Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
Jamie Bryson @JamieBrysonCPNI Proud day for Northern Ireland, as the moral fibre of society corrodes & implodes all around us NI stands firm.
Perhaps they should secede from the festering cesspool of depravity that is the British Isles.
They may well be feeling a bit hemmed in by moral degradation, poor chaps and chapettes. Do any of the parties in NI, particularly unionist ones, support gay marriage I wonder, or at least are not as stridently against it as once they were?
"What is Labour for?" Ed Miliband spent five years looking at a blank sheet of paper, not because there weren't ideas; they just weren't ideas that answered that question. There is no point in keeping Ed in place for another year or two when the electorate have told him he doesn't know what Labour is for. Next....
Labour will struggle whilst ever they don't have a leader who knows how to answer that question in 2020.
Next....
In fairness to Ed he had a blank piece of paper for 5 years but that can be all forgotten when he surpassed himself by filling in that blank piece of paper on a stone obelisk.
..............respect........... He's the man!!
Arf. As a footnote in history, the obelisk and stabbing his brother in the back will be all Ed Miliband is remembered for.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
Sez who? The malevolent sky fairy?
Considering marriage is a secular institution that has nothing to do with religion and pre-dates any religion that is popular today, the sky fairy has nothing to do with it.
Jamie Bryson @JamieBrysonCPNI Proud day for Northern Ireland, as the moral fibre of society corrodes & implodes all around us NI stands firm.
Perhaps they should secede from the festering cesspool of depravity that is the British Isles.
They may well be feeling a bit hemmed in by moral degradation, poor chaps and chapettes. Do any of the parties in NI, particularly unionist ones, support gay marriage I wonder, or at least are not as stridently against it as once they were?
Could be a good time for a secular party to gain support !
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
Two words spring to mind: Ostrich, sand.
I simply have problems with the idea the state cannot change the meaning of something, or society cannot change its understanding of the meaning of something. I get not liking or agreeing with newer definitions, but meanings are not immutable, states and cultures change them all the time.
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
I looked last night and this morning. It's missed because it's either front page and centre (right wing hack) or buried elsewhere on the site where most couldn't find it.(left wing hack) . See BBC for MO on this.
Fact remains the left wing media had months and months of this on front page as did the BBC on every bulletin. . When it comes to their own though it doesn't last for even hours on front page and you have to hunt to find it if it is even mentioned at all. BBC mentioned it on the day way down the news order and then nothing .
Edit - I see project bookend makes it onto the BBC front page. Gotta protect that EU grant heh?
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
Two words spring to mind: Ostrich, sand.
I simply have problems with the idea the state cannot change the meaning of something, or society cannot change its understanding of the meaning of something. I get not liking or agreeing with newer definitions, but meanings are not immutable, states and cultures change them all the time.
Exactly. Not long ago marriage between a white and black person was illegal in many parts of the world. Meanings and linguistics evolve.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
The proper way of looking at things is to consider government debt as a percentage of GDP:
The danger period being 2003 to 2007 when, despite the banks pumping a hundred billion a year into the economy in the form of household loans, government debt was steadily rising.
Note that there was no increase in government debt percentage because of the 1980 recession, an increase in government debt percentage of about 15% because of the 1990 recession and an increase in government debt percentage of over 40% because of the 2008 recession.
Indicative of a country now living well beyond its means.
You are just not getting the truth ! The Tories left Labour with a golden legacy. To do that they just had to increase borrowing from 25.% of GDP to 39.9% in 5 years.
As the figures above show, borrowing under Labour was lower than what they inherited until 2008 when the credit crunch began.
It is sad that Labour shadow ministers over 5 years could not point this out.
Mr. Moses, you cynic. I've lost count of the times I've been sending an e-mail when I accidentally sent it to the political editor of the Guardian. Who amongst us has not committed that easiest of mistakes?
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
There is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women or two intersex or whatever.
Marriage is between a man and a woman . nothing more nothing less.
They can call it marriage, but it isn't.
No problem them, everyone can be happy - civil authorities can call the arrangements whatever they like, as they have adjusted the rules throughout history and are just adjusting another one, and those who have a firmer definition for moral or religious reasons or whatever, can rest safe in the knowledge that the new 'marriage' is not the proper kind as far as they (and god, or whatever) are concerned, no matter the legalities.
It's a straightforward and elegant solution - take the government out of a role it has no need to be involved in.
Perhaps, but government has often involved itself a great deal historically, so it's probably a bit late to stop now.
Whenever I think about government involvement in marriage I think of the Interregnum period, as the various parliaments at the time kept tweaking the rules (in ways that I don't recall the details of unfortunately) and I came across a debate in parliament in the 1650s where an MP was bemoaning the confusion in the country, as apparently they had something like three marriage laws on the books as a result of all the changes, so people could not be sure what were the 'proper' legal rules.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so.
The people of Ireland (a country that only decriminalised homosexuality in 1993) are voting on this - where is the government imposition?
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
Singapore was lost because of bad generalship and the loss of food and water supplies. Did the French surrender Verdun in WW1 ? I do not see the point of staying in Paris to be surrounded and bypassed.
Singapore was lost because the Japanese soldiers were far more determined than the British Empire soldiers.
Now some of that poor performance by British Empire soldiers was the fault of the generals but from top to bottom there was no shortage of blame to be shared.
The ratio of British Empire dead to prisoners in the Malaya / Singapore campaign demonstrates this.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
I was married at a registry office. There was not a shred of religion about the ceremony. It's not allowed. No prayers or hymns are allowed.
You are just not getting the truth ! The Tories left Labour with a golden legacy. To do that they had to increase borrowing from 25.% of GDP to 39.9% in 5 years.
As the figures above show, borrowing under Labour was lower than what they inherited until 2008 when the credit crunch began.
Look at the direction of travel and the big picture. The Tories were consistently bringing the debt down as a proportion of GDP - then there was a recession in the early 90s so counter-cyclical spending means there was a deficit caused by the recession. By 1996-97 was an increase of 0.7% because the deficit was almost eliminated. Golden legacy. There was no recession in 2001-2007 so why was there a deficit then? It was caused by spending more than was taken during a boom, not due to recession.
The peak debt after the early 90s recession was a low proportion of GDP as we went into the recession with controlled spending and came out of it with controlled spending. We went into 2007 with uncontrolled spending and the result was an explosion in debt.
I was interested tht the daily Mirror group had to pay out such huge sums for the hacking activities so I went to the Guardian to read a more detailed account as these guys have been at the forefront of this all the way through taking down other right wing newspapers down in their wake.
They certainly had one account in their website on the hacking..........the only one
I looked last night and this morning. It's missed because it's either front page and centre (right wing hack) or buried elsewhere on the site where most couldn't find it.(left wing hack) . See BBC for MO on this.
Fact remains the left wing media had months and months of this on front page as did the BBC on every bulletin. . When it comes to their own though it doesn't last for even hours on front page and you have to hunt to find it if it is even mentioned at all. BBC mentioned it on the day way down the news order and then nothing .
Actually, the Mirror story was on the front page of the Guardian the day after the damages awards were made earlier this week. It was also on the front page of the BBC website and reported on all radio and news channels. A cursory Google search will also reveal a high-level of detailed and on-going reporting form both the BBC and the Guardian about events at the Mirror - probably more than from any other source. Obviously, this is an inconvenient fact for right-wing conspiracists, but is a fact nevertheless.
Mr. Moses, you cynic. I've lost count of the times I've been sending an e-mail when I accidentally sent it to the political editor of the Guardian. Who amongst us has not committed that easiest of mistakes?
To be fair, I’d be very cross if I thought there wasn’t someone giving governmental or quasi-governmental thought to what might happen!
F1: considering a qualifying bet. Need more info than the bare bones headline times on the BBC, so I go to the dreaded new official site.
Where there's no more info available. Not sector breakdowns, speed traps etc etc. I cannot see the point of the official site anymore, excepting the circuit maps.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so.
The people of Ireland (a country that only decriminalised homosexuality in 1993) are voting on this - where is the government imposition?
It was a broader reference to Governments father than the single case in Ireland. Take the US, for example, where state-wide referendum results are being declared 'unconstitutional' and ignored, and the vast majority of countries making this transition where the people are not being consulted.
Governments are not only imposing a meaning but imposing penalties on those who dare to not agree - even in private. That is wrong.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
Marriage is NOT a religious matter!
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
Actually the Brown surpluses only happened thanks to the golden inheritance he received from Major and while he was following Ken Clarke's plans.
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
Singapore was lost because of bad generalship and the loss of food and water supplies. Did the French surrender Verdun in WW1 ? I do not see the point of staying in Paris to be surrounded and bypassed.
Singapore was lost because the Japanese approached from the north overland via Johor. This was never anticipated by any of the British military or Governments. Any enemy was always expected to approach from Seaward and that's they way the main gun emplacements were pointed and as such could not be turned. Once the Japanese forces reached the south bank in Johor and only lighter forces could be used to hold them back it was only a matter of time with lack of food and water before surrender was inevitable.
While I don't agree with Balls, he certainly brought some intellectual heft to the Labour front bench - which he appears in no hurry to return to - unlike Ed:
When will Labour come to terms with the fact that they lost because they had a geek as leader who had no policies..no amount of analysis will take them to a different conclusion..They are about to to do the same thing gain..They will deserve to be annihilated in 2020.
It's a straightforward and elegant solution - take the government out of a role it has no need to be involved in.
Perhaps, but government has often involved itself a great deal historically, so it's probably a bit late to stop now.
I agree that legislators see everything in terms of laws and the idea of leaving something alone is anathema to them. Interference for it's own sake is just a political job creation scheme. I don't agree that just because lawmakers have been power-hungry historically that we shouldn't even attempt to shrink the State. Or at least slow it growing like Topsy.
Over an economic cycle the debt:GDP ratio will go up and down. Up during and in the aftermath of a recession, down during the boom. In the 90s the recession led to a 15% increase in debt:GDP to a peak level that was still lower than it was previously. That is sensible management of the economy.
In the 2000's the debt:GDP was going up rather than down during a boom, a catastrophic mistake as it meant an explosion of debt afterwards.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
Why? You are essentially saying that religions (all religions, collectively?) have patented the word "marriage" and no government is entitled to be involved in anything with that name. But in reality society is now in practice mainly secular, and the word has acquired a secular significance to which people feel attached, without necessarily wishing to attach a religious meaning to it. Governments that attempt to respond to that by offering what they think are reasonable arrangements for secular marriage are simply doing their job.
I realise that those who attach particular religious significance to the concept might feel they've been robbed, rather as if the State introduced a secular communion service. But equally they could feel pleased that it's acquired such general acceptance as a long-term commitment, even among those who don't believe in religion. Few if any churches dislike the idea that people make lifetime commitments to each other, and they shouldn't be precious about "owning" the concept. Religion isn't that influential nowadays - where it is, they should celebrate.
My impression, incidentally, is that people who oppose gay marriage often previously opposed civil partnerships.
The one question Labour have to answer, given they all knew Ed was a dud, policies were bad and ineffective is why were they quite willing to foist him on the country. It appears after they got slaughtered in the GE they have all had a Damascene style conversion as they spring forward to tell us all we told you so. Cooper Balls being one of the most vocal in this area.
Thankfully the sensible electorate reached that conclusion at least 5 years go.
It was perhaps the most shocking figure in Thursday’s report on immigration. Of the 641,000 immigrants who entered Britain in 2014, revealed the Office for National Statistics, a remarkable 83,000 – that’s 13 per cent – all came from the same country. Britain......It’s a sizeable number – and it’s growing......2014 saw a 10 per cent rise in the number of British people coming to live in Britain. A significant – and surely unsustainable – increase.
“A strong country isn’t one that pulls up the drawbridge,” said David Cameron. “After all, British people have made some important contributions to British society. But uncontrolled immigration of British people can damage our labour market, push down wages, and put pressure on the public services so valued by our Polish plumbers and Nigerian nurses. That’s why, in my negotiations with the EU, Britain’s right to restrict the free movement of British people will be a red line.
Anything which changes to the good the government should get credit for and anything which changes to the bad is the fault of someone else.
The government shouldn't interfere in business provision unless its HS2.
A tax freeze is a cut.
And the carbon tax isn't mentioned - what a surprise.
Rightly or wrongly the government is heavily involved in transport. It makes provisions for motorways so why not HS2?
Broadband is dealt with efficiently by a private company. Which private company is efficiently building motorways etc?
A tax freeze is a cut on what had been expected and since duty is set in nominal not proportional terms it is also a real terms cut. Fuel duty has been frozen in nominal terms for four years so it is now cheaper in real terms than it was. A real terms cut.
But it seems that nothing is good enough for you.
So it seems we're not allowed to criticize but aren't meant to accept what we're told is good for us by the government. Very authoritarian statist.
Unlike some people I form my own opinions and don't repeat them from a party propaganda sheet.
You consequently find that I say similar things irrespective of which party is in power rather than changing what I say as a political party's position changes.
So before 2010, between 2010 and 2015 and now after the 2015 general election elections I said that HS2 is a wasteful use of resources and too big city focused whereas improved roads would have more and wider benefits **, that better broadband would be beneficial (George Osborne himself said that before the 2010 election), that lower business rates in deprived areas would be a good idea and that higher energy costs and regulations damages manufacturing industry.
And still no mention of the carbon tax from you I see.
** This government I freely point out has been far better than Labour on roads.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
In this country at least, religious marriage long predates marriage as a secular institution. The State didn't even bother to register marriages until 1751, when two women both appeared claiming to be the widow of an officer who'd been killed in the Jacobite rebellion.
Historic figures show that around 10% of marriages were civil ceremonies in 1872, rising to 20% by 1908 and 30% by 1963. During the 1960s and early 1970s the percentage of civil ceremonies rose, and by 1976 over half of marriages were civil ceremonies......By 2011, less than 30% of marriages were religious marriages – the lowest percentage on record.
Yes golden inheritance he received from Major. Its really not complicated surbiton.
Philip.. Be kind.
I think Surbiton is getting confused with that apparent "golden Legacy" that according to the left Brown and Labour handed over to the coalition in 2010.
So it seems we're not allowed to criticize but aren't meant to accept what we're told is good for us by the government. Very authoritarian statist.
Unlike some people I form my own opinions and don't repeat them from a party propaganda sheet.
You consequently find that I say similar things irrespective of which party is in power rather than changing what I say as a political party's position changes.
So before 2010, between 2010 and 2015 and now after the 2015 general election elections I said that HS2 is a wasteful use of resources and too big city focused whereas improved roads would have more and wider benefits **, that better broadband would be beneficial (George Osborne himself said that before the 2010 election), that lower business rates in deprived areas would be a good idea and that higher energy costs and regulations damages manufacturing industry.
And still no mention of the carbon tax from you I see.
** This government I freely point out has been far better than Labour on roads.
Of course you're allowed to criticise, who said you're not. I'm allowed to disagree with your criticism too aren't I? Free speech is reciprocal. This governments made some mistakes, but its also done some things right and I find it odd when the things I view as being done right are those being criticised, especially a better direction of travel on energy and far better management of the roads.
I'm not defending the carbon tax as I have no intention of doing so as its a horribly messy grey area for me. But since you've asked: We have a major deficit right now and in an ideal world carbon taxes could be lower, but in reality I would rather other taxes get cut first. If I was Chancellor for the day and able to deal with any tax then I'd like to see Employers NI abolished, it is a horrid case of double-taxation and is a pure tax on jobs rather than a tax on income.
It's a straightforward and elegant solution - take the government out of a role it has no need to be involved in.
Perhaps, but government has often involved itself a great deal historically, so it's probably a bit late to stop now.
I agree that legislators see everything in terms of laws and the idea of leaving something alone is anathema to them. Interference for it's own sake is just a political job creation scheme. I don't agree that just because lawmakers have been power-hungry historically that we shouldn't even attempt to shrink the State. Or at least slow it growing like Topsy.
I'm not saying we should not attempt to shrink the State - although like Phillip_Thompson I happen to disagree with you on whether marriage is centrally a religious or secular matter (as even when it was more principally religious where for many it is not anymore, the State involved itself heavily in it not being proper until legal as it were), so whether the shrinking should be on this matter I am less certain on, although I agree it would be simpler and easier all around if there was a clearer delineation between the legal and religious definitions that such shrinking would accomplish - I was just suggesting that it would probably be unrealistic for us to expect it any time soon. As you say, interference is what politicians and governments do
Just a quick note after last nights discussion on IS in Iraq & Syria.
There are rumoured to be some recently renewed communications involving London about the status of Assad's wife and kids.
The proverbial will hit the fan when IS moves into Jordan. We will then see how "popular" the King is with his "subjects".
Removing Saddam was a great idea NOT !. What was said at the time. "We are in clear and present danger " ? Oh, yeah !
Is Assad's wife still a british citizen?
I believe so - I recall comments a few years ago about how it should be removed, but IIRC the fact is it's legally difficult to remove someone's citizenship, and there was the question of whether it was a good precedent to set, even in the case of someone married to like Assad, to revoke citizenship because the state does not like their spouse. I'm sure someone will correct me if I have remembered wrong.
A pleasant weekend to all, time to enjoy this spectacular weather today.
When will Labour come to terms with the fact that they lost because they had a geek as leader who had no policies..no amount of analysis will take them to a different conclusion..They are about to to do the same thing gain..They will deserve to be annihilated in 2020.
@ydoethur - the voting figures seem to indicate that Labour needs to think much more about yhe 55+ vote.
In other words voters old enough to remember how Labour governed before 'New Labour'?
And those almost totally shielded from the effects of austerity, at the expense of younger voters.
Looking at the three probables for the leadership election, New Labour is back with Burnham and Cooper, while Kendall takes it to the next stage - neo-Labour? There's no-one from the left of the party standing. Ed may have killed off the Labour left for a generation. Let's hope so.
But if Labour isn't "left" what is it and why does it bother?
There's left and there's left. Labour should bother because there is plenty of room in this country for a left of centre party that advocates redistributionist policies as the best way to tackle inequality, and solidarity as the best basis on which to build a fairer society. Likewise, there is plenty of room for a party that advocates a smaller state and believes in the individual and the family as the bedrock of a fair society.
And each of them derives far greater pleasure from attacking the other than it does from attacking the Tories.
The more I think about it, the more this election looks like 1983. The Tories have got the next two GEs in the bag.
That's a brave assumption given that there is a realistic possibility that we will have returned to a Hung Parliament before we even get to the next election. Moreover , if in 2020 the Tories fell back to their 2010 level of 306 seats they would find it difficult to retain office - no minor parties outside Ulster would be inclined to support them with possible exception of UKIP. LibDems will be looking for revenge and likely to be part of an Anti-Tory Block in the same way that Ashdown would have been in 1992 had Major been down to 315 seats.
The one question Labour have to answer, given they all knew Ed was a dud, policies were bad and ineffective is why were they quite willing to foist him on the country.
Not just Labour - Nicola - claims that she thought him not PM material were 100% untrue.....
Meanwhile the Nats fret about the fate of (admittedly the only Scottish) Lib Dem MP......
Wasn’t it the case that only CoE vicars (etc) could marry people, so Non-Conformists either had to swallow their principles and get married in Church, which might or might not prove diffilcult depending on how tolerant the local vicar was, or “marry" in the local Registry Office and then have a chapel service of blessing?
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
In this country at least, religious marriage long predates marriage as a secular institution. The State didn't even bother to register marriages until 1751
It certainly legislated on the proper rules of marriage well before then though, read government at least, involvement is normal.
The Western media seemed to studiously ignore Kerry's visit to Sochi last week. Hopefully Obama is going with his instincts now and ignoring the neocon crazies/liberal interventionists who led him down blind alleys in Libya(Clinton), Syria and the Ukraine(Nuland).
They were talking about post Assad Syria weren't they? Not Ukraine.
The US has to go along with Minsk II, they don't have a say so what would there be to discuss?
Looking at the Labour leader candidates, it would appear that none of them are really looking forward at the real world outside the UK. Cooper and Burnham are still looking at balancing Left and Right in the UK whilst Kendall has looked beyond the UK parapets and has retreated.
Left and Right is not what the 21st century is really about. You can have a totalitarian society - whether Communist or Fascist makes no difference. In both the politicos and their friends have riches and exclusivity and the rest just live in and on what they are given.
Currently we are seeing a world with dominant Empire re/builders Russia, China, ISIS (militant Islam) and the EU - and all get very angry and aggressive when they are opposed. With the fight for resources (minerals and food) being becoming more important, it is likely we will see a conflict between states/groups of states which practise Protectionism and those seeking free global trade.
At the same time technology is steadily reducing the jobs available in an overpriced and uncompetitive western Europe.
None of the Labour leader candidates have a clue about any of these important matters as they all lack real vision.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
In this country at least, religious marriage long predates marriage as a secular institution. The State didn't even bother to register marriages until 1751, when two women both appeared claiming to be the widow of an officer who'd been killed in the Jacobite rebellion.
No it doesn't Sean. Only if you look on a very narrow modern era does it do so. We've had marriages for thousands of years, longer than we've had Christianity.
Prior to the 13th century religion barely got involved with marriage and most marriage contracts were basically that - contracts. Say the words and you were married. Marriage wasn't introduced with onto these islands with modern religions, it pre-dates it - even if the state didn't record it that was mainly because the state (like religion) had no need to be involved. Marriage was a private matter between the private parties involved.
Over an economic cycle the debt:GDP ratio will go up and down. Up during and in the aftermath of a recession, down during the boom. In the 90s the recession led to a 15% increase in debt:GDP to a peak level that was still lower than it was previously. That is sensible management of the economy.
In the 2000's the debt:GDP was going up rather than down during a boom, a catastrophic mistake as it meant an explosion of debt afterwards.
Please don't refer to the 2000s as a 'boom'.
It wasn't and describing it as such hides the underlying damage being done to the economy during that period.
The stock market and industrial production peaked in 1999 and 2000 and were below that level before the 2008 recession. Meanwhile, unemployment rose and home ownership fell during the 2000s and there was a lack of infrastructure investment (proper investment not Brownian investment ie spending).
What the 2000s were was a credit bubble.
And when that burst the borrowing was transferred from the household to the government.
Actually, the Mirror story was on the front page of the Guardian the day after the damages awards were made earlier this week. It was also on the front page of the BBC website and reported on all radio and news channels. A cursory Google search will also reveal a high-level of detailed and on-going reporting form both the BBC and the Guardian about events at the Mirror - probably more than from any other source. Obviously, this is an inconvenient fact for right-wing conspiracists, but is a fact nevertheless.
You are talking utter horses##t when it comes to BBC coverage of NI vs Mirror group. Yes it was on the front page, and yes if you google search you will find articles about the trial, but it wont tell you were they was located. I will give you a clue, most were hidden well away from the front page and it hardly got any mention on the main new coverage. I await the special panoramas about this, doorstepping Piers Morgan, how about difficult questions about Ed Miliband hiring Mirror employees, etc etc etc.
Also, the payouts got 1 day of main headline grabbing exposure. 1 day. Compared to I don't know 100's for NI, where every celeb and politician uttering any word about NI was breathlessly reported. Lies where reported as fact. Half truths were reported as fact. The BBC lost it collective marbles, nothing was fact checked, it was just put out there as soon as it was uttered by somebody, anybody.
The fact of the matter is the Mirror made NI look like part timers when it came to phone hacking.
If you want to see good reporting on the whole issue of phone "hacking" and what I would call genuine hacking and wider abuses, the Independent have been extremely good throughout.
Wasn’t it the case that only CoE vicars (etc) could marry people, so Non-Conformists either had to swallow their principles and get married in Church, which might or might not prove diffilcult depending on how tolerant the local vicar was, or “marry" in the local Registry Office and then have a chapel service of blessing?
Despite the legal disabilities that were imposed on Catholics, Catholic weddings were considered valid, as were Quaker weddings, and weddings by Rabbis, once Jews had been readmitted to England. For some reason, marriages by Presbyterians and other dissenters in England and Ireland were not deemed to be valid.
Over an economic cycle the debt:GDP ratio will go up and down. Up during and in the aftermath of a recession, down during the boom. In the 90s the recession led to a 15% increase in debt:GDP to a peak level that was still lower than it was previously. That is sensible management of the economy.
In the 2000's the debt:GDP was going up rather than down during a boom, a catastrophic mistake as it meant an explosion of debt afterwards.
Please don't refer to the 2000s as a 'boom'.
It wasn't and describing it as such hides the underlying damage being done to the economy during that period.
The stock market and industrial production peaked in 1999 and 2000 and were below that level before the 2008 recession. Meanwhile, unemployment rose and home ownership fell during the 2000s and there was a lack of infrastructure investment (proper investment not Brownian investment ie spending).
What the 2000s were was a credit bubble.
And when that burst the borrowing was transferred from the household to the government.
As far as the economic cycle was concerned it was not a bust, it was a boom. An unsustainable credit-fuelled boom but a boom nonetheless. Consecutive years of (partially unsupported) growth that should have had lowering debt ratios rather than booming debt.
Didn't he have a preference for old English words like 'free' over French derived 'liberty' for example too?
Yes. IIRC, the whole of the most famous section of the "fight them on the beaches" speech (i.e. that bit), is wholly built out ofshort, Anglo-Saxon-derived words with one exception: "surrender".
I guess having 'surrender' from the French was appropriate......
Why? What would we have done different from the French, but for the geographic accident of the Channel?
I doubt we'd have surrendered to 'save the beauty of London' (as the French did, Paris) but looked on it as one bloody great tank trap.....and also our experience with invasion was somewhat different to the French - their most recent a couple of decades before, ours nigh on a millennium....
Would we ?
Given the disgrace of Singapore I have my doubts.
Of course if there had ever been a serious threat of invasion then British land forces and defences would have been much stronger so its all hypothetical.
Singapore was lost because of bad generalship and the loss of food and water supplies. Did the French surrender Verdun in WW1 ? I do not see the point of staying in Paris to be surrounded and bypassed.
Singapore was lost because the Japanese approached from the north overland via Johor. This was never anticipated by any of the British military or Governments. Any enemy was always expected to approach from Seaward and that's they way the main gun emplacements were pointed and as such could not be turned. Once the Japanese forces reached the south bank in Johor and only lighter forces could be used to hold them back it was only a matter of time with lack of food and water before surrender was inevitable.
The Japanese were outnumbered 3 to 1. We could have defended better. The seaward guns could still turn and fire. But we had too little HE ammunition. We lost water reservoirs and food dumps.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
In this country at least, religious marriage long predates marriage as a secular institution. The State didn't even bother to register marriages until 1751, when two women both appeared claiming to be the widow of an officer who'd been killed in the Jacobite rebellion.
No it doesn't Sean. Only if you look on a very narrow modern era does it do so. We've had marriages for thousands of years, longer than we've had Christianity.
Prior to the 13th century religion barely got involved with marriage and most marriage contracts were basically that - contracts. Say the words and you were married. Marriage wasn't introduced with onto these islands with modern religions, it pre-dates it - even if the state didn't record it that was mainly because the state (like religion) had no need to be involved. Marriage was a private matter between the private parties involved.
I assume that marriage or its equivalent must have existed in times which pre-date Christianity in the British Isles, but the Christian marriage service is very ancient. It was common for people to recite the marriage service over an open bible, albeit, often without the presence of clergy.
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
Why? You are essentially saying that religions (all religions, collectively?) have patented the word "marriage" and no government is entitled to be involved in anything with that name. But in reality society is now in practice mainly secular, and the word has acquired a secular significance to which people feel attached, without necessarily wishing to attach a religious meaning to it. Governments that attempt to respond to that by offering what they think are reasonable arrangements for secular marriage are simply doing their job.
I realise that those who attach particular religious significance to the concept might feel they've been robbed, rather as if the State introduced a secular communion service. But equally they could feel pleased that it's acquired such general acceptance as a long-term commitment, even among those who don't believe in religion. Few if any churches dislike the idea that people make lifetime commitments to each other, and they shouldn't be precious about "owning" the concept. Religion isn't that influential nowadays - where it is, they should celebrate.
My impression, incidentally, is that people who oppose gay marriage often previously opposed civil partnerships.
You might as well have reduced what you wrote to a few words and accuse those of not agreeing to the "marriage" aspect in terms of the wording as being homophobic.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
Actually the Brown surpluses only happened thanks to the golden inheritance he received from Major and while he was following Ken Clarke's plans.
'Everyone knows that politics is a robust trade, especially in an election campaign. No-one would expect candidates to spend their time highlighting their opponents’ virtues but to suggest any smear is justifiable must be wrong. Most worryingly it betrays an attitude that I had hoped would have been eradicated by the expenses scandals of the last parliament – namely that different rules should apply to MPs than apply to the rest of the population. If Tesco tried to smear the Co-op in the same way it would soon be in trouble. Why should politics be different?...
...The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending.
Rottenborough The geek will be one of the three that are currently front runners..not one of them is potential PM material...Another own goal roaring up for Labour..They deserve to be taken apart and will be.
not had a chance to get involved in much PB discussion the last week or so because of work pressures. But just wanted to say what a stunningly good result it is in Ireland. Hopefully this will prove inspirational for the Gay Rights movements in other ostensibly religious countries.
Even though I am an atheist I live in hope that the Pope would continue his reforming works in the Catholic Church and give official backing to Gay Marriage before his tenure comes to an end.
“Britain is full,” said electrician Zbigniew Nowak, 34, from Birmingham. “I’m sick of these British, coming back here, taking our jobs. Plus they don’t even try to integrate into our way of life. Hardly any of them speak Polish or Somali or Urdu. They just end up living in British ghettoes, watching Sky Sports and throwing up drunk in the street. The Government should send them back where they came from. By which I mean where they’ve just arrived from, not where they came from originally.
It was perhaps the most shocking figure in Thursday’s report on immigration. Of the 641,000 immigrants who entered Britain in 2014, revealed the Office for National Statistics, a remarkable 83,000 – that’s 13 per cent – all came from the same country. Britain......It’s a sizeable number – and it’s growing......2014 saw a 10 per cent rise in the number of British people coming to live in Britain. A significant – and surely unsustainable – increase.
“A strong country isn’t one that pulls up the drawbridge,” said David Cameron. “After all, British people have made some important contributions to British society. But uncontrolled immigration of British people can damage our labour market, push down wages, and put pressure on the public services so valued by our Polish plumbers and Nigerian nurses. That’s why, in my negotiations with the EU, Britain’s right to restrict the free movement of British people will be a red line.
So it seems we're not allowed to criticize but aren't meant to accept what we're told is good for us by the government. Very authoritarian statist.
Unlike some people I form my own opinions and don't repeat them from a party propaganda sheet.
You consequently find that I say similar things irrespective of which party is in power rather than changing what I say as a political party's position changes.
So before 2010, between 2010 and 2015 and now after the 2015 general election elections I said that HS2 is a wasteful use of resources and too big city focused whereas improved roads would have more and wider benefits **, that better broadband would be beneficial (George Osborne himself said that before the 2010 election), that lower business rates in deprived areas would be a good idea and that higher energy costs and regulations damages manufacturing industry.
And still no mention of the carbon tax from you I see.
** This government I freely point out has been far better than Labour on roads.
Of course you're allowed to criticise, who said you're not. I'm allowed to disagree with your criticism too aren't I? Free speech is reciprocal. This governments made some mistakes, but its also done some things right and I find it odd when the things I view as being done right are those being criticised, especially a better direction of travel on energy and far better management of the roads.
I'm not defending the carbon tax as I have no intention of doing so as its a horribly messy grey area for me. But since you've asked: We have a major deficit right now and in an ideal world carbon taxes could be lower, but in reality I would rather other taxes get cut first. If I was Chancellor for the day and able to deal with any tax then I'd like to see Employers NI abolished, it is a horrid case of double-taxation and is a pure tax on jobs rather than a tax on income.
Fair enough.
My priorities would be tax simplification. Abolishing NI and incorporating it into income tax. Shifting the burden of taxation from wealth creation to wealth consumption. Shifting the burden of taxation from work to property.
Isn’t there some form of marriage ..... eg committment of a man and a woman (usually) ....... in most cultures? Sophisticated or otherwise!
I don’t know what the situation was in culture which, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
Irish voters appear to have voted heavily in favor of allowing same-sex marriage in a referendum, the country's equality minister said on Saturday shortly after counting began.
"I think it's won. I've seen bellwether boxes open, middle-of-the road areas who wouldn't necessarily be liberal and they are resoundingly voting yes," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain told Reuters at the main count center in Dublin.
It looks like the people of Ireland disagree - and who are you to tell them otherwise?
They have voted for same sex union, as I would have done. It is an inevitable change as the world moves on. but its not a marriage nor can it ever be so. Marriage is between a man and a woman, however the state might legislate to change its meaning.
No a marriage is between the people who get married. Who are you to define its meaning?
Governments are imposing a meaning and they should not seek to do so. Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter. There is no need for the slightest connection between the two. The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
Isn’t there some form of marriage ..... eg committment of a man and a woman (usually) ....... in most cultures? Sophisticated or otherwise!
I don’t know what the situation was in culture whicj, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
I don't think there was any established marriage ceremony in classical Greece, although they had very stringent laws against adultery (which meant sexual activity between a man and a married woman). One favoured punishment for adulterous men, who were caught in the act, was to be raped by the outraged husband's slaves.
I wonder if perhaps your interest and inclination to cast aspersions on the SNP is blinding you to what is actually happening with the public narrative. The memo only states one thing, that the recording of a fourth hand account was made in good faith. At no point does it confirm what was said, in fact it confirms that it has doubts about the veracity of the situation. Re-reporting of the Telegraph's desperate attempts to cover its own poor journalistic standards and failure to do basic fact checking doesn't help your cause.
The exact same re-reporting failures appear to have occurred over the "Alex Salmond briefing against Nicola Sturgeon" which stems from an unsourced, unreliable opinion piece by Iain Martin on Cap-X which was then re-reported without any further fact checking by other elements of the media.
But there is a wider problem. People aren't listening any more. When you continually repeat slurs which fail basic reasonableness tests, you turn the audience off and hand the SNP both the moral high ground and immunity from any other criticism.
When you then try to incorporate genuinely accurate criticism it fails to find an audience. The SNP decision to continue with the Labour-developed Curriculum for Excellence has almost certainly been a mistake. But the valid criticism of their failing on this issue is washing over the audience it is trying to reach. Not because the criticism is badly framed or inaccurate but because those putting forward the message are not being listened to and probably never will till their entire approach changes.
SNP Bad does not work. It has not worked at any time in recent memory and it is casting a shroud over what the SNP actually does to the extent where their immunity from criticism is not based on the SNP or the electorate but on the utter complete failing of critics to be reasonable in their criticism.
Isn’t there some form of marriage ..... eg committment of a man and a woman (usually) ....... in most cultures? Sophisticated or otherwise!
I don’t know what the situation was in culture whicj, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
I don't think there was any established marriage ceremony in classical Greece, although they had very stringent laws against adultery (which meant sexual activity between a man and a married woman). One favoured punishment for adulterous men, who were caught in the act, was to be raped by the outraged husband's slaves.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
Yes, you said something that earlier on and it was a load of rubbish then too. But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool. Thanks.
It's the truth. Marriage dates back to Mesopotamian times as a secular contract. Religion tacked itself on, but that doesn't make it a religious matter - its just a matter where religion has hopped on to a secular issue.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
In this country at least, religious marriage long predates marriage as a secular institution. The State didn't even bother to register marriages until 1751, when two women both appeared claiming to be the widow of an officer who'd been killed in the Jacobite rebellion.
No it doesn't Sean. Only if you look on a very narrow modern era does it do so. We've had marriages for thousands of years, longer than we've had Christianity.
Prior to the 13th century religion barely got involved with marriage and most marriage contracts were basically that - contracts. Say the words and you were married. Marriage wasn't introduced with onto these islands with modern religions, it pre-dates it - even if the state didn't record it that was mainly because the state (like religion) had no need to be involved. Marriage was a private matter between the private parties involved.
I assume that marriage or its equivalent must have existed in times which pre-date Christianity in the British Isles, but the Christian marriage service is very ancient. It was common for people to recite the marriage service over an open bible, albeit, often without the presence of clergy.
Marriage as a contract between two people, with or without religious connotations goes back at least to Ancient Mesopotamia in the late 3rd millennium BC. The laws of Ur-Nammu from around 2100 BC include extensive references to marriage.
Marriage also pre dated the arrival of the Romans in these Isles as we know from Roman texts discussing pre-conquest Britain.
Historic figures show that around 10% of marriages were civil ceremonies in 1872, rising to 20% by 1908 and 30% by 1963. During the 1960s and early 1970s the percentage of civil ceremonies rose, and by 1976 over half of marriages were civil ceremonies......By 2011, less than 30% of marriages were religious marriages – the lowest percentage on record.
Very interesting and many thanks for that! I'm going to claim it as evidence that civil and religious acts of partnership can and do exist as independent concepts rather than trending together - and that we should formalise that division.
I assume that marriage or its equivalent must have existed in times which pre-date Christianity in the British Isles, but the Christian marriage service is very ancient. It was common for people to recite the marriage service over an open bible, albeit, often without the presence of clergy.
The Christian marriage service is old yes, but its existed less than half the time that marriage has. That's no disrespect to Christianity, its just history. Indeed it was in a relatively recent era common to invoke religion voluntarily, but that was cultural evolution. Religion has a tendency, most especially in the medieval era, to take over regular parts of life that do not require it. Many that were previously secular and are able to be again now.
My point stands that marriage is originally an anthropological idea, not a religious one, that has survived and evolved for at least 4,500 as far as we know. Possibly longer, but at least 4,500 years. During that time the idea of what marriage constitutes has varied - we have had arranged or voluntary, monogamous or polygamous, religious or secular. Now we have heterosexual or homosexual.
No one religion can claim a monopoly or exclusion over others or none for the idea of marriage. It is a universal idea. Nor can it even be claimed that marriage has always meant one man and one woman. Religion may have been involved in some eras but it is not an original or uniquely religious idea.
Historic figures show that around 10% of marriages were civil ceremonies in 1872, rising to 20% by 1908 and 30% by 1963. During the 1960s and early 1970s the percentage of civil ceremonies rose, and by 1976 over half of marriages were civil ceremonies......By 2011, less than 30% of marriages were religious marriages – the lowest percentage on record.
Very interesting and many thanks for that! I'm going to claim it as evidence that civil and religious acts of partnership can and do exist as independent concepts rather than trending together - and that we should formalise that division.
We do.
You might be getting confused about the difference between marriage and a wedding ceremony.
You can have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony but they both end with you being in a marriage. The marriage is the same no matter what wedding ceremony you have undertaken. There isn't a religious marriage and a civil marriage, there is just marriage.
“Britain is full,” said electrician Zbigniew Nowak, 34, from Birmingham. “I’m sick of these British, coming back here, taking our jobs. Plus they don’t even try to integrate into our way of life. Hardly any of them speak Polish or Somali or Urdu. They just end up living in British ghettoes, watching Sky Sports and throwing up drunk in the street. The Government should send them back where they came from. By which I mean where they’ve just arrived from, not where they came from originally.
It was perhaps the most shocking figure in Thursday’s report on immigration. Of the 641,000 immigrants who entered Britain in 2014, revealed the Office for National Statistics, a remarkable 83,000 – that’s 13 per cent – all came from the same country. Britain......It’s a sizeable number – and it’s growing......2014 saw a 10 per cent rise in the number of British people coming to live in Britain. A significant – and surely unsustainable – increase.
“A strong country isn’t one that pulls up the drawbridge,” said David Cameron. “After all, British people have made some important contributions to British society. But uncontrolled immigration of British people can damage our labour market, push down wages, and put pressure on the public services so valued by our Polish plumbers and Nigerian nurses. That’s why, in my negotiations with the EU, Britain’s right to restrict the free movement of British people will be a red line.
So it seems we're not allowed to criticize but aren't meant to accept what we're told is good for us by the government. Very authoritarian statist.
Unlike some people I form my own opinions and don't repeat them from a party propaganda sheet.
You consequently find that I say similar things irrespective of which party is in power rather than changing what I say as a political party's position changes.
So before 2010, between 2010 and 2015 and now after the 2015 general election elections I said that HS2 is a wasteful use of resources and too big city focused whereas improved roads would have more and wider benefits **, that better broadband would be beneficial (George Osborne himself said that before the 2010 election), that lower business rates in deprived areas would be a good idea and that higher energy costs and regulations damages manufacturing industry.
And still no mention of the carbon tax from you I see.
** This government I freely point out has been far better than Labour on roads.
Of course you're allowed to criticise, who said you're not. I'm allowed to disagree with your criticism too aren't I? Free speech is reciprocal. This governments made some mistakes, but its also done some things right and I find it odd when the things I view as being done right are those being criticised, especially a better direction of travel on energy and far better management of the roads.
I'm not defending the carbon tax as I have no intention of doing so as its a horribly messy grey area for me. But since you've asked: We have a major deficit right now and in an ideal world carbon taxes could be lower, but in reality I would rather other taxes get cut first. If I was Chancellor for the day and able to deal with any tax then I'd like to see Employers NI abolished, it is a horrid case of double-taxation and is a pure tax on jobs rather than a tax on income.
Fair enough.
My priorities would be tax simplification. Abolishing NI and incorporating it into income tax. Shifting the burden of taxation from wealth creation to wealth consumption. Shifting the burden of taxation from work to property.
I agree with all of that except for the caveat on what you mean by the last one. If you mean eg so called mansion taxes etc I worry about that as for example if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago I don't like the idea the government should suddenly burden them with taxes they can't afford because of that.
Taxing income means we sort-of know it can be afforded, there is by definition an income to pay for it. Taxing property not so much.
Isn’t there some form of marriage ..... eg committment of a man and a woman (usually) ....... in most cultures? Sophisticated or otherwise!
I don’t know what the situation was in culture whicj, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
I don't think there was any established marriage ceremony in classical Greece, although they had very stringent laws against adultery (which meant sexual activity between a man and a married woman). One favoured punishment for adulterous men, who were caught in the act, was to be raped by the outraged husband's slaves.
I see; violation of property rights.
That was the view.
Seduction was considered worse than rape, because the woman had been persuaded to reject her husband.
All sorts of activities come to have the “blessing” of the local religion, don’t they. Most SE Asian homes have some sort of area which denotes that the local religious leader has blessed it.
Once went to a long and, to me, incomprensible service, in Thailand where a new block of flats was blessed by a team of monks. At what appeard to be the conclusion the monks all lined up and were given a meal by the flat’s occupants, if they were Thai, or by the maid if they weren’t!
Of course you're allowed to criticise, who said you're not. I'm allowed to disagree with your criticism too aren't I? Free speech is reciprocal. This governments made some mistakes, but its also done some things right and I find it odd when the things I view as being done right are those being criticised, especially a better direction of travel on energy and far better management of the roads.
I'm not defending the carbon tax as I have no intention of doing so as its a horribly messy grey area for me. But since you've asked: We have a major deficit right now and in an ideal world carbon taxes could be lower, but in reality I would rather other taxes get cut first. If I was Chancellor for the day and able to deal with any tax then I'd like to see Employers NI abolished, it is a horrid case of double-taxation and is a pure tax on jobs rather than a tax on income.
Fair enough.
My priorities would be tax simplification. Abolishing NI and incorporating it into income tax. Shifting the burden of taxation from wealth creation to wealth consumption. Shifting the burden of taxation from work to property.
I agree with all of that except for the caveat on what you mean by the last one. If you mean eg so called mansion taxes etc I worry about that as for example if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago I don't like the idea the government should suddenly burden them with taxes they can't afford because of that.
Taxing income means we sort-of know it can be afforded, there is by definition an income to pay for it. Taxing property not so much.
They can afford it. What you mean is you don't like the consequences of such a tax, which would be to force them to either sell or take on debt to pay for it.
However, exempting the elderly would just be another bung to them. Why should working families have to move if they can't afford the mortgage on a property but the non-working be allowed to stay when they couldn't afford the taxes without exemption?
Property is an excellent thing to tax because it is simple to do so and is a good proxy for income.
As an aside, "if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago", fate or judgement has given them a tremendous windfall. Why shouldn't that be taxed?
Isn’t there some form of marriage ..... eg committment of a man and a woman (usually) ....... in most cultures? Sophisticated or otherwise!
I don’t know what the situation was in culture whicj, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
I don't think there was any established marriage ceremony in classical Greece, although they had very stringent laws against adultery (which meant sexual activity between a man and a married woman). One favoured punishment for adulterous men, who were caught in the act, was to be raped by the outraged husband's slaves.
There was indeed an established marriage ceremony in classical or ancient Greece. It was known as Gamos.
I wonder if perhaps your interest and inclination to cast aspersions on the SNP is blinding you to what is actually happening with the public narrative. The memo only states one thing, that the recording of a fourth hand account was made in good faith. At no point does it confirm what was said, in fact it confirms that it has doubts about the veracity of the situation. Re-reporting of the Telegraph's desperate attempts to cover its own poor journalistic standards and failure to do basic fact checking doesn't help your cause.
The exact same re-reporting failures appear to have occurred over the "Alex Salmond briefing against Nicola Sturgeon" which stems from an unsourced, unreliable opinion piece by Iain Martin on Cap-X which was then re-reported without any further fact checking by other elements of the media.
But there is a wider problem. People aren't listening any more. When you continually repeat slurs which fail basic reasonableness tests, you turn the audience off and hand the SNP both the moral high ground and immunity from any other criticism.
When you then try to incorporate genuinely accurate criticism it fails to find an audience. The SNP decision to continue with the Labour-developed Curriculum for Excellence has almost certainly been a mistake. But the valid criticism of their failing on this issue is washing over the audience it is trying to reach. Not because the criticism is badly framed or inaccurate but because those putting forward the message are not being listened to and probably never will till their entire approach changes.
SNP Bad does not work. It has not worked at any time in recent memory and it is casting a shroud over what the SNP actually does to the extent where their immunity from criticism is not based on the SNP or the electorate but on the utter complete failing of critics to be reasonable in their criticism.
Excellent post. That is at the root of the problem of SLAB, the Scottish media, and the London commentators all at once.
Over an economic cycle the debt:GDP ratio will go up and down. Up during and in the aftermath of a recession, down during the boom. In the 90s the recession led to a 15% increase in debt:GDP to a peak level that was still lower than it was previously. That is sensible management of the economy.
In the 2000's the debt:GDP was going up rather than down during a boom, a catastrophic mistake as it meant an explosion of debt afterwards.
Please don't refer to the 2000s as a 'boom'.
It wasn't and describing it as such hides the underlying damage being done to the economy during that period.
The stock market and industrial production peaked in 1999 and 2000 and were below that level before the 2008 recession. Meanwhile, unemployment rose and home ownership fell during the 2000s and there was a lack of infrastructure investment (proper investment not Brownian investment ie spending).
What the 2000s were was a credit bubble.
And when that burst the borrowing was transferred from the household to the government.
As far as the economic cycle was concerned it was not a bust, it was a boom. An unsustainable credit-fuelled boom but a boom nonetheless. Consecutive years of (partially unsupported) growth that should have had lowering debt ratios rather than booming debt.
Not all years of economic growth are a 'boom' though.
Its normal for an economy to grow because of technological progress, increasing productivity and as in the 2000s population growth. but that doesn't by itself create a 'boom' and the effects associated with one.
Its better to leave the word 'boom' to describe those periods of economic growth which might be described as supercharged or overheated eg the 'Mardling Boom', the 'Barber Boom', and the 'Lawson Boom'. Periods which tend to have excessive investment, rapidly rising pay, a surge in imports and then inflation, rising interest rates and a recession.
When Gordon Brown was forecasting 'no more boom or bust' he was planning on steady economic growth without the 'boom' followed by 'bust' of previous economic cycles.
What he achieved though with his 2000s credit bubble was many of the worst things of a 'boom' eg unaffordable housing and a massive trade deficit but without the better aspects such as increased living standards and investment.
And he still got the 'bust' even without a prior 'boom'.
Historic figures show that around 10% of marriages were civil ceremonies in 1872, rising to 20% by 1908 and 30% by 1963. During the 1960s and early 1970s the percentage of civil ceremonies rose, and by 1976 over half of marriages were civil ceremonies......By 2011, less than 30% of marriages were religious marriages – the lowest percentage on record.
Very interesting and many thanks for that! I'm going to claim it as evidence that civil and religious acts of partnership can and do exist as independent concepts rather than trending together - and that we should formalise that division.
We do.
You might be getting confused about the difference between marriage and a wedding ceremony.
You can have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony but they both end with you being in a marriage. The marriage is the same no matter what wedding ceremony you have undertaken. There isn't a religious marriage and a civil marriage, there is just marriage.
You have just described one result ('marriage') as the end result of two processes. I am arguing for those processes producing different results. One of them is recognised by the State, the other is a religious blessing and just gets you the permission of $INSERT_DEITY_HERE
I tend to think that the mess over gay marriage is purely a confection designed by the international elite to mobilise the gay community and it's supporters against Christians, and perhaps vice versa. As long as we're fighting each other in our little trenches over what is essentially an issue of semantics, we're not concentrating on those who would steal all of our wealth, our freedoms, and our health.
There was no long term groundswell of protest and agitation for gay marriage (as there was for civil partnerships), but nevertheless it has simultaneously appeared all over the western world. I don't say it's a bad idea, but I do say it's a top down enforcement not a natural evolution from the way things have been.
The obvious solution has been stated here before - civil marriage should be open to all couples, same sex and different sex, and Religious marriage should be completely separate, not have a legal status, and be provided by whatever sacred or Religious venue, open to those weddings that accord to the set of beliefs by which it operates. No problem, no conflict, no controversy. Which is why it hasn't happened.
The one question Labour have to answer, given they all knew Ed was a dud, policies were bad and ineffective is why were they quite willing to foist him on the country.
Not just Labour - Nicola - claims that she thought him not PM material were 100% untrue.....
Meanwhile the Nats fret about the fate of (admittedly the only Scottish) Lib Dem MP......
You lying again. She may have thought it but did not claim it as you try to smear yet again. Tories are lower than a Libdem when it comes to untruths.
They can afford it. What you mean is you don't like the consequences of such a tax, which would be to force them to either sell or take on debt to pay for it.
However, exempting the elderly would just be another bung to them. Why should working families have to move if they can't afford the mortgage on a property but the non-working be allowed to stay when they couldn't afford the taxes without exemption?
Property is an excellent thing to tax because it is simple to do so and is a good proxy for income.
As an aside, "if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago", fate or judgement has given them a tremendous windfall. Why shouldn't that be taxed?
So how would you deal with those who live in rented property? If you are moving from an income based to a property based tax system then should those who have high incomes but live in rented accommodation end up paying no tax? After all they don't have the asset to sell.
Edit. And to answer your last question just move the requirement for the payment of stamp duty or its equivalent from the purchaser to the seller. That way the owner is taxed if they choose to liquidate their asset but not before.
As a qualified opthalmologist he would probably be eligible to get a work permit in any case.
I think his GMC registration has lapsed, and that he never completed his postgraduate training, so if he wanted to re-enter practice he would have to begin at the beginning. He would not be eligible for a visa (except by accompanying spouse) unless he applied for a job advertised for 4 weeks with no appointable UK or EU candidate.
The GMC may have a problem with him practising if prosecuted for crimes against humanity. It would be an ethical bar to good medical practise!
I tend to think that the mess over gay marriage is purely a confection designed by the international elite to mobilise the gay community and it's supporters against Christians, and perhaps vice versa. As long as we're fighting each other in our little trenches over what is essentially an issue of semantics, we're not concentrating on those who would steal all of our wealth, our freedoms, and our health.
There was no long term groundswell of protest and agitation for gay marriage (as there was for civil partnerships), but nevertheless it has simultaneously appeared all over the western world. I don't say it's a bad idea, but I do say it's a top down enforcement not a natural evolution from the way things have been.
The obvious solution has been stated here before - civil marriage should be open to all couples, same sex and different sex, and Religious marriage should be completely separate, not have a legal status, and be provided by whatever sacred or Religious venue, open to those weddings that accord to the set of beliefs by which it operates. No problem, no conflict, no controversy. Which is why it hasn't happened.
No it hasn't happened because it would entail the disestablishment of the Church in England and additionally would signify a reduction in power and influence of religion over state matters. As such, the block to such a move comes from the religious side not the secular.
To win the argument, you have to make sense to the voters. Saying that running a deficit during boom times doesn't do that. You can't take out an insurance policy against a bust, you have to be prepared.. 'Ah, but we're investing for the future' doesn't work when it's going on welfare payments or PFI.
'Ah, but we're a big country and we can afford it' doesn't make sense wither when we're not even paying the interest on the loan. A house owner knows that only too well.
Labour didn't try to justify it, because the argument lacked common sense and would fail.
It is because it is counter to "common sense" (which is wrong) that the case must be made.
Since 1979, Britain has run a budget deficit every year apart from two when John Major was Chancellor, and four years under Gordon Brown.
Does it not strike you as odd that the deficit hawks care only about Labour deficits and not Conservative ones, despite Labour having the better record on their chosen criterion?
The proper way of looking at things is to consider government debt as a percentage of GDP:
The danger period being 2003 to 2007 when, despite the banks pumping a hundred billion a year into the economy in the form of household loans, government debt was steadily rising.
Note that there was no increase in government debt percentage because of the 1980 recession, an increase in government debt percentage of about 15% because of the 1990 recession and an increase in government debt percentage of over 40% because of the 2008 recession.
Indicative of a country now living well beyond its means.
But when Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that it 'had never had it so good' the Debt /GDP ratio was 105%. Despite that he did not pursue a policy of Austerity - which had been abandoned five years earlier when the same ratio was well in excess of 200%. On that basis , the figures of recent years appear relatively benign.
I wonder if perhaps your interest and inclination to cast aspersions on the SNP is blinding you to what is actually happening with the public narrative. The memo only states one thing, that the recording of a fourth hand account was made in good faith. At no point does it confirm what was said, in fact it confirms that it has doubts about the veracity of the situation. Re-reporting of the Telegraph's desperate attempts to cover its own poor journalistic standards and failure to do basic fact checking doesn't help your cause.
The exact same re-reporting failures appear to have occurred over the "Alex Salmond briefing against Nicola Sturgeon" which stems from an unsourced, unreliable opinion piece by Iain Martin on Cap-X which was then re-reported without any further fact checking by other elements of the media.
But there is a wider problem. People aren't listening any more. When you continually repeat slurs which fail basic reasonableness tests, you turn the audience off and hand the SNP both the moral high ground and immunity from any other criticism.
When you then try to incorporate genuinely accurate criticism it fails to find an audience. The SNP decision to continue with the Labour-developed Curriculum for Excellence has almost certainly been a mistake. But the valid criticism of their failing on this issue is washing over the audience it is trying to reach. Not because the criticism is badly framed or inaccurate but because those putting forward the message are not being listened to and probably never will till their entire approach changes.
SNP Bad does not work. It has not worked at any time in recent memory and it is casting a shroud over what the SNP actually does to the extent where their immunity from criticism is not based on the SNP or the electorate but on the utter complete failing of critics to be reasonable in their criticism.
Excellent post. That is at the root of the problem of SLAB, the Scottish media, and the London commentators all at once.
As well as the Scotland hating emigrants like Carlotta and TGOHF, they just cannot see past their bitterness of the country they left. One wonders what tragedy forced them to flee their country.
They can afford it. What you mean is you don't like the consequences of such a tax, which would be to force them to either sell or take on debt to pay for it.
However, exempting the elderly would just be another bung to them. Why should working families have to move if they can't afford the mortgage on a property but the non-working be allowed to stay when they couldn't afford the taxes without exemption?
Property is an excellent thing to tax because it is simple to do so and is a good proxy for income.
As an aside, "if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago", fate or judgement has given them a tremendous windfall. Why shouldn't that be taxed?
So how would you deal with those who live in rented property? If you are moving from an income based to a property based tax system then should those who have high incomes but live in rented accommodation end up paying no tax? After all they don't have the asset to sell.
Edit. And to answer your last question just move the requirement for the payment of stamp duty or its equivalent from the purchaser to the seller. That way the owner is taxed if they choose to liquidate their asset but not before.
Wouldn't the actual owner ie who they are renting from effectively include the property tax in the rent he charged ?
They can afford it. What you mean is you don't like the consequences of such a tax, which would be to force them to either sell or take on debt to pay for it.
However, exempting the elderly would just be another bung to them. Why should working families have to move if they can't afford the mortgage on a property but the non-working be allowed to stay when they couldn't afford the taxes without exemption?
Property is an excellent thing to tax because it is simple to do so and is a good proxy for income.
As an aside, "if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago", fate or judgement has given them a tremendous windfall. Why shouldn't that be taxed?
Two issues.
1: The retired were one working and would have paid a mortgage in their working lifetime, why should the government suddenly change the rules when they're in their retirement?
2: No they've only received a windfall if they sell, until then its only on paper a windfall. That's why I have less of an objection with inheritance tax - its another tax that isn't ideal but is more justified than others.
People should be able to prepare for retirement in a sound manner. Changing the rules after the fact is unfair. My grandparents are in their 80s and retired, they worked all their lives why should they not be able to enjoy their retirement now on a sound basis? Other things are bungs, but this isn't one of them.
I tend to think that the mess over gay marriage is purely a confection designed by the international elite to mobilise the gay community and it's supporters against Christians, and perhaps vice versa. As long as we're fighting each other in our little trenches over what is essentially an issue of semantics, we're not concentrating on those who would steal all of our wealth, our freedoms, and our health.
There was no long term groundswell of protest and agitation for gay marriage (as there was for civil partnerships), but nevertheless it has simultaneously appeared all over the western world. I don't say it's a bad idea, but I do say it's a top down enforcement not a natural evolution from the way things have been.
The obvious solution has been stated here before - civil marriage should be open to all couples, same sex and different sex, and Religious marriage should be completely separate, not have a legal status, and be provided by whatever sacred or Religious venue, open to those weddings that accord to the set of beliefs by which it operates. No problem, no conflict, no controversy. Which is why it hasn't happened.
No it hasn't happened because it would entail the disestablishment of the Church in England and additionally would signify a reduction in power and influence of religion over state matters. As such, the block to such a move comes from the religious side not the secular.
That seems odd. The Chruch of Scotland can confer the status of marriage, as can the Free Kirks and other Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and RCs, etc., yet none are established in Scotland (and most aren't in England).
Mind you, some elements in the Kirk (ie the main Presbyterian one) were so unhappy with the evolution of marriage policy that they were seriously considering pulling out of the marriage business completely in the sense of conferring the civil status of marriage, and severing Kirk from State in this respect. Which would be pretty much Mr Luckyguy's position.
I tend to think that the mess over gay marriage is purely a confection designed by the international elite to mobilise the gay community and it's supporters against Christians, and perhaps vice versa. As long as we're fighting each other in our little trenches over what is essentially an issue of semantics, we're not concentrating on those who would steal all of our wealth, our freedoms, and our health.
There was no long term groundswell of protest and agitation for gay marriage (as there was for civil partnerships), but nevertheless it has simultaneously appeared all over the western world. I don't say it's a bad idea, but I do say it's a top down enforcement not a natural evolution from the way things have been.
The obvious solution has been stated here before - civil marriage should be open to all couples, same sex and different sex, and Religious marriage should be completely separate, not have a legal status, and be provided by whatever sacred or Religious venue, open to those weddings that accord to the set of beliefs by which it operates. No problem, no conflict, no controversy. Which is why it hasn't happened.
No it hasn't happened because it would entail the disestablishment of the Church in England and additionally would signify a reduction in power and influence of religion over state matters. As such, the block to such a move comes from the religious side not the secular.
I don't agree that it would. You can get a civil marriage without any Church involvement anyway. There would be little practical change, merely a clarification. As for blocking it, your contention is purely hypothetical since it has not arisen. Personally I think it would be a rather odd issue for the CofE to rise from its coma and protest about.
Comments
Bless.....
Marriage should be a religious matter and civil partnerships a civil matter.
There is no need for the slightest connection between the two.
The State should have no involvement in defining or regulating marriages.
1993 29.0
1994 33.9
1995 37.5
1996 39.2
1997 39.9
You are just not getting the truth ! The Tories left Labour with a golden legacy. To do that they just had to increase borrowing from 25.% of GDP to 39.9% in 5 years.
As the figures above show, borrowing under Labour was lower than what they inherited until 2008 when the credit crunch began.
It is sad that Labour shadow ministers over 5 years could not point this out.
Whenever I think about government involvement in marriage I think of the Interregnum period, as the various parliaments at the time kept tweaking the rules (in ways that I don't recall the details of unfortunately) and I came across a debate in parliament in the 1650s where an MP was bemoaning the confusion in the country, as apparently they had something like three marriage laws on the books as a result of all the changes, so people could not be sure what were the 'proper' legal rules.
Now some of that poor performance by British Empire soldiers was the fault of the generals but from top to bottom there was no shortage of blame to be shared.
The ratio of British Empire dead to prisoners in the Malaya / Singapore campaign demonstrates this.
The peak debt after the early 90s recession was a low proportion of GDP as we went into the recession with controlled spending and came out of it with controlled spending. We went into 2007 with uncontrolled spending and the result was an explosion in debt.
Where there's no more info available. Not sector breakdowns, speed traps etc etc. I cannot see the point of the official site anymore, excepting the circuit maps.
Governments are not only imposing a meaning but imposing penalties on those who dare to not agree - even in private. That is wrong.
It is a secular matter. It precedes your faith and it will outlast it too. I got married in a secular ceremony because I'm an atheist. If you want to add religious fairydust to the marriage ceremony you are perfectly entitled to but that doesn't make it religious for everyone. Religion needs no involvement in what is a secular government matter.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/ed-balls-says-his-next-step-will-be-outside-of-politics/
I don't agree that just because lawmakers have been power-hungry historically that we shouldn't even attempt to shrink the State. Or at least slow it growing like Topsy.
In the 2000's the debt:GDP was going up rather than down during a boom, a catastrophic mistake as it meant an explosion of debt afterwards.
But this time you added CAPITALS, which is really cool.
Thanks.
I realise that those who attach particular religious significance to the concept might feel they've been robbed, rather as if the State introduced a secular communion service. But equally they could feel pleased that it's acquired such general acceptance as a long-term commitment, even among those who don't believe in religion. Few if any churches dislike the idea that people make lifetime commitments to each other, and they shouldn't be precious about "owning" the concept. Religion isn't that influential nowadays - where it is, they should celebrate.
My impression, incidentally, is that people who oppose gay marriage often previously opposed civil partnerships.
Thankfully the sensible electorate reached that conclusion at least 5 years go.
It was perhaps the most shocking figure in Thursday’s report on immigration. Of the 641,000 immigrants who entered Britain in 2014, revealed the Office for National Statistics, a remarkable 83,000 – that’s 13 per cent – all came from the same country.
Britain......It’s a sizeable number – and it’s growing......2014 saw a 10 per cent rise in the number of British people coming to live in Britain. A significant – and surely unsustainable – increase.
“A strong country isn’t one that pulls up the drawbridge,” said David Cameron. “After all, British people have made some important contributions to British society. But uncontrolled immigration of British people can damage our labour market, push down wages, and put pressure on the public services so valued by our Polish plumbers and Nigerian nurses. That’s why, in my negotiations with the EU, Britain’s right to restrict the free movement of British people will be a red line.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11624908/The-real-truth-behind-the-migration-figures.html
Oddly the Guardian never emails me. (Except when they want me to take out a sub!)
Unlike some people I form my own opinions and don't repeat them from a party propaganda sheet.
You consequently find that I say similar things irrespective of which party is in power rather than changing what I say as a political party's position changes.
So before 2010, between 2010 and 2015 and now after the 2015 general election elections I said that HS2 is a wasteful use of resources and too big city focused whereas improved roads would have more and wider benefits **, that better broadband would be beneficial (George Osborne himself said that before the 2010 election), that lower business rates in deprived areas would be a good idea and that higher energy costs and regulations damages manufacturing industry.
And still no mention of the carbon tax from you I see.
** This government I freely point out has been far better than Labour on roads.
Feel free to explain why we should overturn 4,500 years of secular marriage if you want.
Betting PostIs this a tip I see before me? Yes, it is.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/monaco-pre-qualifying.html
Health warning: I've been red at every race so far this year. Several were modest redness (one weekend was down 50p on £10 stakes), but still.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/marriages-in-england-and-wales--provisional-/2011/sty-marriages.html
I think Surbiton is getting confused with that apparent "golden Legacy" that according to the left Brown and Labour handed over to the coalition in 2010.
I'm not defending the carbon tax as I have no intention of doing so as its a horribly messy grey area for me. But since you've asked: We have a major deficit right now and in an ideal world carbon taxes could be lower, but in reality I would rather other taxes get cut first. If I was Chancellor for the day and able to deal with any tax then I'd like to see Employers NI abolished, it is a horrid case of double-taxation and is a pure tax on jobs rather than a tax on income.
A pleasant weekend to all, time to enjoy this spectacular weather today.
Meanwhile the Nats fret about the fate of (admittedly the only Scottish) Lib Dem MP......
Will the PP come first? Will Podemos get into the 20s? What about Citizens?
Left and Right is not what the 21st century is really about. You can have a totalitarian society - whether Communist or Fascist makes no difference. In both the politicos and their friends have riches and exclusivity and the rest just live in and on what they are given.
Currently we are seeing a world with dominant Empire re/builders Russia, China, ISIS (militant Islam) and the EU - and all get very angry and aggressive when they are opposed. With the fight for resources (minerals and food) being becoming more important, it is likely we will see a conflict between states/groups of states which practise Protectionism and those seeking free global trade.
At the same time technology is steadily reducing the jobs available in an overpriced and uncompetitive western Europe.
None of the Labour leader candidates have a clue about any of these important matters as they all lack real vision.
Prior to the 13th century religion barely got involved with marriage and most marriage contracts were basically that - contracts. Say the words and you were married. Marriage wasn't introduced with onto these islands with modern religions, it pre-dates it - even if the state didn't record it that was mainly because the state (like religion) had no need to be involved. Marriage was a private matter between the private parties involved.
It wasn't and describing it as such hides the underlying damage being done to the economy during that period.
The stock market and industrial production peaked in 1999 and 2000 and were below that level before the 2008 recession. Meanwhile, unemployment rose and home ownership fell during the 2000s and there was a lack of infrastructure investment (proper investment not Brownian investment ie spending).
What the 2000s were was a credit bubble.
And when that burst the borrowing was transferred from the household to the government.
Also, the payouts got 1 day of main headline grabbing exposure. 1 day. Compared to I don't know 100's for NI, where every celeb and politician uttering any word about NI was breathlessly reported. Lies where reported as fact. Half truths were reported as fact. The BBC lost it collective marbles, nothing was fact checked, it was just put out there as soon as it was uttered by somebody, anybody.
The fact of the matter is the Mirror made NI look like part timers when it came to phone hacking.
If you want to see good reporting on the whole issue of phone "hacking" and what I would call genuine hacking and wider abuses, the Independent have been extremely good throughout.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bashar_al_assad_a_british_citize
You might as well have reduced what you wrote to a few words and accuse those of not agreeing to the "marriage" aspect in terms of the wording as being homophobic.
'Everyone knows that politics is a robust trade, especially in an election campaign. No-one would expect candidates to spend their time highlighting their opponents’ virtues but to suggest any smear is justifiable must be wrong.
Most worryingly it betrays an attitude that I had hoped would have been eradicated by the expenses scandals of the last parliament – namely that different rules should apply to MPs than apply to the rest of the population. If Tesco tried to smear the Co-op in the same way it would soon be in trouble. Why should politics be different?...
...The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending.
Alistair Carmichael MP'
http://tinyurl.com/nmygyuh
not had a chance to get involved in much PB discussion the last week or so because of work pressures. But just wanted to say what a stunningly good result it is in Ireland. Hopefully this will prove inspirational for the Gay Rights movements in other ostensibly religious countries.
Even though I am an atheist I live in hope that the Pope would continue his reforming works in the Catholic Church and give official backing to Gay Marriage before his tenure comes to an end.
My priorities would be tax simplification.
Abolishing NI and incorporating it into income tax.
Shifting the burden of taxation from wealth creation to wealth consumption.
Shifting the burden of taxation from work to property.
I don’t know what the situation was in culture which, like the Greeks, weren’t bothered about homosexuality.
And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I’ve no idea whether my friends/colleagues are gay or straight, and I don’t care. Don’t fancy the idea personally but each to his own.
The exact same re-reporting failures appear to have occurred over the "Alex Salmond briefing against Nicola Sturgeon" which stems from an unsourced, unreliable opinion piece by Iain Martin on Cap-X which was then re-reported without any further fact checking by other elements of the media.
But there is a wider problem. People aren't listening any more. When you continually repeat slurs which fail basic reasonableness tests, you turn the audience off and hand the SNP both the moral high ground and immunity from any other criticism.
When you then try to incorporate genuinely accurate criticism it fails to find an audience. The SNP decision to continue with the Labour-developed Curriculum for Excellence has almost certainly been a mistake. But the valid criticism of their failing on this issue is washing over the audience it is trying to reach. Not because the criticism is badly framed or inaccurate but because those putting forward the message are not being listened to and probably never will till their entire approach changes.
SNP Bad does not work. It has not worked at any time in recent memory and it is casting a shroud over what the SNP actually does to the extent where their immunity from criticism is not based on the SNP or the electorate but on the utter complete failing of critics to be reasonable in their criticism.
Marriage also pre dated the arrival of the Romans in these Isles as we know from Roman texts discussing pre-conquest Britain.
My point stands that marriage is originally an anthropological idea, not a religious one, that has survived and evolved for at least 4,500 as far as we know. Possibly longer, but at least 4,500 years. During that time the idea of what marriage constitutes has varied - we have had arranged or voluntary, monogamous or polygamous, religious or secular. Now we have heterosexual or homosexual.
No one religion can claim a monopoly or exclusion over others or none for the idea of marriage. It is a universal idea. Nor can it even be claimed that marriage has always meant one man and one woman. Religion may have been involved in some eras but it is not an original or uniquely religious idea.
You might be getting confused about the difference between marriage and a wedding ceremony.
You can have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony but they both end with you being in a marriage. The marriage is the same no matter what wedding ceremony you have undertaken. There isn't a religious marriage and a civil marriage, there is just marriage.
As I have pointed out before... Immigrants include Brits returning and emigrants include foreigners leaving.
Taxing income means we sort-of know it can be afforded, there is by definition an income to pay for it. Taxing property not so much.
Seduction was considered worse than rape, because the woman had been persuaded to reject her husband.
Once went to a long and, to me, incomprensible service, in Thailand where a new block of flats was blessed by a team of monks. At what appeard to be the conclusion the monks all lined up and were given a meal by the flat’s occupants, if they were Thai, or by the maid if they weren’t!
However, exempting the elderly would just be another bung to them. Why should working families have to move if they can't afford the mortgage on a property but the non-working be allowed to stay when they couldn't afford the taxes without exemption?
Property is an excellent thing to tax because it is simple to do so and is a good proxy for income.
As an aside, "if an old retired individual has a property that is nominally worth a lot but which they paid for decades ago", fate or judgement has given them a tremendous windfall. Why shouldn't that be taxed?
Its normal for an economy to grow because of technological progress, increasing productivity and as in the 2000s population growth. but that doesn't by itself create a 'boom' and the effects associated with one.
Its better to leave the word 'boom' to describe those periods of economic growth which might be described as supercharged or overheated eg the 'Mardling Boom', the 'Barber Boom', and the 'Lawson Boom'. Periods which tend to have excessive investment, rapidly rising pay, a surge in imports and then inflation, rising interest rates and a recession.
When Gordon Brown was forecasting 'no more boom or bust' he was planning on steady economic growth without the 'boom' followed by 'bust' of previous economic cycles.
What he achieved though with his 2000s credit bubble was many of the worst things of a 'boom' eg unaffordable housing and a massive trade deficit but without the better aspects such as increased living standards and investment.
And he still got the 'bust' even without a prior 'boom'.
There was no long term groundswell of protest and agitation for gay marriage (as there was for civil partnerships), but nevertheless it has simultaneously appeared all over the western world. I don't say it's a bad idea, but I do say it's a top down enforcement not a natural evolution from the way things have been.
The obvious solution has been stated here before - civil marriage should be open to all couples, same sex and different sex, and Religious marriage should be completely separate, not have a legal status, and be provided by whatever sacred or Religious venue, open to those weddings that accord to the set of beliefs by which it operates. No problem, no conflict, no controversy. Which is why it hasn't happened.
Edit. And to answer your last question just move the requirement for the payment of stamp duty or its equivalent from the purchaser to the seller. That way the owner is taxed if they choose to liquidate their asset but not before.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-naked-liar/#more-71358
The GMC may have a problem with him practising if prosecuted for crimes against humanity. It would be an ethical bar to good medical practise!
the Debt /GDP ratio was 105%. Despite that he did not pursue a policy of Austerity - which had been abandoned five years earlier when the same ratio was well in excess of 200%. On that basis , the figures of recent years appear relatively benign.
1: The retired were one working and would have paid a mortgage in their working lifetime, why should the government suddenly change the rules when they're in their retirement?
2: No they've only received a windfall if they sell, until then its only on paper a windfall. That's why I have less of an objection with inheritance tax - its another tax that isn't ideal but is more justified than others.
People should be able to prepare for retirement in a sound manner. Changing the rules after the fact is unfair. My grandparents are in their 80s and retired, they worked all their lives why should they not be able to enjoy their retirement now on a sound basis? Other things are bungs, but this isn't one of them.
Mind you, some elements in the Kirk (ie the main Presbyterian one) were so unhappy with the evolution of marriage policy that they were seriously considering pulling out of the marriage business completely in the sense of conferring the civil status of marriage, and severing Kirk from State in this respect. Which would be pretty much Mr Luckyguy's position.