Andy Duncan on a free vote on gay partnerships.
Following David Carr’s earlier piece, on Conservative plans to raise the UK motorway speed limit to 80mph, further signs are emerging of the Conservatives thawing out their 1950s attitudes, in a ‘what have we got to lose?’ policy shake-out.
In a probable truce with outspoken maverick MPs, like John Bercow, IDS is going to allow a free vote on the government’s planned ‘civil partnerships’ for same-sex couples.
Come on IDS, frighten a few more horses!
I don’t think they’re going to abolish the NHS, the day after a possible Conservative victory, or hold an immediate referendum to leave the EU, but the old paternalism, which puts so many of us off the Conservatives, looks though it may be fading at very long last. Though as Mr Carr might add, let’s see how long it lasts, before we get too excited.
Samizdata.net aficionados, particularly those in same-sex business partnerships, may also be interested in a difficult-to-plug tax spin-off from the planned new gay rights extension. Many in such a position may choose to use the new gay rights as a way to avoid Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax. Shhhhh!!! Don’t tell Gordon.
Congratulations to the UK chambers for having voted (or envisaged to vote ?) the British PACS (sexual orientation legal parity).
Bye bye Oscar Wilde & clause 28.
Hello Peter Thatchell…
Bravo!
Kodiak.
I doubt it will be as easy as just registering. Since there are tax implications, we can look forward to a whole new department of snoopers to enquire into our sex lives using the skills developed by immigration services worldwide in dealing with those who have the effrontery to marry foreigners and expect to be allowed to live in the same country.
Meanwhile I look forward the first claim by a mixed sex couple to take advantage of the scheme on the grounds that it is sex discrimination to deny them.
Guy,
If I’m following what you said, the British PACS is not a civil alliance contract opened to any kind of couples or pairs (gay couple, straight one, or just pairs like: grannie + auntie, brother + sister, friend + friend)?
Is it just intended for gay couples displaying marital life?
Kodiak
Guy Herbert writes:
we can look forward to a whole new department of snoopers to enquire into our sex lives
I was thinking about this, on the way into Paddington this morning, while stuck in the Slough area (thanks Network Rail).
I really don’t think there could be any other name for this new tax enforcement department, other than:
The Bottom Inspectors
The government cannot miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! 😉
Kodiak writes:
Is it just intended for gay couples displaying marital life?
What governments intend, and what they get, are almost always entirely different things.
If you and I were in business together, and especially if we lived in the same property, or nearby to each other, and we had tens of millions at stake, what exactly would stop us going through a “civil registration” ceremony?
Ok, so we might be a bit embarrased. But how many millions of CGT back-tax would it take to buy back this embarrassment?
And how would the government determine whether we were “displaying” marital life? Some married couples are barely on speaking terms with each other, and even if happily married, sometimes live continents apart, one with the children in London, the other with the Russian Gas industry in Siberia. It really would need the introduction of The Bottom Inspectors to figure it out in same-sex couples.
It could happen, I suppose, but I think even this current government would shy away, albeit for a few years, from the institution of such an intrusive government department. In the meantime, a lot of people will take the tax advantage and run.
Of course, the best way to rid of this advantage is to abolish CGT and Inheritance Tax, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that particular move, especially from this appalling government.
Firstly let me say that I don’t watch Coronation Street but I rememeber Mark and Lard on Radio1 saying there was to be a story line where one of the characters had a lodger staying in his council house and they both had to pretend to be gay so the council wouldn’t throw the lodger out. lol
Hi Andy & thanx for your explanations.
Just I think I don’t quite get the point.
What’s CGT? (in Fr that’s the most powerful communist-like union…).
About the British PACS.
In Fr if you want to be pacsed (eg: two people signing a “civic alliance contract”), no civil servant will knock on your door to check whom you’re sleeping with cause the contract (called PACS) is intended for:
1/ me & my father
2/ your sister & her neighbour
3/ grandson & grandma
4/ gay couples
5/ straight couples
6/ unrelated individual who prefer to opt for a kind of light civil alliance.
(Although 80% of pacsed people are actually gay couples).
So the British PACS is not something universal, but rather a tax-oriented system that wants inquisitory & potentuially painful enquiries…
That’s not good.
Write to your MP.
Kodiak.
The state simply has NO business registering relationships or deciding which are or are not approved. For all I care people can marry their cat if they want.
If in a fit of complete derangement I ever decide to get married again, I will certainly not inform the state that I have done so. It is none of their frigging business.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“For all I care people can marry their cat if they want.”
Why does this idea suddenly seem strangely appealing?
Apologies Kodiak,
CGT: Captial Gains Tax (mentioned briefly in the original piece), where you have to hand the state 40% of any profit you make on something like a sale of a business property (or shares).
The point is that for many years, the UK Conservative Party has shown strong homophobic tendencies, and that this is the first time I can recall when they’ve receded from an instinctive anti-gay position, which indicates to me, as an occasional fellow traveller of the blue-rosetted ones, that something deeply significant is taking place within the bowels of Central Party HQ, in Smith Square. For the better.
It’s a shame that it’s on a policy which includes the assumption that it’s the state’s right to determine what is, or is not, an “appropriate” relationship, but the recognition that we are all human beings, regardless of sexual orientation, is a big step for this moribund organisation, and I applaud the motivation, if not all of the actual policy details.
Now they’ve got this off their chest, they can get forward to the real issues. Like abolishing the NHS, abolishing the State schools system, and abolishing our links with the EU. Now that really would be an opposition worth voting for! 😉
G Cooper writes:
Why does this idea suddenly seem strangely appealing?
I reckon you must’ve been watching too much Wimbledon, Mr Cooper! 😉
Andy,
With you on the tax/gay/tory/applaud stuff.
But for the rest (bye-bye EU, NHS & school-placement etc), you need to find a new America to launch a new society where…
Why not try Mars? Or Corsica (if you want it).
Kodiak.
But Kodiak,
As Becky will tell you, I only have a holiday-home here on Earth. My permanent residence is already on Mars. Or, for the full address:
1, The Caldera,
Summit Street,
The Crater District,
Olympus Mons,
MARS,
M1 1TC
We’ve got a lovely view of Valles Marineris, and Pavonis Mons, to the south, and on a clear day, from the summit, we can see all the way east to the Amazonian and Acidalian basins, and the tax breaks are … wait for it … OUT OF THIS WORLD!!! 😎
You don’t know what you’re missing! 🙂
Rgds,
AndyD
Do I really…
That was enchanting.
Kodiak.
Pedantic note. (Whenever otherwise?)
CGT is a bit wider than Andy suggests, it doesn’t just apply to business property but to all property except one’s principal residence. It’s just that outside business very few people exceed the threshold each year.
And it doesn’t just apply to sales, but “disposals”. Incautiously give your children a spare house and you may end up paying 40% of the increase in its value since you bought it. Die promptly of the shock, and they’ll have to find 40% of the total value in inheritance tax… Skoolznospitals!
OK I see what you mean: plus-values fiscales.
I’m not too sure, but here even the main residence is CGT-taxable.
And the calculation is weired: applying a percentage on the nominal taxable amount is not enough for our consummate Treasury fonctionnaires (civil servants)…
Kodiak