Maybe, I’m reading too much into this (and I have alluded to it previously), but one thing that has struck me during this election campaign, and the one same thing that has filled me with some disquiet is constant reference to “families”.
Now, it all depends on how “family” is defined. To give it its most emancipated definition, one could consider it to include any social group, irrespective of either gender mix or domestic arrangements. But I somehow think that what the politicians mean in this context is something rather more restricted.
Certainly, I get the impression that a Family means more than one person living under the same roof. This needs to be further delimited, I think, to exclude dwellings in multiple occupation, yet maybe to include friends, siblings and same-sex relationships.
Somehow, though, I continue to receive the very strong impression that Family means a unit of Mum, Dad, children: a very stereotypical ‘ideal’ of a domestic unit.
Despite the fact, I have the good fortune to have never lived by myself, I feel quite insulted by this. The message I am getting is: unless I can conform to this stereotype, my issues are judged to be of less importance in this election than those of “The Family”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Families (whoever they be defined) of course deserve due consideration when politicians formulate and disseminate their intentions, but not to the detriment of Everyone Else.
A lot of my arguments here are very dependent on the definition of “The Family”. But I think it is fair for me to point out that such a definition has been so very ambiguous (not to say absent) during this campaign (and in fact for some time) that it has been left wide open to both interpretation and offence.
The mainstreams in this election are all guilty of this to varying extents but it is the Conservatives who have put their money where their mouth is with the Couples’ Tax Allowance.
If David Cameron wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be Single.
Hi Phil - I *have* been reading, I assure you, just not moved to reply to anything yet.
ReplyDeleteBut on this one, I'm wondering if you, given your profession, are referring to the fiscal effects on single people? I mean sure, I can see that if you decide to give an advantage to someone (married couples, say) then those not in that group will be the ones that pay for that, hence, us bachelors!
But do you mean something more insidious as well - that I certainly had not picked up on - that of all the possible "household types" they have some moral disapproval for single households, rather than, say, assuming they are no longer the nasty party, same-sex couples or some other less "traditional" family unit (as if the nuclear family is terribly traditional!)?
excellent post Phil. I think what you are saying is more than fiscal, yes?
ReplyDeleteThanks guys. The message I am getting is that the most important people in this election is Mum, Dad and 2.4 children and units thereof. The Tories have been careful to avoid having the gender-discrimination finger pointed at them by offering up their tax allowance to married and civil-partnered couples - but I bet they've done that through gritted teeth and out of 'politically correct expediency' - might explain why the amount on offer is actually so small as to be barely worth it anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, that propsosal: just the tip of the iceberg. I could define my family as my partner (tho' we are not in a civil partnership) and my close friends who I see regularly, have dinner, with, go shopping with. However, when the candidates in this election refer to "Hard Working Families" (quite frequently, I feel) I sense that my defintion is not included in that and that, yes, this all refers to soemthing a lot more than fiscal.
And I find it quite sinister.
In fact, Evan's got it right:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/01/marriage-tax-tories-families
and
http://www.dontjudgemyfamily.com/home/Home.html