it’s good of Cameron to be inclusive but shouldn’t he go the whole hog and open CP to straight people and marriage to LG people?
In any case, bribing people seems a strange and cynical way to incite people to commit to each other.
That’s good to hear. No better than what Labour or the Lib Dems are offering of course but seeing as it is the Tory Party I suppose the fact that they are not being homophobic is newsworthy.
Now let’s hope that the bigot Iain Duncan Smith is relieved of his responsibilities of mending Britain’s ‘broken society’. That tosser is after our rights through his sinister activities with the Centre for Social Justice.
Smith wants to
Smith wants to reduce the parental right of non-biological gay parents. He is a hardline catholic.
he is absolutely unsuited to a role in charge of families.
Don’t expect LGBTory to mention it though as they don’t seem to care about LGBT people. Their function is to divert attention from the nastier elements the Tories – like Duncan Smith and Philippa Stroud for example.
I’m not convinced that this tax break is sensible priority overall. Even of married couples do do better it is hard to isolate cause from effect. (I say that as someone who is basically pro marriage BTW).
That said, it at least shows basic decency and common sense to include gay civil partners, and where Tories oare concerned that at least is something.
That said, the fact that the question even needs to be asked is yet another reason to replace CPs with marriage.
The hard thing about DC is that a man who says just about anything to appeal to people ends up being a heartbreaker… you have to weigh who his cabinet & you can begin to understand.
he includes gay people in his definition of marriage as though marriage and CPs are just the same – so why not make them so? Make civil marriage gender neutral. I care about that more than tax breaks.
They can’t afford the tax breaks. It’s a bungled combination of bribery to the wider electorate and appeal to their Tory ‘pro-family’ base. My bet is that they won’t happen for anyone; a perverse form of equality.
Why don’t the Conservative party come out with Same-Sex full marriage and besides, what would these tax breaks amount to, if one is also supporting his spouse.
Nobody should be fooled by Cameron’s desire to extend tax incentives to same-sex couples who have a civil partnership as well as married people. This old Tory idea – that that marriage and the nuclear family are the solution to our ‘broken society’, saving us from everything from paedophilia to gun crime – is complete nonsense. It implies that unmarried and single people are to blame for social problems and should therefore have to pay compensation through higher taxes to anyone living the married-with-children lifestyle.
Cameron’s so-called ‘pro-family’ agenda is nothing of the sort: record numbers of marriages are failing and the nuclear family is where women and children are most likely to be physically, emotionally and sexually abused. Ironically the safest place for a child to grow up free from sexual and physical abuse is with two women (but you will not hear Cameron talking about the merits of same-sex parenting). Cameron’s policy is really a smokescreen for policies that would redistribute wealth from single, divorced and unmarried people (who are more likely to be from poorer backgrounds) to richer married people and as such is shameless theft.
Janmes is, I think, right. What little we know of their proposals (and DC doesn’t seem to know much himself) the tories would be giving about £30 pa to low income families, and £300 to the better off, and then only if one partner is working. Really modern stuff, huh? Given the costs of getting a divorce, this is hardly likely to be a marriage saver, and nor, for that matter an incentive to we gayers to tie the civil knot. And it’ll clearly do bugger all for child poverty.
To defend Ian Duncan Smith for a moment (and I surprise myself by typing that) the CSJ reported last year that investment should be made in working tax credits and social support for marriage – counselling and the like.
So I fear the already confused tootlings of DC’s trumpet herals very little of any benefit to gay couples, though it is of course very nice of him to remember them.
Tax breaks for married people are nothing more than a vile piece of discrimination against single people. The cost of living per person as a cohabiting married couple is actually much lower than the cost of living for a single person on their own.
Besides which, it seems patently absurd that offering financial incentives will encourage people to value marriage as a social institution. If you have to bribe someone to do something, it doesn’t say much for the esteem in which that something is normally held.
In fact, if you really wanted to encourage people to view marriage as a solemn, loving and binding committment in itself, you would be best advised to put a financial DISincentive on it. That way people would only marry if they felt the social, cultural and personal value of doing so outweighed the financial penalty.
According to a senior Tory MP said. “He wants to manoeuvre us (Gordon) into a position where we are seen to be voting against motherhood and apple pie. So rather than vote against the Equality Bill as a whole we try to change it later.
What dearest David forgot to tell us is that the law forbids discrimination between marriage and civil partnerships in matters of taxation. He would have to do what he has just triumphantly announced, no matter what!
The fact that he has to think about giving CPs the same breaks proves just how unequal and different they are. Its like an afterthought, oh yes, we have to do something for civil partnerships too. What a ridiculous situation that he regards civil partnerships as marriages but doesn’t have the courage to make that the law, then we wouldn’t have any arguments about it. Another one in denial. Why doesn’t the gay voting block make full marriage equality a campaign issue if Cameron is going to be the next PM? Then we’ll see just how much he supports us as he claims he does.
Robert, Zefog’s comment deals with your point. I think Dave’s just trying to be gay-friendly, though I doubt if all of his party agrees with him. As for:
“Why doesn’t the gay voting block make full marriage equality a campaign issue if Cameron is going to be the next PM?”
Not enough of us care? Or think that other issues happen, at the moment, to be significantly more important?
This is the same man he did his utmost to stop Section 28 being repealed. Conservative- the clue is in the name. I suspect they will bring back a back door version of Section 28 if elected, probably call it the Family Values Act or something.
Take a long hard think about what this government has done for you as a gay person, then….if you’re old enough…think what the tories [many of whom are still in parliament and in his circle of power] did for you before 1997. I wont be fooled by the PR man.
Vincent Poffley: “Tax breaks for married people are nothing more than a vile piece of discrimination against single people. The cost of living per person as a cohabiting married couple is actually much lower than the cost of living for a single person on their own.”
Precisely. The whole point of the family, as I think the Tories see it, is it binds society together, and marriage acts as something of a binding commitment. They are are many families today who aren’t married, but this can mean either one of them can up-sticks and go at the drop of a hat.
I think as Iris pointed out, if they want this whole thing to work, they are just going to have to define “married” as a legally binding contract between two people, irrespective of their sex, religion or faith. Only once they make a level playing field for all concerned will it demonstrate their true sincerity to getting this country’s social problems rectified.
Nobody should be fooled by Cameron’s desire to extend tax incentives to same-sex couples who have a civil partnership as well as married people.
Yes James I believe you are absolutely right.
This is a very fine example of the AND theory of conservatism. which the Conservative party have learned from the Republican party in the US along with much else.
The AND theory allows you to make a right wing idea sound progressive because of an inclusion.
Here the right wing idea is that the tax system is to be used to advantage married couples but this is made to look progressive by including civil partnerships. So, you can see the AND:
Married couples AND civil partnerships
If people like me complain that it is not the role of the tax system or government to define a supposed morality for people, favouring marriage, the response is, “well it includes civil partnerships as well”.
I feel that Iain Duncan Smith will be introducing much more like this if the Conservative Party comes to power in the UK.
In the Thatcher and Post-Thatcher years the Conservative Party has come to embrace very much the ideas within the United States Republican Party. This is to be liberal on financial issues and conservative on social issues. From this perspective the state is removed from society financially, so there is reduction in tax and cuts in the spending. However the state is used to enforce a morality on society. Financial advantages are created for those with a lifestyle the government approves of. Legislation is used to protect conservative ideologies such as religion.
Another excellent example of the AND theory being put in practice was the recent blasphemy legislation introduced in the Republic of Ireland. This was commonly reported in the UK as if it were the politics of the past entering the present but in fact it was an implementation of the new means by which conservativism is to be implemented.
In the Republic of Ireland the leading party, Fianna Fail promoted this legislation on the basis that it will protect the Catholic Church AND other religions such as Islam, Hinduism etc.
From an Irish perspective this did seem progressive because the state is to recognise a validity in religions other than the Catholic Church.
This explains perhaps how the legislation had the support of the Irish Green Party. That Fianna Fail were behind this came as no surprise, but to actually put it through the Irish parliament against the Fine Gael opposition required additional support which came from the Irish Green Party.
It would be very foolish if we were to look at Ireland and say to ourselves “that can’t happen here”.
Apparently a UKIP MEP has left the EFD group, because she felt uncomfortable sitting with some of Europe’s most homophobic parties. our Dave doesn’t seem to share those concerns though.
Did someone intentionally chose that photo of Cameron, or are my hormones just acting up?
Confirmation if confirmation was needed that the whole “gay marriage” thing is a reactionary objective pursued by sky god-bothering fifth columnists in the lgbt “movement”.
“Please sir, can we have state approval for our relationships, we promise we’ll abide by your rules and assimilate?”
While I’m cautiously optimistic about David Cameron’s claim to have changed his view when it comes to gay rights, I do not trust the Shadow Cabinet or Conservative party grassroots supporters. I hope we have a minority Conservative government or a hung parliament so that the Tories do not have the power to erase some of the equality the laws that have been passed throguhout the last decade. The one I am most concerned about is the right to adopt. That might be at threat under the Tories.
NigelW, I don’t doubt Dave’s sincerity, however, in the absence of the economic woes, unemployment, the wars in the middle east, I don’t think for a moment marriage equality would be on anyone’s agenda, voluntarily. Its up to us to make that happen and to get the support of progressive straight allies on board, excluding any interference from Stonewall which doesn’t think its an important issue and which has no concept just exactly what full equality means.
“We will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and a man”
I wish this were true and the tories would recognise MARRIAGE between same-sex couples.
However, the tax breaks for married people is a terrible policy because it will increase the gap between rich and poor. Marriage is far more common in the middle classes and cohabitation is far more common in the poorer working classes. It will also financially penalise widows, abandonned spouses etc. It will stigmatise children of unmarried parents.
I simply don’t see why this measure is necessary. We had our civil partnership in 2006. It wasn’t because of money – and I would much rather see money go to hard-up families with kids than comfortably off gay OR straight couples who happen to have got married or civil partnered
“We will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and a man, in the tax system – and yes, that is a commitment.”
Hmmm, excuse me Mr. Cameron, but can you point me to the civil partnership law where it is written that civil marriage exists and is legal for same-sex couples? Kindly desist from referring to them as such because in reality, they are not, unless you’re going to change the law to recognise them as such, though I doubt that will ever happen, no matter who wins on May 6. FULL equality is not going to happen in our country, ever.