The Conservative Woman’s Real Conservative Manifesto has provoked a terrific and pleasing response. Comments on it reflect both a frustration and a deep despair at the LibLabCon consensus ‘choices’ we are presented with. They confirm just how out of touch with its base (us) David Cameron’s Conservative Party has become.
We are really pleased to have struck this chord with our readers and our thanks go to Rick Hamilton, Thomas, John Clegg, pyotr leflegin, Misomio and many more for such kind and encouraging words:
At last a group who want almost exactly what I and most of my friends are looking for. I had almost given up, thinking gloomily that the lefties had won through their lying propaganda and we were all doomed.
Wow….If only you were a political party …I’d vote for all of the above!
Well done TCW, that is an excellent manifesto. … Would that we had a Conservative Party with the authenticity and bravery to embrace even some of your programme. Keep up the good work.
How I wish you were the Conservative Party instead of Cameron and his “soundbite” and conviction free politics”.
Well done Conservative Woman. Really good article. You’ve got my vote……
They were very cheering to read. Yet as one commentator pointed out: ‘It’s striking, is it not, that these ten policies are all things that just about any conservative woman (or man) would happily endorse. And yet the Conservative Party under Cameron falls short on all of those ten policies where they are not flatly in opposition.’
Indeed. That is why, as some of you pointed out, it is going to be so hard to get our policy ideas across and not just ‘preach to the converted’, as one commentator fears we are. On family taxation reform particularly, we agree that we are up against it ‘culturally’ in arguing: “for a fully transferable tax allowance, i.e. allow men or women who choose to stay at home while their spouse works to transfer their tax allowance to them”.
There is indeed a problem given that: “… the State doesn’t recognise the value of parenting, so demands everybody at work all of the time, and wants couples to pay for childcare which it can then tax. By allowing couples to be taxed as a unit the State would be forced to accept the economic contribution of parents staying at home.”
But even this comment begs the question about the level of cultural indoctrination we have been immersed in. Should we even be using the word parenting at all – is this not itself a concession to the politically correct orthodoxy of genderless parenting and the denial of mother/father difference?
Ideas came back fast and furious on all of our ten policies aimed to restore Britain’s historic tradition of freedom under the law.
Some we agreed with, some we disagreed with, and several gave us food for thought.
We absolutely do not agree that there is need for: “an explicit pledge to boost the birthrate, as its better for a society to grow its population naturally than through immigration.” In our view exiting the EU and applying a points system to immigration generally would make for a positive but controlled immigration policy. Restoring marriage and motherhood through a meaningful transferable tax allowance would mean larger families would become economically feasible again for middle income families.
Dawn Young’s idea that: “Ideally the child benefit should not be reinstated but all child benefit scrapped and replaced by a marriage and child allowance. (Those who fall on hard times and are out of work would receive a type of Child Benefit.) This would help encourage marriage and reduce state dependency”, certainly warrants consideration.
There is, of course, always more than one way to skin a cat. There are a number of approaches to creating a properly family friendly tax system and these are all ideas that need further discussion.
Our proposal for a conscience clause to protect the expression of religious belief, one commentator thought, could be used negatively by various religions: ‘to crowbar their specific beliefs into public life, and there is no certainty that Christianity would benefit…’. A self -declared atheist also took issue with it: ‘As an atheist I also think I’m entitled to freedom of expression and should not have to be constantly concerned about breaching some lefty shibboleth’. We agree – he should not be.
We were ticked off for not mentioning Britain’s housing problem:‘Without tackling the absurd cost of housing in the UK, about which this manifesto makes no mention, you are not going to incentivise single earner families’ ordeal with the welfare bill, or address the steady erosion of opportunity and aspiration that a society increasingly dependent on inherited wealth displays.’
And a couple of self-declared former secondary modern teachers took issue with our grammar school restoration policy. Given that several of us at TCW are the happy and lucky former recipients of a wonderful state-provided grammar school education – without which it is unlikely we would be editing this blog today – we are not, I am afraid, likely to change our minds on that one.
We enjoyed our characterisation of being Ukip with a dash of Christian morality – and we hope it comes across as more than a dash.
Last but not least we loved this impassioned cry – a blog in itself:
‘Where are the free thinking Scots who believe in free trade, free speech, personal responsibility & enlightenment instead of hysterical & vicious nationalism? The SNP make Ukip look like the boy scouts. Where are the enlightened patriots? It seems Scotland is in permanent internecine war; If you don’t support the SNP you are a traitor. There isn’t much choice!
Whilst damaging SNP policies go unchallenged, those north of the border that let others do their thinking for them are flocking to the SNP – which means the SNP may well set the stage & debate post election – SEXIT from the UK and a sharp left turn, left of Miliband.
Those politicians not challenging the anti Adam Smith fiscal nonsense coming from the SNP will be directly responsible for the coming SEXIT; ergo those politicians are not acting in the interests of the UK or the Scots. Quelle surprise? Are you listening, Cameron? I thought not.’
That is the question we conclude on for the moment. We won’t be holding our collective breath for Mr Cameron’s answer, but do keep your responses to our manifesto debate coming. They are, we understand, read in ‘the village’. Some politicians will listen.
