âThese extra "family-friendly" provisions include the extension of paid maternity leave from six to nine months. The complication arises with the proposal to allow fathers up to six months paternity leave (which could be partly paid) during the child's first year, if the mother returns to work during this period. Suffice to say, the administrative problems could be quite horrific.âCould all the people who will lose their jobs and businesses be employed as gender out-reach officers? Surely not.
Of course, it is not all as simple as that. There is the question of the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC), from whose provisions we still have a few derogations that the EU is anxious to get rid of.
In fact, most of the employment legislation to do with maternity, paternity and adoption leave comes from various EU directives and framework directives. In other words, though the Bill is a little coy on the subject of EU legislation, much of it has to be introduced if we do not want to find ourselves in trouble with the ECJ. And there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the way, which is already being taken into account by the ECJ.
âIn addition there has been the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, ratcheted up annually, and a raft of complicated regulations from the EU on anti-discrimination measures, working time, working conditions and information and consultation procedures.Thatâs in addition to all the business-unfriendly legislation introduced by this government, though not entirely off its own bat.
One may have thought this was enough. But no - far from it. The EU, intent on creating a socialist workers' paradise, continues to harass the UK about its opt-out from the compulsory maximum 48-hour week and is undoubtedly going ahead with implementing the employee-friendly Charter of Fundamental Rights.â
Stability must come before tax cuts and, above all,
It is not unreasonable to suggest that tax cuts must be tied in with a reform of public spending and an understanding that it should be limited to those branches of economic and social life that can be done only by the state (these are rather limited). But that is not what Master Georgie is saying.âHe said the Tories would sort out public spending before they promised any tax cuts, but added that stability and a "supply side revolution" would eventually result in growth outstripping spending, leading the way to lower taxes.â
âWe need a new approach that puts fiscal responsibility at the heart of tax and spending decisions. It is called sharing the proceeds of growth.As the economy grows, we will share the proceeds of that growth between spending on public services and reducing taxes.And if the economy doesnât grow because the economic and political climate is not conducive to it? What, then, of the proceeds to be shared?
Over an economic cycle, output will grow faster than public spending. We aim to use the surplus growth to lower taxes.â
The trouble is, ever fewer people believe that the party under Master David Cameron will provide us with a Conservative government. One suspects that this view is being expressed ever more loudly within the party itself. Why else would the Boy-King need to write this?âI believe that our country urgently needs a Conservative government to tackle the challenges we face and to prepare Britain for success in the 21st century.â
âThe next question is perhaps the one I hear most often. Is what we're doing Conservative? Aren't we just turning the party into a pale imitation of New Labour? I am Conservative to the core of my being, as those who know me best will testify.Unfortunately, he does not exactly explain what those Conservative values and responses are beyond saying that they are different from Blairâs top-down ones. But how different?
I'm a Conservative because my instinctive values, and my responses to every political challenge, are Conservative values and Conservative responses.â
âSo in education, for example, while we want to give head-teachers more freedom to run their schools, and ask all parents to take responsibility for their children's education, we also believe that government should show leadership in areas where it can make a decisive difference: synthetic phonics to teach literacy properly; setting by ability to stretch the brightest pupils.âNo choice, no selection, and head-teachers to be given freedom to run their schools within the rules imposed by the government. Ahem, top-down or what?