Is marriage really better than any other type of relationship?

Tax-breaks would send a clear signal.

There has been a flurry of infighting in the government over the last week over social policy as Tory MPs piled the pressure on the PM to introduce marriage tax breaks, in part, to “buy off” the Tory right who are squeamish about gay marriage. 

The tax has since been ruled out for the 2013 budget but Tory leadership still promise to bring it in before the end of this parliament. The marriage tax break would be worth about £150 a year. It would go to around a third of married couples: only those where one person (whisper it – the man) is the breadwinner and the other (whisper it – the woman) is the homemaker. A tax break to incentivise this 1950s family model never fails to cause outrage amongst those of us who believe the government has absolutely no right to judge our families.

The Don’t Judge My Family campaign was flooded with emails from those who would lose out: the one in four children who grow up in a single parent family, widows and widowers, victims of domestic violence who leave violent marriages, those couples where both have to work simply to make ends meet, and those who simply choose not to be married. After all, it’s 2013! All of them share real anger that the marriage tax break is telling them their family is not the right kind of family. How dare David Cameron tell them that?

Last, the marriage tax break would cost over half a billion pounds a year. The Tories themselves admit it is to “send a signal” about marriage. That’s a very expensive signal to send. If they were really serious about supporting families rather than pandering to the right, they’d use that money to save SureStart centres and other essential services which are being slashed up and down the country. 

 David Cameron wants to “send a signal” that marriage is better than any other type of relationship. Sign up to send a signal back: don’t judge my family.

 
You shouldn't judge a family. Photograph: Getty Images

Josie Cluer is the Campaign Director of Don't Judge My Family.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496