cent) that government action to support families should not just subsidise childcare or give parents money, but provide a range of services, guidance and advice.
There will never be enough money for the state to achieve good outcomes for every child and responsibility for that should, anyway, primarily lie with parents. The state can, however, play an important support role for parents, for example when their teenagers begin to get into trouble, and enable them to make the choices that are right for their family.
The changes to child benefit in the Conservative manifesto recognise individual taxation penalises single earner families. Enabling joint taxation so families can keep more of their earned income does not undo that system of individual taxation but introduces choice.
The second area of culture and values where Labour contrasts strongly with the Conservatives is that Labour would deepen existing divisions in our society by letting ‘woke’ minority interests drive a whole new set of rights and laws, with scant evidence of need or effectiveness. Never mind that these clash with the basic freedoms we cherish and parents’ responsibility to raise their children how they see fit, and protect them from harm.
Both main parties say they will implement the Cass Review of gender identity services for children and young people, but the Conservatives’ direction of travel makes parental influence paramount way before children come close to seeing clinicians.
They would ensure parents know what their children are being taught, especially in sex and relationships education; they would guarantee the contested ideology of Gender Identity is not taught to children. They would make statutory guidance for teachers on how best to support gender-questioning students in schools and colleges, and pass laws to ensure it is followed.
Labour would instead make it easier to transition between genders despite the seismic significance of this act for all involved and is ‘proud’ of the Equality Act as it stands. They say they would protect people’s freedom to explore their sexuality and gender identity but what about parents’ freedom to guide their children lovingly through the sturm und drang of adolescence?
Such a law could easily be weaponised against parents who cannot be expected to acquiesce passively when they and their children face lifelong consequences from surgery and hormone treatment.
The Conservatives on the other hand are holding off on such a ban until it is objectively evident that it is needed and workable and will not wrongly criminalise teachers, therapists, faith leaders and perhaps, most importantly, parents.
Families are the bedrock of society, and we can only build on a strong foundation. We all want higher growth and productivity, but these are deeply undermined by family breakdown and weak relationships across society.
Family-strengthening policies, underpinned by a relational approach are fundamental to this country’s future prosperity – only one party seems to value these.
The post Michael Farmer and Samantha Callan: The Tories and Labour are both claiming to support families – but Starmer has nothing to say appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Lord Farmer and Samantha Callan
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.