I've been having a chuckle at the Tories' latest "policy review" led by Iain Duncan Smith. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that the man has discovered that there is such a thing as a cycle of
devrivation, but some of the policies he's come up with are laughable.
I haven't seen all 190 but if the rest are anything like those reported so far, then the charge that Labour produces too many gimmicks and "initiatives" rings a bit hollow after this. A "V" card
for naughty kids? I know of at least one school who pay particularly troublesome students to behave. Kids are rushing to misbehave so they can get the money. Charity vouchers for 11-year olds? Once
it's "spent", will they remember? Primary schools already do a lot to encourage a social conscience in children.
But it's the centrepiece policy that strikes me as the biggest gimmick of all. Polly
Toynbee has an excellent article in today's Guardian that critiques the whole thing. What strikes me is not only the idea that the first thing a couple whose marriage is on the rocks will
reconsider splitting because they get £20, but that they have this idea that married couples are currently penalised, so in future, unmarried couples should be.
If IDS and Cameron are so concerned about children, why are all married couples getting the £20. I'm sure The two of us could use it, But both our kids are grown up and working. Why should
we get it, and not an unmarried couple, with a steady relationship and children?
I gritted my teeth and looked at the summary of the report and the press release on the Tory Party website. Both are big on describing the problems - so there is such a thing as society -
but NOT ONE of the 190 proposals is mentioned. Surely one or two ought to have been in the launch documents.
Do I detect a lukewarm enthusiasm, David?
| 
Blogs: Grumpy Old Git