Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Off the Rails

I find it interesting to read that Tony Blair has ruled-out tax breaks to encourage marriage yesterday, saying he favoured specific action to target dysfunctional families whose "kids have gone off the rails".

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, David Cameron has called for policies to encourage marriage, including tax breaks to help families stay together, and blamed the growing number of children in "fatherless" families for the increase in teenage crime.

If we look around us in Thanet we might draw conclusions of our own from the regular sight of groups of teenage mums pushing prams between Margate's Cecil Square and Cliftonville.

Which is it then, a stable marriage is good for society and for the development of children and should be encouraged or marriage is an outmoded concept in a gender neutral post-modern socialist democracy.

You tell me?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stable family units based on different gender parents are accepted as the most favourable environment for children to be reared in. The true undermining of this unit began with the meddling in the early 70s by Callaghan's Labour Government by removal of the married man's tax allowance and its replacement with child benefit. Rather than take less money off my young family, the Government made us a recipient of a state handout. The interference in family finances was to engineer the benefit to be paid to the mother for child costs because they claimed that too many clothcapped husbands drank their pay packet away and didn't give enough money to the 'missus'. In this one step the Labour party made every family in the land, irrespective of income, dependent on the state for a non-means tested benefit. When a single mum has a greater priority on the housing waiting list than a stable low income married couple with children, is there any incentive for the mother to marry the father? If being married to the father means greater financial hardship, why marry? We now have a complete reversal of previous British custom where marriage and a working father 'supported' the mother of his children. The interference of the State has meant the tax-payer can now support the mother and children more effectively. No wonder we have the problems we do.

Tony said...

In reply to anon 10:01, I always thought couples got married because they love each other. It is an insult to the institution of marriage to suggest that people marry because of the finacial incentive. Why is it that Conservative ideology always seems to revolve around money, whether it is thatcherism or blue labour it is always money,money, insentive,insentive,greed,greed greed.

DrMoores said...

I think you miss the point! Incentivising the instiution of marriage rather than a partnership, is thought by many to provide a stronger foundation for its long-established success as a means of bringing-up children. an alternative view can be observed in communities where marriage is defunct and the children carry guns and knives.

Anonymous said...

Of course love is the prime ingredient to successful marriage, Tony. You have however missed the point. Marriage was an institution recognised by the church and state, and enshrined in legal protection and safeguards to provide the basic fabric of society to nurture and bring up children; yes there was a practical business to it; children.It has been vilified, attacked and debased as an institution and we live with the results today. (anon 10.01)

Tony said...

I do not think I am missing the point, Perhaps someone can elighten me as to why divorce is so high in Thanet if marriage is so wonderful.

DrMoores said...

Simple.. marriage makes a couple try harder to resolve their problems as it's much harder to walk away from than a simple partnership!

Tony said...

It is imppossible for a man to walk away from a marrige when children are invovled. The law is so one sided in the favour of the mother. Take my case, my ex wife wants a divorce and she wins custody of the children and has the house and everything. I have to pay CSA ( which I do not argue with) and left hopelessly in debt due to the break up. I have limited access to children and the established order treat me as if I am some sort of druggie layabout on the scrounge. Then my ex wife abandons the children, she actually moved when one son was at school and ha came home to find someone elase in his house. I am left as a single parent with three children to care for with no money and no nothing. My solicitor actually said it would have been easier for me if I hadn't been married in the first place.
Time has moved on since then and my boys do not own guns, take drugs, mug grannies etc.,in fact I got them through grammer school and they have ambition in Tony Blairs Britain which is a good thing because if this had happened in the 1980's I dread to think how I would have coped as a single parent. It is cases like mine that put most men off marriage because if it goes wrong there is no justice.

Anonymous said...

Tony, I'm sorry if my previous comments have caused angst. You have clearly had a rough ride in doing your best for your family. Is the problem the breakdown of marriages or the bias against men that exists in our PC world?