HomePage Economy Europe Crime Environment Foreign Health Family Housing Education Government Transport Consumers Asylum Media


Mainstream recognises the Family as the basic unit of society. This needs to be reflcted in all Tax and benefits policies. In particular, we'd allow married couples - if both spouses agreed - to be taxed as a single unit, instead of two single individuals as they are now under Tory rules.

Remember Cameron's pledge to give some 'help' to married couples? The Cameron 'help' is a pathetic fudge, smothered in T & Cs - one spouse can get only one-tenth of the other spouse's personal allowance - and then ONLY if their income is below a certain amount, blah, blah, blah.

Mainstream would do what Cameron promised to do and should have done: Families where the husband and wife register to be taxed as one unit, would get a double personal allowance to share between them. So both spouses together would now (2018) have a combined personal allowance of £23,700. The couple would themselves nominate one of them - either husband or wife - to fill in all forms on behalf of the family.


Mainstream wants a new constitution, and that will include the legal definition of marriage as between One Man and One Woman.

Why do we want this? Because that's what marriage has always meant - through the whole million years of human history on this planet; in every continent on the planet; in every country; in every society that's ever existed; in every religion. Nobody ever thought same-sex marriage was necessary or desirable, even though in the old days, there were probably a small number of homosexuals. They didn't ask for or even think about the possibility, of same-sex 'marriage'. Why has it suddenly become so important and necessary, just in the last ten years?

If two people of the same sex - two women, two men - want to live their whole lives together, sleep in each others' arms, buy a house together, inherit their partner's property when one of the pair dies - they can do all that without 'marriage'. Marriage MUST be reserved for what it has always meant - one man and one woman, joining together to start a family. No politician , no preacher, no philosopher has the power to re-define an institution that's so basic to humanity. So the tiny minority who asked Cameron's Tory-LibDem regime for same-sex 'marriage', and got what they asked for, like Christmas came early - need to accept that, (like David Cameron), they're on the wrong side of history. Deal with it. And move on. End of.

We would give some warning beforehand, so any same-sex 'weddings' already in the planning stage, would still be able to go ahead. After a reasonable time, say six months, they would have to stop. All couples who've done the same-sex ceremony will be allowed to keep their 'marriage certificates' at home as souvenirs. However these certificates will have no legal meaning and records of them will be deleted, they won't be able to be used in obtaining any goods or services.


A previous New Labour administration quietly changed the law to allow same-sex couples (pairs of men or pairs of women) to adopt and foster small children, even though the public was overwhelmingly opposed to this. Many of the children who come up for adoption are already emotionally disturbed or have witnessed violence and abuse. What chance have these children got of developing normally when they're placed into a "family" where there's two "Dads" and no Mum; or two Mums and no Dad? You could hardly say this is normal, all children need a Mum and a Dad.

In the case of same-sex couples of two men, there's an extra concern that the polticians don't seem to care about; which is that these male "couples" nearly always request to be given boys - not girls. Why? If these men are trying to experience "fatherhood" (without really being fathers) - surely they should be equally happy to adopt girls, as boys. Why do they always ask for boys? I'm not insinuating anything sinister is happening, but the question does need to be asked.

We'd prefer that all same-sex adoption and fostering, comes to an end. Before critics say this is discriminatory against homosexals, no it is NOT because Mainstream would disallow adoption by ANY same-sex couple, even if they are just two normal men who live together (like two brothers, a father and son, two friends and so on).

The children who've been 'farmed out' to these couples by local councils, would be either returned to their own natural family or put into adoption care with a normal married couple.


Most people feel that divorce has become too easy - and easy divorce benefits only men: the husbands in a marriage. It makes it easy for a husband to dump a middle-aged wife, and replace her with a 'younger model'. Women get no benefit from divorce being too easy. We'd make a longer wait before a divorce can be considered.

Also to stop 'Divorce Tourism' , any couple who didn't get married in the UK, and want a divorce, would have to return to the country of marriage to get their divorce, OR ELSE to divorce in Britain, they'd have to pay all the legal costs themselves.


We would like to end the practice of 'surrogate motherhood' - womb-renting which treats babies as commodities to buy and sell. That needs to be a specific offence - Surrogacy.


Now it takes months - even years - to go through the adoption process. Prospective parents have to register with a Local Authority - they have to be 'screened' to see if they are 'suitable'.  They have to be the same 'ethnic match' as the baby they want to adopt.  (Even though, if they were able to have their own child, this could quite easily be a different colour from the parents).

In some cases, the children meet their adoptive parents when they are two or three, but by the time they've gone through all the hoops and red-tape, the child is two years older and has changed . The Child's interest should come first - not the Local authority's interest.  These people forget that for young children, time passes more slowly than for the rest of us. One month to a small child, is like one year to a grown-up. So the priority with adopting children is not to get a colour-match!  It's to get these babies adopted QUICKLY, QUICKLY, QUICKLY.   MAINSTREAM would do that, removing the process from local authority control, allowing the couples to take the babies to an Adoptions registrar, who would be able to liase directly with the police and with Interpol.  The couple would be interviewed in front of FOUR  witnesses, and the interview recorded on video.  They would be warned that the sentence for making a false statement, would be a ten-year prison sentence, with immediate effect, and no bail. They would be asked if they accepted this. The registrar would then check up if they were a genuine married couple, with no serious criminal record, and not on the sex-offenders register. The register would run a check, that the baby was not a missing child in Britain or in any other country.  If all went well, they would be taking their child home at the latest, ten weeks later with a certificate of adoption.


We've got the highest number of children stuck in Children's homes, of any country in Western Europe. We've all seen, in the recent revelations concerning Jimmy Savile and other offenders against children, how vulnerable children are to predators when they're in residential homes - allowed out on the street, at all hours of day and night ; going missing for days on end, with the police and public not being informed; the list is endless and horrifying.

Children in 'homes' are also much more likely to fall into crime, and take drugs. In the case of girls, they're more likely to fall into the hands of abusing gangs. We all know what that means - look at the gangs recently sent to prison in Rotherham, Rochdale and other Northern cities.   Only a proper family - and parents - gives children the proper protection and discipline they need, to have a happy childhood, and grow into well-balanced adults. MAINSTREAM would try to get as many of these children as possible,  OUT of the "homes", and into families - either adopted, or at least fostered.


We've already GOT millions of children's commissioners - they're called MUM and DAD !

We're using taxpayers' money to fund posts with the pompous title 'Children's Commissioner'. There's not just one - there's four! One each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The job spec is like this: 'To be CHAMPIONS for our children, protecting them from harm, supporting their needs, fostering their healthy and safe development into the adults of the future'. In Scotland it's worse, their devolved administration is planning to pay for thousands more commissioners - a named person allocated to each child. Scary. Like we're back in the East Germany of the STASI informers.

But hold on - haven't we already got adults whose job is exactly that? One 'named person' for every child? We've already GOT that, even better most families have TWO 'named persons' for each child. Their names are MUM and DAD. Children's 'commissioners' ? Every child in the UK already has children's commissioners. They're called MUM and DAD.


Childhood is supposed to be a time of innocence - without pressures, to be enjoyed before the worries and responsibilities of teenage and adulthood come along. In the last 20 years this innocence has been eroded, by commercial interests (who want only to make money, and don't care if children are harmed). They're trying to turn children into adults at an earlier and earlier age - which keeps on getting younger. They do this through Television, online and by some stuff sold in stores.   MAINSTREAM would stop the commercial sexualisation of young girls which is taking place eg in some clothing stores, and make social media sites do some checking on the age of their users, so they know their true ages which is important for the content they make available to the child. It's bad enough that Facebook sets a minimum age of only 13 to sign up - but then it totally fails to enforce even this rule, not even doing a sample check of say, 1% of new profiles to verfiy the children's ages. So in fact large numbers of 10-year-olds and even 9-year-olds, are signing up to Facebook by giving their age as 13. Unbelievable.

     Also we'd control the controversial sale of children's football strip -  for which the children (or their parents) have to fork out extortionate amounts of money, as they change every season. They're over-priced and there's an easy fix for this: If the football shirt / strip has any ADVERT on - (eg Carling beer, O2, whatever), then the price would be capped by law very low, say £5. The advertiser would have to pay any difference in costs to the football club. If children are going to walk round advertising stuff on their clothes - then it's only fair those companies in the adverts, should pay towards the clothes.

Imagery acknowledgments: All images published are taken from open-source material on the internet or scanned from magazines; political organisations are allowed to use these for instructional purposes or to make a point. We regret we don't have the resources to put acknowledgments alongside every individual image.