Cameron's utter and total contempt for democarcy is clearly shown in redefining marriage

So like a thief in the night the bill to redefine marriage slouches towards Westminster again waiting to destroy marriage and impose the fascist view of family life that Clegg and Cameron support. The Frankfurt school of humanity hating socialists can only celebrate their luck.

The full horror of a free country turned into a fearful place where none dare speak for the concern that the state enforcement authorities will take their business, money, job and even children will soon be a reality in England.

And all this under what sort of government ? One that calls itself conservative ....

Given the fact that Cameron knows this is pure poison to the Conservative party he's decided to steam roll the bill through, crushing dissent and doing his best not to even mention what is going on ( Where was it in the Queen's speech ? ). It is the true measure of the man the dark and cowardly way he is redefining the marriages of everyone in this land in violation of all of our history and morality.

It is also why the Conservative party is never going to hear the end of this issue, regardless of how much they may wish they could.

The culture wars have begun with a shot in the back to the conservative movement ...

Dave needs more than a dead cat bounce

David Cameron is starting to look a little desperate. The truth is the great Europe gamble has to pay off and pay off soon for Cameron.

He needs more than a small bounce.

After all the great stab in the back for conservative England is coming with the abolition of marriage and its replacement with the metropolitan elite's current whim. Soon decent people will have their children exposed to the 180 degree opposite of their values and that nice Christian teacher will back sacked and hounded out of his or her job by the fascist equality fanatics.

All of this on Dave's watch.

So he's been trying - or rather telling his minions to try.

Gove is a sure bet, but defence looks suspect. Was his promise ( cast iron again - or one of those promises people think they've heard but which very clever party commentators can later tell us he never meant or said ) real - or will there be cuts.

On families - Dave has massively upped the marginal tax rate on aspiring middle class families ( maybe he only has trustafarian friends and sycophants who don't tell him how this is going down ). He's tried to compensate by offering dump your children and work more schemes, but who lost the most - committed mothers who used to be the bed rock of the Conservative support.

Dave has let it be known he's thinking of race quotas for big firms. ( Well hinting at it via requiring published figures - and we know Labour will finish the job when they are next in power ). So that's kicking the married good father in the teeth and then stamping on his head for good measure, but then asking him to vote for you.

Its not going so well is it Dave.

The rest of the party has noticed and the stalking horses are being buttered up ready to do the deed.

Dave needs a poll bounce, but is it coming ? ( I genuinely don't know, but hope not. )

Its time to ask what is the point of David Cameron.

PS The Blairesque hiding abroad is fooling no one Dave. I guess you're just trying to fill the media grid before you destroy marriage next week.

Well its not just me:

Gay marriage could cost the Conservatives the election
How serious is the conspiracy against David Cameron

Poltical deceit, misdirection and the new equality fascism

This morning I had the dubious privilege of listening to Maria Millar MP on the today program.

She was of course fronting up David Cameron's plan to end marriage and replace it with new construct based on whatever the equality fascists of the day say it is.

The BBC did its best to help playing the distraction of the status of carrying out these new ceremony's for I can't believe its not marriage on the Church of England. ( Just as the govt intended - it just wants the focus of debate moved away from what marriage is to some minutie of the application of the new order - Tony Blair must be very proud Cameron. ) This allowed Humprhys to use the phrase "some people migth call them bigots" - full marks for the BBC Marxists !

But Ms Millar then engaged in a  process Mr Oborne has outlined in his book recently. When asked about the Christian teacher who will be sacked she moved to misunderstand the question. Why ? Because the short answer is yes Christian teachers will be sacked because of the requirement to promote marriage in the Education Act. But using that slippery trick of the professional political class Ms Millar pretended that people would be allowed to offer their opinions as part of a balanced discussion of views.

This is the Stalinist line from what was once the conservative party.

I hope Ms Millar finds something she likes for the 30 pieces of silver that are her reward for her betrayal.

No Green Paper - no addressing the issues or the legal implications - the law now just doesn't matter accept when its used top oppress Chrsitians and other people who get in the way of the political class.

Does anyone really think Cameron can be trusted on yet another EU misdirection !

The cross as euro-sausage

Call me a cynic but I am highly suspicious of this campaign by the government to remove the right to ware a cross at work on the grounds that it is not actually required by the Christian religion ( a point that is true by the way ).

How long before Eric Pickles or some other govt minister sweeps in to say they'll re-write the law here ( a la council prayers ) ?

This will be the dog whistle to the Christian community the Coalition is busy stabbing between the should blades with its plans to abolish marriage and recast it in whatever form the elected dictatorship ( controlled by the metropolitan elite ) deems fit on the day.

CCHQ must by now realise the hornets nest they have stirred up - but the metropolitan elite want to reorder society in their own image and don'#t want to be stopped. Hence a small concession on something that is a minor issue whilst the traditions of man kind since the beginning of time are raped by the Notting Hill set.

Its just a variation on the classic euro-sausage ploy.

Update: As if by magic - here we have the govt's next move made the day after this post.

PS See below - just in case somehow you missed it.

Marriage benefits everyone - so why does Labour hate it so much ?

Marriage makes loads of sense from the point of view of the wider community.

Married partners ( and perhaps civil partners also - though time will need to pass to prove this ) look after each other, to a point way beyond what normal friendships would normally provide. This saves the state a fortune.

Children do well out of marriage, and if children do well then all the cost of failure to wider society never materialise.

Instead of promoting, supporting and ecouraging marriage why do Labour hate it so much ? After all supporting marriage is a no brainer for society.

Let me suggest three reasons:

1. Like a vampire Labour feasts off social breakdown and deprivation. Marriage is one of the key structures in society that stops the damage they need to create to justify a wider role for the state.
2. It fits into their desperate campaign to portray the Conservatives as being for the few not the many. If ten of thousands of children have to have their life chances ruined and destroyed then its a small price to pay for a few more Labour votes.
3. It fits with the aggressive secularist and humanist agenda of most of Labour's leading figures who hate Christianity, as its a rival religion to their statist socialism.

It also shows the true level of threat that Labour presents to our society - which is just as serious and dangerous as the spectacular damage they have done to our economy.

NSO Week: Marriage - England and Wales, no evidence of a turn to Catholicism

Ok having promised to do this I'd better get on. The National stats de jour are on marriage, specifically the recorded religious marriages. (I suspect that marriages from other religions than Christianity are counted in the civil ceremony section).It is noticeable than the Church of England (and Wales ) vastly dominates the stats here - and Protestant marriages completely dominate, which shows the C of E still carrying out a national role and Protestantism being the default setting in England and Wales- Catholic spin doctors take note. ( I realise the next time many of the people who get married return to church will be for their funeral - however this does evidence a certain level of connection and preference ).

The share of religious marriages recorded has been declining - but has stabalised recently.


PS Please note the years are not evenly spaced, jumping 10 years, then five, then one. I'd sort this out - but its way too much trouble at this time of night.

Social changes

The headlines tell the tale today that social attitudes are changing. "Marriage is no longer the norm".

Our attitudes to marriage have certainly changed - recent articles in the Telegraph on affairs - where to cut a long story short peoples belief in their personal entitlement to certain relationships seems to drive, through to Mistresses, a new BBC drama TV.

The impact of a decline in marriage on significant proportions of society has been adequately outlined elsewhere - not least by the excellent work of Iain Duncan Smith and his team.

There is also a growing realisation that some peoples desire to live without any restrictions is condemning others to a hopeless existence in other parts of society.

But what is driving all this ? Here are my list of factors (add or tack issue in the comments if you want):

1) Greater proportion of people going to University leading to a prolonged adolescence. At Uni these sort of liberal life style choices have strong attraction ( personal gratification not being the least ), there is also an anti-authority backlash, as everyone has just broken free of their parents. An almost unique community without responsibility that exists under the illusion of eternal youth and that no sacrifices are required or responsibilities to others exist.
2) The socially liberal media effectively tells people what to believe. It is quite clear that the BBC effectively tries to brain wash inform people in what to think (think East Enders or the Archers). People like the BBC are vastly unrepresentative of the country at whole - but strive to change the country into their own image.
3) A lack of faith and knowedge of that faith. Now that many people don't believe in revealed truth ( as certainly the abrahamic religions do, and maybe others ) there is no reason not to drift. As long as no one puts restrictions on you, then you don't insist on restrictions on them. This is in many ways the real "no such thing a society" message that people wrongly attribute to Mrs T through too narrowly quoting her famous interview.

Based on these forces, and the only effective resistance being a minority of the Christian church, Islam and other imported religions I would expect drift to continue. It is the ultimate example of the selfish society the left have allowed us to become.

And as always it will be those who are most vulnerable who will pay the price for the country's excesses.

Shameless Brown - now its marriage

There can be no mistaking the cynical strategy of Gordon Brown towards the Conservative party.

Today we hear that the tax system should support married couples. This is an area the Conservatives have identified, and persuaded at some risk to themselves due to the media's rapid "back to basics" jibe.

On the positive side - since good will come of such measures - it is good to see them being considered.

But the negative and shameless nature of the Labour party is now on show in full view.

In general there are no principles that a New Labour minister holds that he/she wouldn't trade in for a few more years use of the ministerial car. ( There have been a few exceptions here like Robin Cook, but they are too few to bother about).

Gordon's cynical calculation is that if he removes all the policy ideas of the Conservative party then he can then bully the public into voting for him on the basis of his rantathons on the economy etc...

This is a man who only believes in his own importance.

Update - Apparently Shameless was IDS's response to this news - see a column by Janet Daley in Monday's Telegraph.

The socialist way of defending marriage

One the socialist have finished their little hissy fits about some single mother being discriminated against justifying damning the common good by not supporting marriage - as the Conservatives want to - they should watch out for what their own side is up to.

I've blogged on this before ( see here and here ), but their solution to the failure of cohabiting couples to take the responsibilities of married couples is to say they're all married in effect anyway.

Its common law marriage ( which everyone used to think existed - but doesn't right now).

You will have to opt out of the state induced marriage or else you get to share the legal responsibilities for you "partner" that the marrieds have to carry.

This will be interesting - see report on the 'Justice' ministry review here.

There will be a lot of people getting very worried about this - my bet is most of them will be males who used the "we don't need a bit of paper to prove our love" or "why spend all that money just for a piece of paper" ploys.

Doubt it will win Labour many votes - the unintended effect will probably be more atomised families - with the men only staying the night sometimes. More single mothers - oh hold on now I know why the guardianistas will like it ...

Ignor the Guardianistas - this man says IDS is right on marriage and negative incentives to stay together !

The First Post ( which has been a bit like the Daily Gordon for a while ) has a fine short article showing how IDS has a point.

A Man explains how he is about £10,000 / year better of, under Gordon Brown's taxation system, to be separated from his son's mother than to stay together.

Since he earns just above the minimum wage that's a lot of money !

See the article here ....

Blair the barrister - making the case for supporting failure

I started this morning with the pre announced news that Postman Pat was going to lay into support for marriage (ie promote his deputy leadership campaign for Labour party - maybe not just deputy).

Now Blair is on using his preferred trick for calling black white - that of redefining the question. He must have learnt this as a barrister - just make the best case for something, regardless of the logic of the situation. ( I'll go onto why this is the case in a minute).

It occurs to me that we should never have another barrister as prime minster again. Blair really thinks the spin and putting the best case for something makes it right - or else he is even more of an amoral monster that I am making him out to be.

Anyway Blair's spin was to say the supporting marriage wouldn't help young people who have gone of the rails. What he deliberately left out was that marriage creates better outcomes for bringing up children and that more marriage means less delinquency in the long run. So his line was to fix the symptoms - after all the suffering has happened - not the problem. Needless to say there none of this analysis over at the left wing BBC.

I sometimes wonder if NuLabour don't require a large amount of our society to be failing to give them a purpose and keep them all in the highly paid, guaranteed pension, jobs they have created for themselves.

But like many other NuLabour types Blair has put his own career in front of helping the disadvantaged and out country. I can't see how any moral or Christian person can support these self interested hypocrites.

Update: Northwing has a reasoned and more complete post on the subject in hand here..

The Archbishop and the law commission

The Law Commissions ideas of what they call rights for cohabiting couples look to me more like rights of cohabiting people over each others property and assets.

The spin in the media, and the concern of the Archbishop, appears to be the erosion of marriage. However this looks to me more like compulsory state marriage ! Or the common law marriage that we are told doesn't exist.

Marriage costs - if you just turn up at the registary office - are cheap. This isn't the barrier to people getting married. A good friend of mine married his wife in a prelonged coffee break at work ! We all nipped down to Weybridge registry office and were all back at work within the hour.

I'm guessing a lot of the partners who aren't married are making strategic decisions about keeping control of their assets. This move would make this cynacism ( we don't need a bit of paper to confirm our love dear etc ) much harder.

I'm not sure its the Archbishop who should be worried ......

See BBC News article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/5068472.stm