Dave thinks it’s wrong for you to be alone

Watching Question Time last night I had one of those ‘good god, I’m so angry I just have to blog’ moments. Which when I think about it, is possibly the saddest thing I’ve ever thought and I feel slightly more dead inside as a result. 

David Cameron’s marriage proposals are, at the best of times, confusing. But one thing has been made clear by him and the Tories, they think that marriage is important and wants the state to recognise this. But why should governments be telling us how we should be conducting our personal relationships? Some people don’t want to get married, or don’t want kids, or just haven’t found the right/willing person yet. Why should these people be forced to pay more tax?

Are we going to see other proposals for encouraging marriage in the final draft of the Tory manifesto? If so I’ve got a few ideas that seem just as sensible:

 - A minimum pricing system on ready meals for one
 - Annual pornography limits
 - New regulations that ensure all tubs of Ben and Jerry’s are sold with two spoons
 - A government official to sit opposite you in restaurants and point and laugh (department to be privatised in 2012)
 - A new ‘Makeover Tsar’ (Gok Wan?) to issue government advice on what shirt goes with that jacket.
 - Banning single friends from sharing cinema tickets on ‘Orange Wednesday’
- Maximum of two cats per single Woman over 35

All of this would probably have a far greater impact on relationships than a small tax penalty for not being married with kids. Some of it would probably be bloody cheaper too.

The fact is, that there are many different households that exist within our society. If someone wants to be married, then fair play to them. I don’t think there is anyone I have ever met who is ‘anti-marriage’, but some people just feel that it ‘isn’t for them’. That is their business. Not the governments.

Cameron claims that this is about children. But there are many, many couples and individuals who are perfectly capable of raising children without a ring and a piece of paper that tells them that they are a ‘state recognised couple’.

One of the amazing things that has happened within our society within the last few years is the fact that relationships have become far more about choice rather than what is expected. Fifty years ago, if a girl got pregnant, she would be expected to marry the man and be with him for life, regardless of either of their wishes in this process. That isn’t the case now. If they don’t want to stay together, they don’t. If they get together, and ten years later decide they don’t want to be together anymore, they have that option.

That is something that is welcome. Bringing a child up in a relationship which has long since failed is not a suitable atmosphere for any family.

For the Conservatives to attempt to use the tax system to start encouraging one form of relationship over another is an about turn on this. Our society has long since freed people from the expectation of having a ‘right and wrong’ way of bringing up a child, and this is not something that we should ever consider reversing.

The fact is, not only is this policy social engineering, it’s also discriminatory. By giving financial penalties to single people and couples who do not want to, or cannot have children you are essentially telling this section of the community “the state does not deem your lifestyle as being worthy of reward”.

I want to say it’s not for the state to try to influence my lifestyle, but of course the state does try this, by telling us to drink less, eat better and not to smoke. But I’m ok with this, not because I think it’s the states business if I want seven Big Macs, fifteen pints and a cigar, but because the state will pay when I need a heart transplant a result.

But how I decide on my living arrangements is nothing to do with the government. It has no impact on them. If I want to live on my own, then the tax system should not stop me. If I want to live with a partner, married or otherwise, the government should not stop, or encourage me. If I want to live with a Kangaroo and a Filipino drag queen named ‘Rio’, that’s up to me. Not Ministers.

At least have the balls to be honest with us about this Dave. This isn’t about the future for our children, this is about two things:

1. Appealing to Daily Mail readers. Don’t say it isn’t. That’s the same reason you want an immigration cap.
2. The outdated views of the Conservative Party, which still believes it knows what is best for individual people. And lets not forget, that gay couples can’t have children so even if they’re married, they won’t get this tax break.

If the Conservatives really want to help children get a better start, then don’t try and use financial penalties to keep families together. Let families separate if that is what is best for those individuals. Instead, put the money into helping those families which live in poverty by taking the lowest earners out of tax. Poverty has a far bigger influence on a child’s future than it’s parents martial status. By all means use my tax money to help children, but on the grounds of need rather than ideals.

But don’t tell me that because I’m not married and I don’t have a kid that the state does not think I deserve some sort of recognition. Because quite frankly, I don’t want recognition from you anyway.

So from all those who don’t believe in marriage, don’t want kids, can’t have kids, want to live with someone of the same sex or are just too damn ugly to get someone – piss off Dave. I’ll live my life how I want, regardless of what you think.

Related posts:

1. The BBC was right, the Anti-fascists were wrong
2. Tories on wrong end of public opinion on expenses
3. The wrong Minister