What is the perfect gift for someone who has just waded through the sluice tank of divorce? A new set of knives? Directions to one of those places that turn unwanted gold rings into “££££s cash!”? A wardrobe full of clothes, since the lawyers will have relieved said divorc? of the shirt off his back?
Tricky, isn’t it? But there’s good news: Debenhams can help. Behold its new divorce gift list service, in which the newly sundered can specify household items such as ironing boards that they will need for single life in their attic flat in Dagenham East.
Cards are available so that friends won’t commit the faux pas of doubling up on toilet brushes. Best of all, they can have a two-hour chat with a friendly Debenhams “adviser” to ensure that their itinerary covers all essentials and doesn‘t forget the pedal bin, as everyone does.
“Divorce is an expensive business, especially the legal fees”, says a spokeswoman, “and how many people have two toasters, two kettles, two computers etc?”
But oh dear — the Family Educational Trust accuses Debenhams of “cashing in on people’s misery” and glorifying divorce. Other critics have called it a cynical exercise by retailers to find yet another reason for mass “gifting”.
Advertisement
Yes, I think we’d spotted that. But I’d rather buy percale sheets for some poor sod who’s had the crotches scissored out of his trousers or a woman who literally hasn’t a pot to you-know-what in because all the crockery’s been smashed than a pair of smug betrotheds who’ve already been living together in a fully furnished house for five years, have no need of another designer cafetière but bang it on the wedding list anyway just for “topping up” purposes.
A divorce list makes more sense than a wedding list these days because most people no longer get married at age 17 with one spatula and three Argos dinner plates between them.
At least a divorce list is based on need rather than greed, unlike many a wedding list scenario in which some radiant couples, already asking guests to fork out for hotels and perhaps even flights, still have no shame in stinging them for a 60-piece Arthur Price canteen of cutlery. “We’re happy! Use your credit card to make us happier” is the modern wedding list’s directive.
Debenhams isn’t alone in mining divorce’s fruitful seam. A London law firm Lloyd Platt & Company now sells divorce vouchers, starting at £125, which buy unhappy souls half-hour or one-hour advice sessions with a lawyer. (An ideal gift for Valentine’s Day!) It’s all a little bit sad, yes, like those professional divorce parties that come with “Freedom!” L-plates and the new divorc?e “woo-wooing” a tad too shrilly to convince.
Yet it is ironic that at a time at which business is normalising and even validating the non-married status, David Cameron’s Conservative Party is planning, effectively, to restigmatise it. Cameron’s pledge to offer a fiscal bribe to couples who marry has hit some presentation problems in recent days (ie, no one knows what it is or what it‘ll cost), but the moral signal is clear: marriage is something to be aspired to and should be rewarded by government.
Advertisement
Mmm. Do the Tories really feel the best use of their time is trying to manipulate the electorate’s love lives? To engineer rings on to citizens’ fingers? Do they imagine that the status of marriage is an issue that keeps voters awake at night? I’m no policy strategist, but I can’t help thinking that if so, Dave needs to get down the shopping mall more often. People generally don’t give a stuff: they have bigger fish to fry, such as worrying whether they’ll have a pension or if they’ll end their days dribbling in a plastic care-home chair talking to a lamp and wearing someone else’s false teeth.
Let’s be clear: long-term, loving relationships are good for us; they are what most people aspire to. People who are married tend to stay together longer (though that may not be down to the legal paper but because they were more committed types in the first place — the “selection effect”).
Divorce is usually a horrible experience that causes pain and misery, but then so do some bad relationships. The fact is, marriage as a moral issue has ceased to be relevant to most people. Two thirds believe that there is little difference between being married and living together, and only one in four thinks that married couples make better parents than unmarried ones.
We have heard various theories about this tax policy in recent months: that a married couples’ bonus would amount to £20 a week; that it would involve transferable tax allowances when the wife isn’t working (so tough if you’re a working woman). The latest suggestion is that only married couples with children aged under 3 should be eligible. Oh, so it’s not about marriage but children, then? But is it fair to discriminate against the children of unmarried couples?
Here’s how it is in the real world: people are willing to walk away from homes, cars, joint incomes, even canteens of cutlery and become considerably poorer because they are not prepared to live in unhappy relationships. Which means that the prospect of a few extra quid a week will mean nothing to them. Would anyone dithering over whether to marry seriously be persuaded to make those vows on the basis of a small tax incentive?
Advertisement
A few people marry for money and David Cameron may even have met some of them in his time, but most of us do not. Call us old-fashioned, but the vast majority of people marry or stay together for love. You can support marriage without believing that it should have anything to do with the Inland Revenue.
Could Cameron fiscally stimulate you and your partner into the marital bed? Would you relish the warm glow of state approval as you counted that bonus each month? In most cases, I doubt it. Aside from being unfair — consider the wife dumped by a husband who goes on to remarry. He keeps the tax break, she doesn’t — a tax incentive shouldn’t be the basis for any marriage. If it is, it’s surely a bit of a sham.
Divorce rates, like those of marriage, have been falling in recent years. Maybe if the Tories win the election and a glut of people do end up marrying for a tax break, it would eventually push them up again. The winner, then, aside from the lawyers, may yet turn out to be the Debenhams divorce list.