Quantcast
Channel: Platform 10 » Marriage
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 6

Equal marriage is turning into the 50p tax rate

0
0

 I wasn’t really intending to return to the issue of equal marriage again; we’ve said a lot on it and it shouldn’t really any longer be something we’re discussing the principles of. Yet somehow, once again we are. And I think that the proposals made by the government yesterday tell us something quite disappointing about their attitude and the way they make policy.

Equal marriage has been one of the things that the Prime Minister has supported consistently since he was elected leader of the party in 2005. I can’t wholly swear to it but I think during the campaign there was a general assumption (certainly on my part anyway) that civil equality would be one of the things he would introduce in government.

I fully understand that there are some people for whom the entire concept is disagreeable, on whatever grounds. On Tuesday night I heard an extraordinary snippet on Iain Dale’s radio show – an interview with a man called Jim – the reaction to which afterwards showed just how few people still think that way.

But there are many many more for whom it really isn’t an issue of anything much, and who see it as a natural part of moving towards a more equal society. Policy Exchange’s fantastic Northern Lights report and other polling by Populus (as explained by David Skelton) shows us that far from being an issue only of concern to a ‘metropolitan elite’ as Liam Fox suggested, it has even greater support in, for example, the North East, Yorkshire and the West Midlands than in London. Because let’s face it, these days everyone knows gay people and – shock, horror – we’re all the same really.

Given that this government is going to introduce full equal marriage, which is a very Conservative idea both because stable marriage is a Good Thing and because we believe everyone is equal (or should be treated so) before the law, the way it has been handled is… surprising. They have been back and forth on whether it would be civil only, with opt-out or with opt-in for religious institutions, or whether it would be a full-on free for all, with individual churches (etc) being able to hold or not as they pleased, in the same way that individual ministers (etc) can choose whether or not to celebrate a religious marriage for divorced couples.

But in the end, we got a ridiculous mish-mash which has pleased very few. Those of us who wanted full equality with religious freedom are somewhat surprised that the Churches of England and Wales are specifically excluded. Those who wanted no religious involvement – only civil – are angry that any religious institution can choose to celebrate an equal marriage. Those who didn’t want equality at all are fuming. And those of us who watch politics are once again critical of the handling and the decisions made.

It’s rather similar to the way the 50p tax rate was reduced. I don’t think a 50p tax rate is a good thing but it was a political trap and the Conservatives walked straight into it. But they didn’t leap over it – which they could have done if they had, for example, reduced it back down to 40p AND raised the threshold (I accept this costs money – which is why we should have said we would do it in the future, and paid for it by addressing pensioner benefits, for example). But splitting the difference with a 45p rate meant they took all the political heat, don’t get any useful political credit and while it may well raise more money than the 50p rate did (I’m not sure anyone can really tell as the 50p rate was in for so short a time which allowed much shifting of income) probably doesn’t raise much more than the 40p rate.

If the government believes something is right, it should do it. Not mess about trying to buy off one group or another and not keep promising it and then half-delivering. Governing is about the best interests of the country, not about half-listening to everyone and pleasing no-one.

I, like most sensible people, think that the anti-equal marriage feeling will have largely dissipated in a few years, and rather like the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and the introduction of civil partnerships, we’ll look back and think, why ever did we get so terribly worked up about it? All that the current messy compromise means is that, once again, we will have to revisit the issue in a few years (as we have done with the original civil partnerships legislation) because, fundamentally, it IS a question of freedom and equality. And those are two principles that Conservatives believe in.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 6

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images