So, harping back to Question Time last week...if I can remember that far back! I had a good rant about it on Twitter and it was full of controversial discussion about class, race and sexuality. Sometimes I can't believe these issues of equality still come up after all these years.
Speaking of equality. David's proposed Marriage 'payments' or however you want to put it has gotten alot of attention this first week. Here's a little bit from the Guardian;
"Cameron outlined his thinking on marriage and tax..."I think it is essential to say loudly and proudly that commitment is a core value of a responsible society, and that's why we will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man, in the tax system. And yes, that is a commitment."
The Tories have highlighted research showing that married couples are less likely to break up than cohabiting couples. A 2008 paper by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at the University of London found that almost a quarter of unmarried partners break up before their child's fifth birthday. This compares with less than one in 12 married couples.
The tax breaks for marriage will come under attack today from the Liberal Democrats, whose leader, Nick Clegg, will describe them as "patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age".
"Every family is different, and instead of creating rigid rules or special policies that help some families but not others, we need a new approach from government: one that is flexible and doesn't dictate to families how they should live," he will say."
You can read the rest here.
When juxtaposed in such a way, it is difficult to see the positives to this proposal, even with the evidence presented. David said that, "commitment is a core value of a responsible society" but why does this commitment have to be of the marital kind? Can we not have a commitment to our children, our community, each other even without the bit of paper that creates a marriage? Their evidence points to the fact that "married couples are less likely to break up than cohabiting couples" but can I be cynical and suggest that perhaps it's 'easier' for cohabiting couples to separate legally than it is for married couples? Is it obscene of me to suggest that a cohabiting couple and a married couple could be going through a similar break-down and be similarly miserable but the married couple are in a legally bound agreement which is more difficult to 'get out of'? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's any easier for a cohabiting couple to deal with a 'break-up' emotionally or financially. But can you become trapped in an unhappy marriage because of its legal implications? (Answers on a postcard) This is why I question if £150-odd pounds a year that is meant to entice couples to get married, potentially for the wrong reasons, is it really that great an idea? I have to agree with Nick Clegg when he says it is quite patronising and also, can I add, alienating for those of us 'cohabiting'. It's like that old phrase, 'living in sin'? I mean, do the Conservatives think that young people living together are really going to put marriage at the top of their to-do list just because he wants 'commitment' to be a main component of our society. I'm afraid not Mr. Cameron. Yes, it does seem like a dictat. Giving people money, which comes exclusively from this special tax, to me seems wrong. Wrong because it alienates people, me specifically so obviously I will take offense to it. Wrong because it seems like the Conservatives have a problem with families which don't have married parents. What does this say about their tolerance to difference? Just because someone doesn't want to get married.. they don't get this little bit of 'special' money the Government are dishing out.
Next up is a issue that I didn't realise was so important to me until this week. I guess my rant about hung parliaments kind of hinted at this but I have decided that I need to vote for a party that is willing to think about/propose a referendum on changing the voting system. My brain just won't accept First Past the Post anymore I'm afraid. I'm aware of it's benefits, such as providing a strong government and making MPs more accountable...but has it, does it? I am angry that when I vote in a few weeks, my vote will just be part of the make-up of those 'other votes' that Brian Donahoe didn't get. In a Proportional System, my vote would mean a 'collective' something. I guess this stems from the way the Scottish Parliament is elected, where we get a nice choice between our constituency member and our proportionally voted for regional member. I like the idea that if say...20% of the electorate votes for the Lib Dems, then they will get 20% of the seats available. The only counter argument that I would give any heed to is that it makes it easier for extreme parties (the BNP, UKIP(?), Socialists) to get a seat... I may not agree with those parties and be angry they were in Parliament, but that's democracy, right folks?
I've taken about half a dozen of these 'who should YOU vote for?' quizzes online, and I keep getting the Green Party! Not even by a small margin, by a very large one. Now, there is one key problem with this...no-one from the Greens in standing in Ayrshire Central. So, even if I was inclined to vote for them, I can't. This leaves me with my other personal options; the Lib Dems or the SNP. I guess that's a decision I need to make on my own because the quizzes don't have an SNP option...*sigh*
All the main parties manifestos are out and I've only given them a glance over (I didn't even bother with the Torys) so it's decision time soon. Don't forget to watch the first Leader's Debate on domestic policy. It's tomorrow night (Thursday) at 8.30pm on ITV1. I don't know if I've expressed my disdain that this stupid 'debate' thing is happening in the first place, eugh. I'll save that for next time.
I'll do another round-up after that. Back to the books.
Take Care
xx
Legally it's easy to get out of a marriage. Or rather not overly difficult. The concern can be financial. When you gave to go through a divorce ad legally split assets, house etc it gets costly. But this can carry forward to cohabitees. A joint mortgage, married or not causes a cerfuffle. But it gets certainly more complicated from the financial perspective in the case of marriage. Especially since the process of actually ending marriage costs money itself, and ending a relationship (non marital) can be done with a handshake.
ReplyDeleteI personally see nothing wrong with rewarding commitment, it's just that marriage/cp's is really the only tangible way of measuring it, hence the tax break. It would be difficult to prove you were committed to someone for 5 years, so as not to take advantage of the system. If, for example, you and I lived together through uni, whats to stop us saying we're a cohabiting couple to take advantage of the tax break. If we got married however (you should be so lucky :P ), that is a document proving commitment, and if we lied on that document in order to gain benefits such as a tax break, that would be fraudlent. So that's how I see it.
David