WHO NEEDS KIDS?:

On the childcare bandwagon, pushing granny off the bus (Muriel Gray, 2/22/04, Sunday Herald)

[Michael] Howard has now decided to put behind him that old Conservative mantra that single mothers are the greatest living threat to civilisation as we know it, and instead make a concerted effort to win round the lactating vote. The proposal on the table is that a Conservative government would pay mothers to stay at home for three years and look after their children instead of returning to work, basing the policy on the Finnish model, under which mothers are paid £150 per month to stay at home and another £50 for each subsequent child. Parents on the poverty line receive an extra £100, but the basic rate is paid to all, irrespective of income.

Let’s put aside for a moment the naked desperation of the Tories, who would clearly say or do anything to get a sniff of power again, and examine this new attempt at winning public support. They’re not alone in thinking that the plight of the working mother is a vote winner, with the government also raking around in the issue of childcare, no doubt to see if it can salvage some votes from a disillusioned electorate still disgusted with Labour following the disaster of Blair’s Iraq campaign.

Clearly both parties think it essential that the taxpayer takes more responsibility for the upbringing of children in families where parents need or wish to work. What has not been examined in any great detail is why. A decent society, when it works, is a marvellous tool for delivering practical altruism even when the motives are selfish. For instance, a very rich, bitter and misanthropic individual might nevertheless see the sense in subsidising the poor, even though he despises them, since at its most simple such a course of action may mean that the community he lives in will be less likely to suffer from crime and his quality of life may therefore be improved overall. His tax pounds to fund education and support for the poverty-stricken are therefore no less effective, even if they’re given for the wrong reasons.

So when it comes to the taxpayer subsidising parenting, there must be similarly positive benefits for all, including the childless, or else it’s a hard policy to justify. So what are the benefits? [...]

Chameleon man Howard might think that this bandwagon is a clear winner, but he should be careful. Having a child is a lifestyle choice, not a right, and not everyone believes that the parents of healthy bouncing babies are the most down-trodden and wretched victims in society.

Ms Gray's main objection--funding single mothers--is easily dealt with: only give the money to married couples. The rest is just that strange Leftish hatred of propagating the species. Lifestyle choice?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2004 9:21 AM