And another thing…

Actually, Cameron said ‘pathOlogical’…

Why shouldn’t the hypothetical wand be waved?

Are you worried about being on your own party’s hit list?

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2009/11/30/the-electoral-argument-for-the-deselection-of-frank-field/

Apparently the activists want Frank Field and then YOU out!

You have strayed too far from message Tom – best not go walking in the woods any time soon.

Oops how silly of me. You had already heard – hence the tosh above.

Sorry, that was rude of me.

I actually sort of mostly maybe possibly agree with you. Kind of. In a way. Or, at least, I agree with you that Cameron has got this one wrong.

What he used to say, but doesn’t any more, is that he doesn’t think the tax system should be set up in a way that actively encourages single parenthood amongst poorer people. Why should we be in a situation where a family’s financial situation can be improved by the parents separating? I don’t think we should, but that is what we have right now.

That’s not to say that families who don’t have existing problems would deliberately split up to game the benefits system – but for couples who are having some relationship and money issues, it’s not hard to see it as a disincentive to try and work things out.

Surely, in an ideal world, marriage ought to be both tax and benefit neutral – nothing to gain or lose from getting married; nothing to lose or gain by getting divorced.

Unfortunately, from that starting point Cameron goes way too far in the other direction and has decided he wants to specifically encourage a specific form of relationship, regardless of whether or not kids are involved, or whatever else. The rest is just using party political language, and thus subject to the ‘those in glass houses’ rule.

‘Good Things’ tend to sell themselves and do not require a government bribe.

I may be being selfish here, but as a non-marrying type I am already economically punished in hotels, holidays, grocery shopping etc. I do not need a government forcing me to subsidise people who decide that not only are they the happiest and luckiest people on the planet but that they are morally superior according to the government. Plus, I already pay for their kids’ education and health care.

Very nice of you to come down on the side of reason and justice on this issue Tom, I was fully expecting your warped Christian morals to kick in and you to be on the other side. Or is it simply because Cameron is on the other side you’re making a stand? Either way, welcome to the good fight and your reasons given for being here stand up to scrutiny.

It’s political correctness.

Dave’s always been a bit partial to it.

could.not.agree.more.

The problem is, of course, that child poverty has been so intimately linked to family structures. Whether or not marriage should be positively championed by the state may well be a red herring; I wonder if the more important issue is whether recent governmental structures/policies/ideologies have (unwittingly) helped weaken the institution of marriage – something that the vast majority agree is, generally speaking, a good thing.

I must admit that I’m convinced by the evidence that the tax system in particular does, in certain situations, incentivise against committed long-term relationships, and indeed against married couples living together in a single home. As such, for me at any rate, the issue is not so much ‘the government should stop telling us how to live our lives’ (with which I agree, but which is not really the point here), but rather ‘the government should stop dis-incentivising those forms of behaviour that, we generally agree, are desirable’.

This is a problem with the welfare system more generally (though it is perhaps a little overstated on occasion), and perhaps the Tories have grasped the wrong end of the nettle in their approach on this particular issue – but it is nonetheless something that needs to be addressed.

And to finish, a quick dig at Dr Katherine Rake; a fine example of where reality must be made to conform to the dictates of ideology.

To anyone thinking of getting married and having children. DON’T

(Old Holborn, married twice, 6 kids)

“What’s “pathological” about saying that it’s not the government’s job to tell people who aren’t married that they should be?”

In that case, it’s a very very rare example of Labour NOT telling people what to do. After all, your nannying government and the hectoring lobby groups it funds regularly tell us that we shouldn’t play violent computer games, drink alcohol, eat salty food, ride bikes without helmets, go to lap-dancing clubs, look at pornographic cartoons, gamble, look at tobacco in a shop, throw a tin can in the bin, use a disposible nappy, read by the glow of an incandescent lightbulb, read poetry in a pub without a licence, drink sugary soft drinks, and literally hundreds of other things, so many that I’m sick of even thinking about it.

Given the endless whining, hectoring, bullying and nannying, don’t you see it’s not even slightly credible that your lot believe in keeping the state’s nose out of marriage?

So Cameron lies. Hold the front page. Maybe he’s decided that since NewLabour only speak in lies, that’s all they listen to.

It may be bollocks, but is it any more bollocks than frog-marching single mothers and their newborn babies into MutterundKinderhostels? Do they get a little badge to wear when they go out?

And as a matter of interest, how is that policy going? How many teenage mums are now residing at The Crashmeister’s pleasure? The target was 50,000 I seem to recall.

As a weird statistical anomaly, the recession will actually decrease the number of children in poverty while making the average and median household income lower.

Gotta love economists, eh?

Oh, one other thing, polygamous/polyamorous households are much less likely to have children in poverty than single parents or welfare parents. So if we’re using child poverty to legislate adult morality…

Oh dear. It’s happened again. A fairly reasonable stance from a Labour MP and some constructive comments from whom I presume to be Labour supporters.

Iain Gill – yes, yes, yes.

Michael and Paul – Correct.

Tom Harris MP – Errrrm, I think I agree.

This isn’t supposed to happen. Not here. Can’t you talk about the Fabians and Common Purpose? I find this whole finding good points on a Labour blog most unsettling.

I will admit to heading over here as soon as I read that Paul Cotterill was calling for you and Frank Field to be given the gooner, to see what you had to say on it.

It would probably be no bad thing, you two and some others could go and start something like the Labour party used to be. I probably wouldn’t agree with much of what you’d have to say, but you’d have integrity and my respect – that’s more than most other parties have.

The problem though Tom, is that I’ve read (and I’ll go a searching if you insist) that marriage is beneficial for society.

If this is true, then we should promote marriage both verbally and financially in that society benefits.

It is also noted that children fare better in a married household than a co-habitting couple and so from that point of view, I see nothing wrong about the state offering incentives to help improve the welfare and prospects of children.

When you say that we should concentrate on the children, you seem to miss the point that parents are a large direct link to them and so skipping over the parents is a wrong decision.

@Tom “Child poverty is a stain on our society and its eradication must continue to be a priority for every government. ”

If Child Poverty was a priority for this Government why has it wasted billions of pounds on an ID Card scheme ?

If Child Poverty was a priority for this Government why does it provide sex change operations on the NHS ?

If Child Poverty was a priority for this Government why ….

Actually. Don’t worry about answering that. I do understand that politics is all about saying the right things rather than doing the right things.

@Old Holborn, I’ve made the perfect compromise – I’m married and don’t have children.

In my view the greatest conspiracy of all time is not: the assassination of JFK or the EU or if we landed on the moon, but the deceptive phrase from over-tired parents trying to convince you – as a non-parent – to suffer as well:

“ahh you should have children, because it’s different when it’s your own”

Yeah bollocks of course it is, thankfully I’ve never fell for it.

If the government wanted a stable society that was raising a happy, well-adjusted next generation, it would recognise marriage, and only marriage, as a legitimate legal union between two people.

And the ‘2.4 children’ nonsense that has been accepted as the ‘norm’ is another victory for the social engineers!

“But we can’t. And even if we could, we shouldn’t.”

Why not? You try to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Do you say ‘we can’t’ because it would benefit the majority and you don’t do that? Or because it would be a real boon to children but have the effect of reducing the number of social workers, probation officers, DNA-harvesting policemen and your other little helpers who influence, dumb down, monitor and criminalise?

This Tory slight-of-hand is more to do with class rather than marriage. When Cameron talks of “married couples in happy families” he uses the imagery of his own “solid as a rock” clan. (Tory sex scandals of the 80s are so passé.)

Conversely, when it comes to unmarried couples, we are supposed to imagine a teenage skank benefit fraudster ASBO hoodie, not the middle class people (like my parents) who just never bothered with the ceremony or even the other kind of middle class people who break up or divorce because they can’t stand each other anymore and would rather be quietly apart than rowing in front of the kids.

On top of that, when Cameron says “marriage is good”, does he include gay marriage or civil partnerships? More like he’s just talking about how perfect his rebranded Tories are.

What Cameronn is saying is that he wants to undo the 12 disaster years of Labour.

Thats why you have responded Tom. You know he is right to do this. He is saying what many in your party are thinking and are to frighened to speak out.Imigration is another one. I would look at what your Mr Balls is saying if you really want some trash.

Good post.

Although you should give Cameron a break, he probably didn’t write the article himself anyway.

Would anyone employ a H & S officer who looped the chain on his bicycle over a bollard in London expecting to cycle home?

. . . . albeit with a car driven behind to carry his briefcase . . .

He didn’t organise any of those Bullingdon pissups, did he?

It’s entirely possible for marriage to be good for the raising of children, as well as single parenting being slightly less good, as well as a government explaining that this is the case in general terms, without meriting any accusations at all of unwarranted interference or complete indifference.

Phew!

Agree 100%, Tom.

Paul Cotterill (who he?) isn’t entirely serious about expelling Tom from the party, and it’s not as if he and his little coven have any real say in the matter anyway. He seems to have taken objection to the advert about GB and the gold reserves that was up over the weekend. I thought it was clear that the ads don’t necessarily reflect Tom’s view. For example, I seem to remember that Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell’s magnum opus was featured some time ago, for goodness sake.

@ Nicky:

I have the Carswell/Hannan opus from a library. Must I burn it?

Or can I reread the first ludicrous page when I regain my composure?

But what strikes me about Cameron’s latest pronouncements is that he’s sounding more like a Tory blogger and less like a Prime Minister-in-waiting.

*****************************************************

Yeah and that other ridiculous pronouncement he made about sending 500 troops to afghanistan ‘if key conditions were met’ and hey presto as if by magic one month later all the key conditions were met and off they go.

Oh no, that wasn’t Cameron’s ridiculous pronouncement that was somebody else’s ridiculous pronouncement.

See, what I don’t get is this. Cameron seems to assume , provided he isn’t just pushing some church-society agenda (heaven forbid) that marriage incurs some extra charge and cost. But, by my thinking anyway (since I am nowhere near sensible marriage age), surely married couples would see a small increase in money (due to paying only one set of bills, one house, one set of appliances. Indeed, household expenditure would be the same if they were two co-habiting, non-married individuals.

Yet, when you have children, again I would imagine, the costs rise substantially, therefore tax relief there seems sensible, to account for these new costs. Yet, Cameron wants to abolish this one in favour of his marriage break…it makes no sense!

@ Quietzapple: in the words of Dorothy Parker:
This book is not to be tossed lightly aside – but to be hurled with great force.

@Nicky Thanks (ROFLMA&SO)

I may return to the hospitable Hannan’s blogs one of these days, Carswell solely publishes comments imho, neither ever listens.

Time soon to take the battle to the enemy again.

You think THIS is a “government intrusion too far”?!

What about the vetting and barring database, ContactPoint, ID Cards, DNA database, CRB checks for everyone and his dog, slave labour (aka compulsory ‘voluntary’ service) for teenagers, licensing for home educators, if we were drawing lines in the sand the moral landscape of this government would be a Japanese rock garden!

After all that it’s hard to get worked up by some possible change in the tax code. It’s peanuts compared to what Labour has done to destroy society!

@ Firebird: D’y'know I think there’s a standing army now too . . . Wicked state – eh?

Wish I could empathise with your teenage angst re the forced labour & etc, but well done!