But how does this sit with the new, inclusive image of the Conservatives that David Cameron has gone to such lengths to cultivate? And is it just yet another example of a single focused outlook that ignores the interests of the majority of the population?

The pledge comes as speculation mounts that the Government will offer some financial help via extra payments to those in receipt of child benefit or family tax credits to help offset the sharp rise in household energy costs.

With many of Gordon Brown's speeches peppered with references to "hard-working families" – and both parties promising more measures to help the "family-work life balance" – it would appear that the interests of the 14.2 million single people aged over 18 are being completely ignored as the main parties target their policies towards married couples.

The single man or woman living on their own without anyone to share the energy, food, motoring or other bills, or those living with their parents or friends struggling to save for a deposit on a home of their own, is, surely, just as deserving of some relief from rising costs and taxes as traditional families.

There may be plenty of evidence to prove that children from a stable, two-parent married background are more likely to do well and less likely to get into trouble, but is it wise, or indeed possible, to force or sustain unions founded on tax breaks?

The number of marriages in 2006 was the lowest number since 1895 when the population was half what it is now. The fact that the number of people getting married has been on a downward path for 36 years shows that it is hardly a new phenomenon and nothing to do with the Government's tax and benefit policies.

A long-term, societal change is at work, induced by a more prosperous society enabling people to afford to live on their own, increased employment and independence by women and higher expectations for a happy and fulfilled life that do not necessarily depend on being with someone else.

This is not going to be turned around by financial inducements. Instead, politicians should instead work out how they are going to deal with the changing structure of the way people choose to lead their lives rather than trying to engage in social engineering and turn the clock back.

Even if a policy giving fiscal advantages to marriage resulted in a reversal of the trend of the last 36 years, the danger is that the matching rate of increasing divorce will not be reversed.

People involved in a miserable union are not likely to stay together for the sake of £20 extra a week, and neither can it be anyone's interests that they do so. This would only land society with extra costs resulting from family breakdown.

With the number of single people now outnumbering those married for the first time, it is also politically not smart to discriminate against them or ignore their interests. For the Conservatives to talk of ensuring that any new green taxes are counter-balanced by lightening the burden on families will do nothing to endear those not in families who will find themselves just paying extra tax – probably not why they voted Conservative.

It also is in danger of sending a signal to single parents or those who choose to live in what might be deemed unconventional structures that the Conservatives think that you, and the country as a whole, would be better off if you were married.

Previous Conservative administrations and leaderships have been perceived not to be overly tolerant of alternative lifestyles and David Cameron has very successfully managed to rid the party of that stigma. He should be careful now not to unpick that good work.

Indeed, there is an opportunity for the first political leader to gain kudos among 14 million single voters by recognising the contribution made by hard- working singles (figures show that single people work longer hours than married people), especially those hard-working singles who have to pay through their taxes for child tax credits that go to families earning up to £60,000 a year. Not to mention all the extra hours single people have to work to cover for all those who take time off for family duties.

Maybe single people should seek protection from discrimination as a disadvantaged group under the forthcoming Equalities Bill. For a start, all references to bachelor, spinster, singleton, and all other terms which could be offensive to single people, should be banned. Also, no longer allowed should be references that serve to highlight the predicament faced by single people such as "meals for one", "singles holidays" or "lonely hearts column".

No longer will staff be allowed to say "Is it just for one?" as you enter a restaurant making you feel inadequate, and single person supplements on holidays should definitely be made illegal.

In future, single people will be classified as those unfortunate enough to be "relationship impaired" and local authorities will set up departments employing at least 20 people to look after their interests.

Given that single people apparently drink more than married people (not my experience), all the extra tax that they generate should be used to subsidise match making websites, speed dating events and personal advertisements.

This is one financial measure that could just achieve what the politicians want; namely more people getting hitched. But is it the right approach?

That is the question the Conservatives must now answer as they bring forward their
tax plans.


Geoff Lawler was a Conservative MP for Bradford from 1983-87. He now runs The Public Affairs Company,a Leeds-based firm of lobbyists.