At the weekend, David Cameron pledged the Tories will publish detailed proposals for family and tax law reform before the general election.
Up to now, the party has merely issued vague promises to recognise marriage in the tax system, leading many to question how on earth they intend to fund the tax breaks…
As recently highlighted in the excellent article by Financial Times journalist Chris Cook, many Tories aren’t too happy about their leader’s stance on subsidising marriage through the tax system.
One party official said the people behind the policies have “their hearts are in the right place, but loads of their stuff is ropey.” “They just seem to make up statistics or use dodgy assumptions.”
Another described the proposals as “mostly rubbish” and said senior Conservatives have made some “wholly indefensible claims.”
Perhaps sensing how divisive the proposals had become, Cameron seemed to inch away from them recently. But this only served to alienate the small yet powerful evangelical Christian section of his party.
Consequently, in an unscripted speech to the spring conference in Brighton, Cameron decided to reaffirm his commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples.
It will be interesting to see what response this gets from the electorate. Even more interesting, how will the secular wing of his party react and how much detail will he reveal?
** Additional Information & Advice **
Read more about tax and family law issues on FindLaw.
Alternatively, you may want to speak with a solicitor. You can find a solicitor in your area for free via solicitor matching services, which can also help you to understand the best course of action for your situation and whether you are even ready to a hire a solicitor.
You may also like:
- Media law: Tim Yeo loses Sunday Times libel case
- Discrimination: Report warns that HIV-AIDS crisis being worsened by Commonwealth…
- International: Journalists stand trial in Vatican Holy See scandal
- Telecoms law: Cinema company ‘bewilders’ Church of England by banning…
- In the courts: High Court rules benefit cap discriminates against…