The message of the marriage tax: two people good, one person bad

A very odd tax break.

David Cameron believes in marriage. So do I, it would be such a weird thing to make up - so I'm not really sure why it needs a tax break to make it flesh.

The idea of a tax break for married couples has had an on-off relationship with the Conservative party over the years. Right now, Tim Lougton, a rebel Tory MP, has pressured David Cameron into bringing forward proposals to give married people £150 in tax breaks -  the "start of something bigger", says Lougton.

"It’s an important message and it’s also the start of something. £150 is a figure that was plucked out of the air as how it might start; the amendment I’ve been putting forward gives the Chancellor maximum flexibility as to how generous he can be," he told the Today programme.

But Nick Clegg slammed the policy - and I have to say I agree with him. Here's the first thing, whether the start of something bigger or not, £150 really is not very much. Not enough to maintain a loveless marriage over. Probably not even enough to stimulate passionate love where there was none. (My research tells me it took £10,000 a year for Elizabeth Bennet, and that's before inflation). No, the point is, as Cameron said later, it's symbolic. It's an "important message" from the Conservative party, and that message is: two people good, one person bad.

But we know this already. Everyone knows this. Even films know this - it's the key indicator of whether you're watching something arty and highbrow (sad lonely person at end) or something by Richard Curtis (Hugh Grant gets married). This is why people stay in relationships when they're not really sure they're enjoying it any more, or when they're suffering from domestic violence (2 women a week are killed this way).

It's like the Conservative party have become advocates for a 365 day Valentine's day.  Which is great, if you're married, but then it's already great if you're married.

Here's the wider point: we don't need to provide extra motivation for things we are already motivated to do. Policy doesn't always have to be about psychology. Sometimes it should be about support.

The Right often argue that their values are far more in line with our instincts. They're correct - and that's exactly why we need the Left.

David Cameron approves this cake. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496