Saturday, April 10, 2010

Conservatives and the Married Couples’ Allowance

The Conservatives have set out their plans to use a new levy on the banks to give four million married couples a tax break worth up to £150 a year.

“£150?!” you splutter.

Along with the entire Leftist media.

And with some misguided ones on the Right.

But that is to miss the point.

Firstly, this Manifesto pledge tells you more about David Cameron: he is honouring a long-standing pledge to recognise marriage in the tax system.

He is a man of his word, even against the zeitgeist.

It would have been tempting (and rather easy) to kick this into the long grass, arguing quite simply that the country cannot afford it after 13 years of Labour’s economic mismanagement and the record national deficit.

Secondly, it is not the amount which actually matters: it is the fact that the State sends out a clear signal that it recognises the institution; it acknowledges family stability, commitment, binding contracts and vows made before God.

Of course Nick Clegg dismisses this as ‘patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age’.

Of course there is almost universal derision from Labour because it ‘stigmatises’ or ‘discriminates against’ single parents and those who choose simply to cohabit.

But for too long those who are committed to the traditional family model have been stigmatised and discriminated against. It beggars belief that we have a tax and benefits system in the UK which actually makes it beneficial for parents to live apart.

Under the Conservative proposals, basic rate taxpayers will be allowed to transfer £750 of their personal allowance to a spouse or civil partner. Officials said the measure would benefit just under a third of the country's 12.3 million married couples with the less well off gaining the most.

Calculations by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested the cost of the measure would be around £550 million. That would be paid for out of the estimated £1 billion the party says would be raised from a levy on banks which Mr Cameron promised to implement last month. The rest would be used to reduce the cut the UK's £167 billion deficit.

Mr Cameron said: "I think it important that we recognise both marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system. I have said that is a commitment we are going to make for the parliament."

And even with the embracing of civil partnerships, Nick Clegg squawks that ‘David Cameron clearly has no idea about modern life’. "Every family is different,” he astutely observes, “and instead of creating rigid rules or special policies that help some families but not others, we need a new approach from government: one that is flexible and doesn't dictate to families how they should live."

If they bothered to examine, just for one moment, how marriage benefits children and how it contributes to the common good, they would understand why the State has a moral obligation to support the institution.

The Conservative Party does not have a monopoly on this kind of thinking, for it should be evident to politicians of all political persuasions and faiths that marriage is not an exclusively Judaeo-Christian institution; it is a union observed in all cultures, and seems, according to Aristotle, to exist by nature. Marriage in the Bible is essential for the functioning of society, and is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

There are three principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. It is the erosion of this foundation which has contributed to ‘Breakdown Britain’.

The Conservatives see it.

Some Labour ministers see it.

But the ilLiberal unDemocrats are blind.

This really is a two-horse race.


Blogger Gaw said...

I don't happen to agree with a good part of your position. But in any event, your arguments appear to apply to a tax benefit other than that proposed - at least as I read it. More here.

10 April 2010 at 10:08  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

It might be a two horse race for you, but I am not married. Sticking my head in the lion's mouth just for this crap is a joke, even if I was married.

10 April 2010 at 10:23  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

a quark with an electric charge of -1/3 and a mass 988 times that of an electron and a strangeness of -1 [syn: strange quark]

You mean that Nick Clegg squawks (despite his strangeness)!

Now to more serious matters: if you report him correctly, then Cameron's words are those of a weasel (nothing new there, then). He explicitly does not propose to recognise marriage as such in the tax system.

Marriage, as you rightly say, 'is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman'.

Civil partnership is not. Weasel Cameron (if you report him correctly) is bracketing the two states together as equivalent. But they are not.

And you say he stands against the zeitgeist! 'Traditional family model...'!?

Shame on you, Cranny. Your political desires seem to have got the better of your moral judgements.

And shame on Cameron.

10 April 2010 at 10:29  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG Let us clear up an important misconception in your piece.
You say that DC is a "man of his word"

This is patently untrue. It is a denial of the known fact, now notorious, of his broken "word" - his "cast iron" one at that, for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In a word, he lied.
The lie was not 'done in a corner' but publicly made, fully exposed, and one reason for the widespread disillusionment with DC and his party.
If this man cannot be trusted not to lie on the most important of all polices, namely the right of the electorate to decide on the governance of their country, then he cannot be trusted not to lie on any other policy.
Should you not therefore correct your assertion "he is a man of his word" in accordance with this contrary and well established fact.
It does not help your advocacy of the Conservative Party to misrepresent the record with such an unguarded statement.
Will you have the grace to correct it? Honesty demands that you should.

10 April 2010 at 10:32  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Back in the day though a husbandman had land to till and a spinster a dress to weave.

Today a husbandman and his good weave would benefit more from Agrarian Laws.

What be my 'lot' free-lance, my share of Lancashire.

Signed: Sire Lancerslot

10 April 2010 at 10:36  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

This is arrant nonsense!

Marriage is no more than an arrangement between two people that they will live together. The State acknowledges this fact because it regards marriage as a stable environment for children. As the statistics demonstrate the reality of marriage is that 40% or so will end in separation or divorce. Many couples live together and have children outside of marriage and this has no bearing on whether they stay together or not.

So I suppose you would expect those who have married the “wrong person” should endure this for life? I have been married for nearly thirty years and that fact has made not a jot of difference to my relationship with my wife. However I was married before and made an awful mistake, I was too young, too immature. Are you saying that I should have stayed with my wife come what may? If I had then I would not have had a second chance to raise three great kids and build a family of which many are envious?

Your Christian beliefs are so unkind, they do not recognise reality, rather they peddle a mythical state that has never existed and never will. And please don’t quote the Old Testament to aid your cause or I will remind you of some of its immoral passages that I know you would rather forget.

10 April 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

His Grace thanks you for correcting him. Though, in a sense, he prefers to think of a Clegg 'squark'.

Mr Graham Wood,

Hios Grace does not agree that Mr Cameron broke his word on the matter. The cast-iron guarantee applied to the pre-ratification state of the treaty. You should be encouraged that he has offered a referendum on any future treaty (or treaty amendment, which, according to Dan Hannan, might be more imminent than you think).

10 April 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Does this also come with a cast-iron guarantee?Where does the soverignty of the English people fit into all of thier "promises",could they explain why they stole the peoples legitimate right to democratically decide its future,and to whom does this country belong,the administration or the people.From where did they derive any mandate to give our country to the communists in europe against the wishes of the English population?The whole country would like to hear an explanation of the above questions,and if this bilderburg puppet thinks 150 quid will buy us off ,he is more stupid than he looks.

10 April 2010 at 10:46  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Whilst I fully agree with the idea that marriages should be recognised and supported, £150 a year is three pounds a week, hardly radical is it.

The reason 40% of marriages end in divorce is because the conditions that allow this have been created by our society becoming too Liberal. Rather than some fluffy lovely fair society, this Neo liberalism has created a monster that may well devour us all.

10 April 2010 at 10:52  
Blogger flobberty said...

Graham Wood. What nonsense! Cameron implicitly excluded a referendum if the the treaty was already signed. He said:

"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: if I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum."

I assume you are easily duped by the BBC who always give the first sentence but never the second to fool people like you who can't think for themselves.

You should apologise to Cranmer for your rant.

10 April 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger Gnostic said...

A clear case of altering maritime al fresco seating arrangements as the vessel turns submarine.

10 April 2010 at 11:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Cameron’s support for civil partnerships and marriage as if they were morally equivalent undermines marriage as an institution.

Now that Cameron accepts homosexual ‘marriage’ he no longer has a prepared critique for those who wish to marry their sister or their mother. Or, as in the recent Dutch case where a man, if I recall correctly, ‘married’ two women who are sisters.

We also need to point out the effects of more and more men going through the process of male to female transition (Gender Recognition Act). One of the effects is bound to be, sooner or later, of a riot triggered by a policeman, who was born male but is recognised as a female conducting an intimate body search of, say, a Muslim woman.

At some point the mass of the people, one way or another, are gong to confront the values of New Labour’s legacy. That confrontation will indeed be ugly.

10 April 2010 at 11:16  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Flobberty quotes DC in response to my objection:

"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee ON ANY TREATY THAT EMERGES............" (my emphasis)

My criticism therefore is not a rant. It is the view, incidentally of millions of voters throughout the UK., who recognise a lie when they see one.

What do you not understand about the word: "ANY" ?
What do you not understand by "NO treaty should be ratified... & etc?

It is a fact that the Lisbon Treaty emerged out of the original EU "constitution, and the "promise" made by DC did not include at the time any qualifying clause in relation to the ratification process. (although he craftily added that in statements much later.
As if to compound his lie, DC later told a questioner at a meeting In Exeter about the Lisbon Treaty: "I suppose we will have to learn to live with it".
Clearly he was ruling out both the spirit and letter of his original promise.

The final nail in DC's "cast iron" promise is that it could have been so easily fulfilled with that of a retrospective referendum, whether ratified or not.
The precedent has already been set by the Wilson government which held a retrospective referendum on whether Britain should remain in the (then Common Market.
We entered that in 1972. The referendum was held in 1975 - two year later.
It is absolute nonsense to try and claim that DC was somehow bound by the ratification process for Lisbon.
I repeat the well known fact.
DC lied, and continues to hold to that position.
Please tell me which one of the above facts you now dispute?

10 April 2010 at 11:28  
Blogger flobberty said...

Graham Wood. Oh dear! What do you not understand about the meaning of the word ratified! The treaty was ratified by Brown!!! Can you not get that through your thick skull? Cameron promised to hold a referendum if and only if the treaty had not been ratified and therefore didn't lie. Whether he could hold a referendum after ratification is irrelevant to his veracity as he didn't promise one. I won't reply to any more of your libellous rants as you are obviously beyond logic.

10 April 2010 at 12:02  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Graham Davis,

It is your (and others') attitude toward marriage that is why divorce is so commonplace (though a lot of the 'x% of marriages end in divorce' statistic is affected rather a lot by serial marry/divorcers). People see marriage as a legal state of two people who are together when it is really so much more. We need to understand what the prerequisites are for marriage, what one must expect, and how one must undertake such a commitment. Perhaps you should have thought more about it before you got married the first time, rather than rushing into it and then having to go through divorce when you realised that you didn't love your wife.

Divorce is just the easy answer for a marriage which isn't 'easy'; just like abortion is the easy answer for unprotected pre-marital sex. The better answer would be to not get into that situation in the first place. If you are not ready for marriage, then don't go into it. If you do then you must accept the consequences, which may be learning to live with and love someone you don't get on with. If you have pre-marital sex, then you must accept that you may father/mother an inconvenient child.

The Catholic Church provides marriage lessons to couples before they wed, and I think this is part of why the divorce rate amongst (at least Church going) Catholics is much lower than average. I don't know whether the Anglicans do as well, perhaps someone can enlighten me. Of course the attitude toward marriage is much better among the religious as well.

Just because parliamentary democracy doesn't work correctly doesn't mean we should abandon it and it's the same with marriage.
Perhaps marriage isn't wrong and meaningless; perhaps we need the right kind of marriage.

If you really want to quote some 'immoral' (compared to what?) passages from the OT, then please go ahead. You're in the perfect place to be utterly ripped apart.

10 April 2010 at 12:10  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Lakestar91 said...
“The Catholic Church provides marriage lessons to couples before they wed”

Are you serious!!!!!

Catholic priests offering advice on marriage. Celibate men (unless they are raping children) giving advice on marriage, you must be bonkers.

Here’s a nice bit of biblical teaching.....
“A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death.”
Leviticus 21:9

10 April 2010 at 12:28  
Anonymous pedant said...

Your Grace's communicants seem to have many different views on what "marriage" is. To some, clearly, a holy sacrament; to others, an expression of love and fidelity. Mr Graham Davis takes a severely pragmatic view.

I think marriage is all these things; but anyone who has been through the divorce courts will know that it is also a legal contract, and one of a uniquely onerous kind. It is not written, nor available for consultation or amendment, but it may give one contractor an open-ended lien on the property, past, current and even future, of the other. It grants rights - but who knows what rights? It imposes obligations and duties - but cloaks them in impenetrable obscurity.

"Suck it and see" is not an acceptable legal maxim for the most important decision of most people's lives.

Indeed, so erratic is the legal position of the marriage contract that the courts themselves do not agree what is in it, and seem to take as many different views as there are judges - almost as many as there are divorces.

I believe it would be a service to society were a new government to take some pains to state plainly in a new Marriage Act what rights and duties are entailed on those agreeing to a contract of marriage.

With the sight of God, or with romance, or the procreation of children, or any of the other motives for marriage, however, I grant that government can have little to do.

10 April 2010 at 12:55  
Anonymous YoungCatholic said...

I agree with Lakester91. Marriage is a commitment for life, and shouldn't be seen as a short term fix and my peosonal opinion is that legal marriage (or civil partnership) should be completely different to relegious marriage. Theyby religous marriage maintains it value and purpose.

Graham Davis, Catholic marriage classes are not even conducted by priests, but instead by a married couple who have already experienced it and can give proper advice. I can't see whats wrong with a couple learining about "Communication; Transitions; Conflict Management; Family Patterns; Sex and Sexuality; Parenting; and exploration of how we live out our wedding day promises" before marriage, can you? Prehaps if more people took these classes, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now

10 April 2010 at 13:24  
Anonymous not a machine said...

In times gone by no one would have even dared to question the assumptions that marriage has many unspoken benefits , how times have changed .

To find the Lib dems refuge in going negative on it may have further consequences for them as they have been actively seeking the muslim vote , in which group there are few divorces.

But in the light of Christian understanding to find a neagtive attack on this is slightly worrying , for it means that some where along the line the liberal left are no longer able to articulate family values in any other context than reproduction .

If politics as finally delivered the fabian atomised society ,I cannot see where they go from there except down the line of managinging peoples lives more and more.

Marriage is important , it outlines a new role for people to try and do what is right , not just for themselves but to provide a stable home for family . If our politicians are at a stage of downgrading marriage for some sort of society that further undermines the relevance of God , I can only ponder how that society would look , if its not here already.

I cant help but think that they wish to run our lives ,with people being weak and alone , yet synthetically managed to feel as though there isnt a problem with it , whilst they divide us all down to ecnomic groups living to the secular states dictums .

10 April 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ flobberty (10:56 and 12:02)—Mr Wood is right. These are Cameron’s words, accompanied by his signature, from his article in The Sun:

❛Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.❜

The Treaty of Lisbon emerged from the negotiations. Cameron promised a referendum on the Treaty. He has broken his promise. Mr. Wood is, thus, perfectly correct when he says that Cameron is not a man of his word. With all due respect to His Grace (10:44), Cameron’s ‘cast-iron guarantee’ made no reference whatsoever to the Treaty being ratified or not.

10 April 2010 at 13:43  
Blogger flobberty said...

J. Rottenborough. Read the second sentence of Cameron's speech I gave above. He makes it quite clear that this referendum applies pre-ratification only. You are falling for the Guardianista line by reading the first sentence only. Mr Wood is not only wrong but stupid to try to stick to his lie. Are you just as stupid?

10 April 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

His Grace said:-

...The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman...

Come down from this ludicrous pedistal Cranny Lad!: As much as I agree that marriage is a sound basis for cultural adoption, you would be IMO, totally hypocritical if you fail to make some reference to the track record in these matters of one Henry 8th and your own part in its facilitation during your previous incantation.

I'm all ears My Lord.

10 April 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ flobberty (13:55)—‘No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum’ can only mean that Cameron should regard the Lisbon Treaty as being illegal, because it was ratified without consulting the people. If he were a man of his word, he would hold a referendum on the Treaty if he became Prime Minister.

10 April 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger flobberty said...

JR. You seem to have accepted that you and Wood were wrong to call Cameron a liar. Good! You are now trying another specious argument. It was not illegal for Brown to ratify the treaty but it was morally wrong after promising a referendum in their manifesto (please don't give me any claptrap about treaties and constitutions). Cameron has promised to make such treaties illegal in the future without a referendum. What more can the man do? Why do you not castigate Labour for their lies and the Liberal Democrats for their total hypocrisy instead of Cameron who has done nothing wrong.

I thought it was a mistake to join the Common Market and would love a vote on membership of the EU. I would vote to leave. I will not, however, attack Cameron for something he didn't do.

10 April 2010 at 15:18  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

not a machine mentioned "the fabian atomised society". That is exactly what New Labour have been working to bring about since they came into power.

10 April 2010 at 15:36  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Brown does very peculiar things with his jaw.

The men in the pics behind Clegg look old enough to become statesmen - if they had the other necessary qualifications.

I still think Cameron's cross-eyed; I don't suppose it matters much whether they're brown or blue.

10 April 2010 at 15:47  
Anonymous no nonny said...

-- my previous comments refer to the next thread, but they're not unrelated to this one :)

10 April 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger English Viking said...


Mr Wood, Mr Rottenborough, myself and about 20 million voters are entirely correct in thinking, and calling, Cameron a liar. Mr Rottenborough beat me to it, but Cameron most certainly did give an all encompassing 'cast-iron' guarantee that he would give the electorate the opportunity to revoke ANY agreement that arose from the then ongoing EU negotiations. He later tried to insert the 'ratifcation' clause. He U-turned, ergo, he is a liar.

A lie is a device employed by a person to give another person an incorrect understanding of a situation. It does not have to be untrue (although it usually is), and it can come in the form of the weasel words which most politicians employ nowadays, whereby they can talk for hours and say nothing, or everything, depending on the interpretation. Even if one gives Cameron the benefit of the doubt, he knew that the impression created in the electorate was that they would have some say so in the running of their country, and he either knew that they had misunderstood him, and he failed to clarify, or else that was the deliberate intent of this foul man. Either way, he is a liar.

Just let me be clear; Cameron's pants are on fire, he is a tell-tale tit, his tongue will split, and all the little dicky-birds will have a bit.

That His Grace should call Cameron 'a man of his word' is absolutely laughable, and he appears to have suspended his Christian conscience and replaced it with a Tory megaphone, pom-poms and a tinsel ra-ra skirt.

PS Cameron is a liar.

10 April 2010 at 16:18  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

Cameron MUST, somewhere along the line, make good his promise on Lisbon if he is even to approach the moral high ground again. I fully support his plans for the married tax allowance. If THAT is broken he hasd had it as far as I am concerned!

10 April 2010 at 16:29  
Blogger flobberty said...

English Viking. Total gibberish! Trying to redifine what is meant by a lie is pathetic. As to "myself and about 20 million voters" from where did you get this figure and from where on earth did you get the English? You should change your name to slang viking. I have no more to say on this item that will satisfy Sun readers like you and Rottenborough who are unable to read Cameron's comments given above and understand them. You have been clear - you don't know what you are talking about. As for Circus Monkey, the name says it all!

10 April 2010 at 17:03  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

How did a post on the Married Tax Allowance turn into a debate on whether Cameron is a liar or not. I'm more interested in what people think of the policy.

PS. Cameron is a liar :P

10 April 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Cameron had to give those in civil partnerships the same as those who are married.

failure to have done so would have breached EU anti-discrimination Directives.

Let there be no misake and mark this well: sooner or later Cameron (probably his immediate successor - our man who will emerge from the Right) is going to collide with the EU.

We will defeat the EU because we are on the offensive for our country's freedom!

10 April 2010 at 17:21  
Anonymous pedant said...

One normally avoids controversy with Flat Earthers, Lost-Ten-Tribesmen and suchlike window-lickers, but Your Grace seems to have a lot of hysterical communicants today who are eager to lay down the moral law about lying, in relation to Mr Cameron and his referendum pledge.

What their qualifications might be is not easy to deduce from their observations.

Mr Cameron's fall from grace is not a lie but a lapse of honour. He gave a promise, then reneged on it for a quasi-legalistic reason. Honour, though, despises legalism. Anyone may keep a promise when it is in his interest; only an honourable man does so when it is not in his interest. Mr Cameron is in grave peril of appearing dishonourable.

In these delicate circumstances one course of action is dictated. A promise need not be acted on if the promisee releases the promiser from performance. All Mr Cameron need do is offer a referendum on whether the public wishes to have the promised referendum. If the public says No, honour is satisfied and no more need be said.

In other words, Mr Cameron may yet retrieve his good name.

Will he?

The solution to his dilemma is, I admit, not an elegant nor a comfortable one; but I cannot help that. He has no one to blame but himself.

Mr Brown, though, is in a very different position. He gave a promise and, unlike Mr Cameron, was in a position to fulfil it. He did not. He is therefore not a honourable man. He has no further place in public life and should be hounded from the scene with boos, hisses, dead cats and universal obloquy. Decent men should not allow him in their houses; decent women should refuse to meet his wife; his children's headmaster should intimate that, though the pretty mites are themselves innocent, they are tainted by association and no longer welcome at school; and the crushed and shamed scoundrel himself should be banished back to Scotland, where, as should be plain to all, any concept of honour has long since fallen into what Jeremy Taylor rather beautifully called "the portion of weeds and outworn faces".

10 April 2010 at 17:50  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking - (tee hee) if it is as flobberty says : ''total gibberish''; then I reply that is the most reasoned 'gibberish' I've had the pleasure to recently encounter!

''pom-poms and tinsel ra-ra skirt''! Excellent!

10 April 2010 at 17:56  
Blogger flobberty said...

Pedant said:

"decent women should refuse to meet his wife; his children's headmaster should intimate that, though the pretty mites are themselves innocent, they are tainted by association and no longer welcome at school"

Are you insane or just an appalling person?

10 April 2010 at 17:58  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

But for too long those who are committed to the traditional family model have been stigmatised and discriminated against. It beggars belief that we have a tax and benefits system in the UK which actually makes it beneficial for parents to live apart.

This of course is the most important point, and can not be made enough times.

What is worth stating is that the benefits of living apart can in many cases be measured in many thousands of pounds, not a few hundred.

It would seem logical and more cost effective to simply reverse this situation instead of making things even more complicated.

I am not an accountant and do not propose to know exactly how this could and should be done. However as in many things what can be created, they can also be reformed, modified, more properly enforced and regulated, or indeed evolve into something more sane with just a little help in the right direction.

10 April 2010 at 18:07  
Anonymous no nonny said...

flobberty - I read Pedant as showing what would happen if we hoisted the marxist [ ] on his own petard. The post describes their standard practice.

10 April 2010 at 18:09  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ flobberty (15:18)—My argument turns on the point that Cameron has failed to uphold a solemn promise he made to the people.

@ English Viking (16:18)—His Grace in a tinsel skirt. Delicious.

10 April 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Flobberty is a silly name and is a tosser. Cameron is a lying twat. Goodbye.

10 April 2010 at 18:13  
Anonymous Tony B said...

I'd love to know where all these supposed Marxists are..

10 April 2010 at 18:14  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Pedant - not that you require any support, but I rather enjoyed your well-crafted rant.

10 April 2010 at 18:14  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jared Gaites - God help me, but I'm warming to you!

10 April 2010 at 18:18  
Blogger flobberty said...

JR. You are still not reading all that Cameron said in his speech. He did not give an unconditional solemn promise. If he had, I would also complain as I very much wanted to vote against Lisbon.

no nonny. I read it as if Pedant meant what he said. He often says fairly unpleasant things so I didn't give him the benefit of doubt. I may be being unfair to him.

As to the likes of Lakester91 and Oswin, I say that calling Cameron a liar with no evidence or argument shows total ignorance and they contribute nothing, which is probably the sum total of their ability.

10 April 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger flobberty said...

Goodbye, Jared

10 April 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous Oswin said...

flobbers - I don't believe I called Cameron a liar? I do however agree with Pedant, that there is a question of 'honour' to answer for.

My ''ability'' occasionally exceeds 'ya-boo-sucks' - so do please let me know when you feel able to reciprocate similarly. That'll doubtless be after the 'humour' transplant eh?

10 April 2010 at 18:40  
Blogger flobberty said...

Oswin. You posted saying you agreed with what English Viking said. He called Cameron a liar and,hence, so did you. Can you follow the logic. No? Hardly surprising for you. Also you warmed to Jared calling me a tosser. This is not humour it is childishness. Please, have your humour transplant, you need it.

10 April 2010 at 18:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

In 2007, at a time when Gordon Brown’s fortunes were riding so high that there was talk of a snap election, Mr Cameron promised a referendum “on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations”.

David Cameron will drop within days his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, The Times has learnt


10 April 2010 at 19:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Gaites @ 18.13

Spot on, Sir.

PS Cameron is still a liar.

10 April 2010 at 19:40  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr flobberty,
I was being ironic. I thought that the smiley might give the game away even if the context of my post was a little too subtle; though maybe these things need explaining to some people...

10 April 2010 at 21:46  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I have to say I rather like YoungCatholic's idea of separating religious marriage from civil marriage. Give both the same rights and tax benefits if that is really necessary, but allow religious marriage to keep its purity and independence. Once we saw the vast difference between the divorce rates (and contentedness of those marriages/civil unions), the nation might gain a new respect for true marriage.

If I remember rightly, a decent while back a policy idea was thrown around to give Catholic style marriage lessons to everyone; only it was shouted down very quickly as a waste of money. If only they saw the true cost of divorce to the treasury they might have made a socially and fiscally ingenious move.

11 April 2010 at 17:54  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Lakester - so what's the difference between 'civil' marriage and Registry Office marriage, then? Nobody's forced 'Church' marriage on objectors all the time the latter's been around. Maybe the 'civil' stuff is about euSSR preferences or requirements.

But does the point indicate one of the problems/dangers with all this reinscription? Even if the Makers and Breakers of our laws know and understand the traditions of our law as it stands, they have everything in such a tangle that the people can't possibly follow what's going on.

11 April 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Civil marriage is/would be registry office marriage. If we can separate the wheat from the chaff, then maybe we can make a far better quality bread.

11 April 2010 at 21:38  
Anonymous Oswin said...

flobbers: why am I not surprised that you cannot follow the basic tenets of logic? Further, whilst I was merely amused by Jared Gaites comments, I am now obliged to agree with them too.

12 April 2010 at 19:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older