Equal Parenting Alliance News – May 2007
© 2007 The Equal Parenting Alliance Party
DEBATE
Page 3
I’ve been constantly surprised by the number of people who have said what we are trying to do is a waste of time. Usually the reason given for this is the fact that we will not get elected.
Of course, at this stage, it’s extremely unlikely that we will get elected, but that is not why we are standing, as we have already said.
A similar debate continues about whether it makes more sense to join/form a single issue party like the Equal Parenting Alliance, or to join one of the other major political parties and try and influence them from within.
I don’t see this as an issue. Both approaches are perfectly valid and I see nothing wrong in people doing either (or both).
We would fully support someone joining another party and trying to get change within it and if we could help them in any way, then we would.
We have always believed that a complementary approach is necessary to achieve our goals, if only because the problems we face are so immense.
We are not competing with anyone whose basic goals are compatible with ours – even if we don’t agree with every subtle point difference between our policies. Why do these other groups have to see everything as a competition between groups?
However, after saying this, below are some of the reasons we believe our party approach is the right choice for us.
Join EPA or join another party?
Clarity of Purpose – By running as a separate party we keep our cause and issues clear and in the foreground. Our message is in no danger of being diluted.
We keep Control – In our Scottish election campaign our leaflet projected exactly the message we wanted to convey. It’s very unlikely that another party would give so much space to issues of family law.
Guarantee of Exposure – Even if another party can be persuaded to adopt good policies, there’s no guarantee that they will actively promote or pursue them.
For example, at the last general election the Conservative party had a good set of family law policies, including a presumption of contact and abolition of CAFCASS. (These were chiefly due to the influence of Theresa May, who has a good measure of the issues).
However, during the election campaign, the Tories did not mention these policies once to
our knowledge. It seems they saw them as an electoral liability and believed they might risk losing the women’s vote.
We, of course, can afford to be bold, in fact there’s no point in having these policies if we’re afraid to promote them!
Continuity – We believe the movement for better parenting for children after parental separation deserves to continue and be seen to progress. Hiding away inside another party creates the impression the problems have gone away.
Personal Commitment – I can’t imagine working within another party where most of the issues would be a diversion from the issues I think really need addressing.
Plus – Maybe one day our kids will thank us for this too “I joined the EPA ten years ago to fight for you, and I’m still here fighting for those other children now”.
Why the EPA approach is just better!
United Equal Parenting Conference June 16 & 17 – Advance Notice
A conference to discuss the best interests of the child, children's rights and equal parenting including mutual support, media campaigning, political lobbying, campaigning and discussion of best practice
Campaigners, authors, well-known figures, charities and organisations have been invited to speak. All views are welcome on how to progress equal parenting. The conference is to encourage the exchange of ideas and contacts and will end with an open discussion of strategy and plans.
Saturday, 16th June and Sunday, 17th June 2007 Reading, Berkshire
