Discussing social conservatism is a minefield, but discuss it we must. Finally (and I mean finally) a consensus is forming that social attitudes are a root cause of the malaise in public services and damaging trends in government dependency, but as for responding to this with practical policies the Tories remain some way off. Matt Sinclair does a truly superb piece on this theme. In my opinion it is stunning both in its imagery and in its perceptiveness. I agree that an incredible challenge lies ahead for Cameron's Conservatives, (which I hope will be informed by IDS and other specialists) but one that can not be shirked. Matt manages to combine intellectual rigour and an engaging style in his writing. I think this is why he topped the young conservative poll that I ran in January. Elsewhere, I fully support the call he made in February at Conservative Home for Young Conservatives to explore and develop their political ideology. I understand that Matt has now left the LSE for pastures new, but I expect him to continue to make a significant contribution to right-thinking ideas in the future. A star in the making, I'd suggest.
10 comments:
On his site you once again advance the wholly fallacious argument that the 'legal system' in this country discourages marriage. I've challenged you before to cite a single piece of evidence to support this and you wholly failed, choosing rather to talk about tax. If you knew the first thing about this issue you would know that, in fact, co-habiting heterosexual couples suffer very considerbale discrmination through the 'legal system' as a result of their non-married status. As ever though, you choose to pontificate about subjects about which you are ignorant.
I don't answer all your questions anon, because you are anon! I am talking about the divorce laws. e.g these two ridiculous decisions. Of course, despite knowing a top divorce lawyer with very strong views on how the law disocurages marriage I don't know a thing about it.
Making divorce very expensive strengthens marriage surely? You favour easier divorce do you?
Ask your mate the 'top divroce lawyer' what rights a so-called 'common law wife' has on separation from her partner? Ask him to explain to you the effects of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act.
You're talking through your hat PT on a subject you know zilch about. Once again, you're parading your sub-Daily Mail ignorance about subjects which are more subtle, complicated and nuanced than your two-dimensional politics can comprehend.
Top divorce lawyer is a she actually and she makes her views clear whenever she is interviewed on national TV as she did in the aftermath of these cases. These decisions stop people marrying in the first place. As usual, you obfuscate and engage in ad hominem attacks without actually addressing the point I have made.
This must be Bobs pet come to harass you PT.
You should ban all comment that is anon and don't hive these tossers a voice unless they regoster.
Referring you to TOALTA is hardly an ad hominem attack.
I answered your point, such as it was. In any event, if you knew anything at all about divorce law, you would know that the rules applicable to divroce in so-called 'big money' cases are entirely different to those applicable in the 99% of ancillary relief claims that are not big money cases. But, of course, having spoke to your 'expert' friend you would know all about that wouldn't you?
My piece on the CSA as quoted the Grauniad (sub-Daily Mail - lol) points out another way in which the government attacks the family.
How about you deal with the points I've made which point out a very significant way in which the law discriminates in favour of married couples and against unmarried couples? Stop moving the goal posts just because you're losing the argument.
BTW, the tories introduced the CSA.
I'll cover your points by getting a friend of mine who is a graduate engineer to do a guest post on why financially it is a knife-edge decision for him whether to work or to claim benefits for him and his wife and baby and the various ways that the family would benefit financially by splitting up. I'm off out.
Fascinating as that would be PT, that would fail to answer (once again) your assertion that the 'legal system' discriminates against marriage. It may support your assertion that the tax and benefits system discriminates in that way but not the legal system - a distinction upon about which you've tried to obfuscate before, I note.
I assume 'I'm off out' means 'I'm no longer willing to argue this because I've clearly lost'.
Post a Comment