Quote of the last 21 Centuries..

[Hysteresis]

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt
should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and
controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest
Rome will become bankrupt.'' People must again learn to work instead of
living on public assistance."

- Cicero , 55 BC

So, evidently we've learnt bugger all over the past 2,068 years.
[/b]

 

[JBR]

Good quote.

Not only has Cameron refused to support and encourage (heterosexual) marriage, he's decided to continue our foreign aid handouts despite our own financial problems.

I am convinced that, for some reason best known to himself, he is determined to get kicked out at the next election.

I'm 60, and for my entire voting life I have voted Conservative. Next time, UKIP.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I am convinced that, for some reason best known to himself, he is determined to get kicked out at the next election.

He's got elected, guaranteed his place in history, scooped the pension and perks, but being in government has allowed him to see the real state of UK PLC's books. Decided just to tinker, as the patient is terminal and it's far worse than he thought. Will bide his time and bale out.

Sensible chap.

 

[JohnD]

support and encourage (heterosexual) marriage

what does that mean?

 

[Norcon]

support and encourage (heterosexual) marriage

what does that mean?

It means no pillow munchers allowed.

 

[AronSearle]

The thing about cameron is I get the distinct impression he does care, and does want to do a good job (to a point, he still is a political animal).

Which is why it's so tragic he manages to lose an election to brown, constantly pee off his own supporters, and generally look inept.

I really wonder how many people vote blue just because of a fear of labour getting in.

 

[JBR]

support and encourage (heterosexual) marriage

what does that mean?

By that I meant that we married couples were to receive more tax allowances, as we once did in the olden days, but it seems he has changed his mind. Now it is more attractive to be an unmarried mother and reap the benefits!

 

[JohnD]

Oh, I see.

You mean, hetersexual couples who don't want to get married, but will if the taxpayer gives them £100?

Is that meant to show them in a good light?

 

[JBR]

Oh, I see.

You mean, hetersexual couples who don't want to get married, but will if the taxpayer gives them £100?

Is that meant to show them in a good light?

Not really. It costs rather more than £100 to get married.

 

[JohnD]

so these hetersexual couples who don't want to get married wouldn't do it for £100

so how big a bribe do these reluctant marriers need?

And why should the taxpayer give them money to do something they wouldn't do freely?

 

[Space cat]

By that I meant that we married couples were to receive more tax allowances, as we once did in the olden days --

Ah yes! The old 'married man's tax allowance'. That's something I used to get a long time ago but I could never defend it. Why? Because our other half also worked and got a full personal tax allowance of her own.

That old tax rule was based on the idea that, with few exceptions, married women didn't work. The general assumption was that when a woman got married, pregnancy would follow in in pretty short order - if not sooner. (How did Max Boyce put it? "Getting married and not even pregnant! There's posh for you." )

The fair way to go about things would have been a transferrable personal allowance. That idea is still a valid one and, in the interests of sexual equality, the transfer could go either way. The snag is that it would cost the taxman rather a lot of money and, maybe even worse, it would prompt large numbers of us heteros to demand the right to civil partnerships (as laid down in the ECHR) so that we could get the tax advantage. And if the churches think that one has gone away - they're wrong!

 

[JBR]

so these hetersexual couples who don't want to get married wouldn't do it for £100

so how big a bribe do these reluctant marriers need?

And why should the taxpayer give them money to do something they wouldn't do freely?

There has been a lot of support for the encouragement of marriage on the grounds that it provides (in most cases anyway) a stable and secure environment for bringing up children. Politicians have, for some time, been promoting marriage as a 'good thing'.

Before you criticise me, yes I am aware that some marriages don't succeed in this and also that there are many partnerships (we used to call it 'living over the brush') in which such an environment exists as well.

I happen to believe that children should be brought up in a traditional married relationship. You may not, and I am not going to argue about opinions. What the government really needs to do, again in my opinion, is to discourage the career single mothers who see having a baby as a free meal ticket.

 

[Big Tone]

The O/P reminds me of another oft quoted truism which also applies to modern life; wrongly attributed to Petronious, (AD66), but was actually Charlton Ogburn (1911–1998)

We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation"