POLITICS THREAD
The BBC have published a brief list of the coalition policy plans here:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677088.stm

A few things stand out to me, there's the rather massive figure of £6 billion in budget cuts but it doesn't say anything about where it'll be cut.
The NHS will see a real term increase in funding? How?
Trident staying? another expensive thing which hopefully will never be used.
And new nuclear power stations, I know they're needed but they're fucking expensive.

So basically, I'm annoyed they haven't scared the shit out of us already, which means it's coming. I have no question I'm just opening it up to debate.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:27, 192 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I think it looks okay
and both Trident and nuclear power stations are needed, however expensive. Cameron isn't just about the cuts, he's also aware of the necessity of not stripping Britain down to the bone
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:29, Reply)

Trident is not needed at all,
it's needed on the assumption that if we got nuked to fuck we deserve the right to kill the capital city of those that nuked us.
I don't see the point in that.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:31, Reply)

on a moral ground we should not have Trident
but let's be fair and frank. Morality is not the motivating factor here.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:34, Reply)

No it's a 30 year old fear.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:36, Reply)

It's going to cost around £1250 per person in the uk to replace it.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:42, Reply)

I'm with you on this
it's not necessary. we'd be better off using less money and launching a few big satellites, claiming they are loaded with weaponry.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:47, Reply)

Isn't Chuck Norris on our side?
What the fuck do we need with Trident?
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:48, Reply)

finally, something we can agree on
although I have a feeling Chuck is a member of some crazy religion or something...
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:49, Reply)

As long as he's not a Muslim, what does it matter.

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:51, Reply)

better a muslim
than a scientologist
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

Scientologists don't bomb people.
Although they are scary.
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:55, Reply)

the Scientology centre in Manchester is really near my office
they tell me I look stressed when I'm on my way to get food. I'm not stressed, I love food!
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:39, Reply)

NEAR THE TOP!

(likeajackhammer, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

I'm trying to come up with a joke here, but I'm failing....
The trident is psidon's weapon of choice.
The lightening bolt is zuse's weapon of choice.
I want to say something like "We don't need the trident, we've got chuck noris (who is the lightening bolt of zuse)", but can't work out how to word it.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:57, Reply)

You could make a joke about chewing gum

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:32, Reply)

that crossed my mind too

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:37, Reply)

You're not allowed permanent space weaponry
it's against international law.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:55, Reply)

and who makes the law?
the guy with the fucking great laser satellite that's who!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:56, Reply)

That's not really the point though
It's a deterrent! Evil Iraniaqi's would be able to Nuke us wily nily if they had the capability and knowing there would be zero retribution from the UK.

Although I guess it could be argued that a 3rd party would step in with some nuclear pay-back, but that's no guarantee.

I think it is essential as a deterrent but I can't quite understand how big cuts cannot be made?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:42, Reply)

IF they had the capability

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:47, Reply)

Are we happy to possess nothing
While Russia, France, USA and China definitely have them. And some if not all of N.Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran will soon have the capability?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:51, Reply)

yes
because if someone is mental enough to use nukes then it won't matter a damn if we have the capability to respond in kind
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

There are plenty mentalists about
running countries. Generally though while being mentalists there is still a degree of self-preservation. I think trident is enough to deter the craziest of crazies..

Generally with these things it's best to err on the side of caution..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:00, Reply)

there are cheaper options than Trident though
and while we are on the same side as the USA, they've got plenty of nukes to go around.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:06, Reply)

except the USA
aren't exactly the most reliable of allies. I'd rather keep our own nukes thanks than rely on them.

They are a deterrent, and they are also a prestige item.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Yup
I mean ultimately the USA don't care about us and would happily sell us down the river for a quick buck..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:20, Reply)

and there are loads of countries without Nukes
and they don't get nuked willy nilly. Most of Europe for example. All African Countries, All South American Countries, Australia and surrounding countries, Mexico, Japan all nuke free. We do not need nukes.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:50, Reply)

BUT WE MIGHT!!!!!!1!!!

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:52, Reply)

OMG UR RITE!!!!!1!!!

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:57, Reply)

Ahem.
If you recall, Japan has been nuked a little bit. Understandable oversight, it was a while back after all, but still...
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)

Yup and their response rather than "We must get a deterrent so it doesn't happen again"
was to stick a monument at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a message that it should never happen again to anyone.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

Being a bit obtuse there really,
I mean they were utterly decimated by the war, so of course they weren't able to immediately develop a deterrant. Do you not think if they themselves had nukes Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)

Different time altogether
and they have had 70 years to develop/buy one
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)

That's why I felt it's not a good example
Japan are not an aggressive country at all now so you could class them as being under little threat from other countries.

We on the other hand have been stomping around for generations, not least recently in the middle-east where there are some prickly characters.

If our disarmment of nuclear weapons co-incided with our enemies acquiring them there could be room for worry there in an area you don't really want to be pissing about..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:20, Reply)

Of course nobody gets nuked now without that much conflict
but say for example Iraq had nuclear weapons a few years back and we didn't and we openly get involved in a war with them?

Or even if we have no Nukes and China/India/Pakistan/Iran/N.Korea developed Nuclear weapons? I would say they would have somewhat heavier bargaining power than ourselves if push came to shove.

It's not as if wars cannot happen with developed nations(Falklands/Iraq).
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)

Lots of countries without Nukes were in the coalition that invaded Iraq

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)

I'm meaning if Iraq had nukes
that alone would be a deterrant to not give them any shit!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)

Watch for the friendly fire though

( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Then tax us all to cover making 10 more
But don't actually make them. Leak out misinformation that they're out there on patrols, and prompt the media to bitch and moan about how much they cost.

Then give everyone tax rebates equal to the money you taxed from us. Thus you have the illusion of having a shit-ton of nuke subs, but you save money by not making them AND you give the populace a nice boost of morale with the rebate, which they then use to boost the economy.

Note: This is probably hideously flawed, but certainly said with a healthy chunk of my tongue in my cheek.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:47, Reply)

Well yeah
I am dubious about this gigantic figure
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:48, Reply)

You can't just lie to the world.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

not with that attitude

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Everyone does
Every day, everywhere.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

^This

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:51, Reply)

Yeah but a land based ICBM could do that
for 1/10th of the cost.
The only use of trident is to counter a serious superpower attack which can take out all of our land based ICBMs magically knowing thier exact locations and defences.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:49, Reply)

they need the subs
so they can cram them full of gays.

/jest
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

I reas superpower as tupperware and laughed out loud.

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

The sky is raining snap top lunch boxes!!
Run awaaaaaaaaaaaay!
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:40, Reply)

I confess I'm no expert
but I was under the impression that ICBM's are nowhere near as effective...
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:56, Reply)

They're incredibly effective at hitting borderline third world countries
The russians americans and to a lesser extent the chinese/europeans have some defence against them, but you're talking about a 50%ish chance of shooting them down before they detonate.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:58, Reply)

The subs are so we can hide the nukes
otherwise if we don't get teh land based missles in the air by the time the enemy missles land they may be destroyed before we can fire back.

I think that sentance highlights the pointlessness of nukes.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Is Trident not just submarine-launched ICBMs?
In which case, all you're gaining is slightly more surprise on a first launch (easier to monitor a land mass than all of the oceans, everywhere) and less chance of them being taken out if someone else shoots first.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:10, Reply)

yep for ten times the cost.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:11, Reply)

Cheapest option would be a suitcase-nukes-and-suicidal-fanatics scheme.
I cannot see any flaws with this idea.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:35, Reply)

Erm, what possible use is the trident in today's day and age, or any forseeable future?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:03, Reply)

Shooting down asteroids, man!

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:11, Reply)

that's what bruce willis is for

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:12, Reply)

You'll still need the booster stage to get him into space though.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:20, Reply)

Many people argue that we are seeing far more insurgant style wars
whereby a faction employs guerilla warefare tactics rather than more traditional warfare tecniques. Ergo, we should reduce our heavy weapons cache and invest in couter guerilla warfare measures.

Unfortunately, a country must plan for te war of the future, not the wars it is fighting now, thus the decision becomes much more difficult.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:13, Reply)

what we need are remote control soldiers and planes etc.
controlled by children/teenagers with mouse and keyboard or playstation controller.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:14, Reply)

I'm not sure gamers have a good concept of life and death...

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:20, Reply)

they have the skills though
I'm only a casual gamer, but give me an apache with PS2 controls and I could fucking win a war singlehandedly
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:48, Reply)

Ender's Game

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:10, Reply)

Style Wars is one of my all time favourite films
I am gutted you are not referring to it.

The end.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:38, Reply)

Fending off Mothray

( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:13, Reply)

It depends how you try and justify Trident
If you try and justify it on the basis that its quite a cool status symbol and a good use of some dangerous nuclear material its defensible.

If you try and justify it as a deterrence against war then you deserved to be laughed at.
( WormuIus, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:09, Reply)

Tax break for married couples?
So I'm to be punished for not marrying then?
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:33, Reply)

And I'm not going to argue any more about the Conservatives because the shit will hit the fan soon enough.

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:34, Reply)

The shit has already hit the fan, been flicked over the entire room
and now we will be licking it up for the rest of ours lives.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:05, Reply)

I think the argument is that they're rewarded for being married.
Married couples are slightly cheaper for the government to "look after".
The idea that people should be encouraged to commit in that way by taxes strikes me as fundementally wrong.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:36, Reply)

Damn right it is.
Makes me seeth.
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:38, Reply)

Not to be rude
but the tax break is not enough really to convince people marry for the sake of it. It does however provide an incentive to formalise a long term relationship. Can't see anything wrong with that
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:07, Reply)

People on an average income will get something like £3 a week
This is less about the money and more about promoting family values.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:09, Reply)

I can't really see that, that's a bad thing

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:11, Reply)

Not saying it is
It seems like a very minor point in the general scheme of things
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:14, Reply)

I'd agree
so I wonder why people are bitching about it
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:18, Reply)

Well, because it's massively unfair is why.
Married? Have some money.
Gay and in a civil partnership? Fuck you. But don't fuck off to my B&B, you're not welcome there you deviants.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:23, Reply)

I'm not sure if the tax breaks apply to gay couples
but I'm pretty sure that it does actually. And the B&B issue has nothing to do with this discussion at all.

See NakedApes post below for why they're thinking of this taxbreak
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:25, Reply)

Yeah I don't think it discriminates against the gays
and it's more that people are fed up with single people being given tax breaks when you don't necessarily earn more as a couple.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:44, Reply)

It applies to any civil partnership/marriage
Not just heterosexuals.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:32, Reply)

Dont worry, they will be shit
a couple of hundred pounds a year better off at most
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:37, Reply)

It's the principle of the matter and not how much they'll be getting.

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:39, Reply)

I'm with you on that one.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:59, Reply)

I believe that the idea of promting a strong stable family is a good one
Difficult or unstable family backrounds can be a factor in many socio-econmic maladies that blight certain areas of the country. By promoting the idea of strong families, strong communities and stable safe places to live the conservatives are looking at long help with poverty, social injustice, social mobilty etc.

This is a change from simply throwing money at the problem and hoping it'll go away and if far more responsible and fair to the country. the other option is loads of investment for short term gains wherby the only real winners are the government who look better for re-election.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

^ this
it takes guts to come out and say that you reckon a new direction is needed. Love them or loathe them the Conservatives are trying to change things
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:23, Reply)

A nude erection is needed?
(doesn't really work in writing, that one, does it?)
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:42, Reply)

and as we all know
strong, stable families and marriage are synonymous...
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:29, Reply)

What an utter crock of cock.
How is this some great change? What do you think the working families tax credit was promoting? A tax break for being married is not targeted at the people whose relationships are most likely to be adversely affected by financial pressures. It is applied to the Queen in the same way as it is to an absentee father who has several children with different partners who decides to get married, as it is to those it may actually benefit. Being married is no gaurantee of discharging social rsponsibility.
(Cave Duck, Thu 13 May 2010, 0:01, Reply)

"Emergency Budget" scares the shit out of me
I expect more price rises (possible increase in VAT)
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:36, Reply)

I expect it to be a 20% VAT
and maybe some changes to Income Tax/national insurance banding, but not actual rates.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:41, Reply)

Yes, I call it "Rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic"
Basic rate goes down, National Insurance goes up, higher-rate band drops, personal allowance stays the same...
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:44, Reply)

Changing tax rates is a sledge hammer though
It's too early to make radical changes on that bit.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:48, Reply)

I hope you're right
because I don't like the sound of that "Emergency" in the "Emergency Budget"
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Yeah
I think 20% VAT has been in the pipeline for a while..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:45, Reply)

VAT changes have been shown to hit poorer familes hardest
Not sure why this is, but VAT is on so many small things and not just larger purchases.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:56, Reply)

I don't understand tax
But they should tax only people I don't like. Take lots of money from rich fuckers, double if they have a history of using tax havens to avoid paying tax.

Yes, another naive but awesome idea from me.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Don't worry about it
i'm an accountant who has passed his "Advanced Tax" exam. I haven't got a fucking clue either.
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

There's just so damn many!
And I swear my Student Loan interest rates shift every time I get a pay rise, meaning despite chucking 1.5-2 grand a year for the last 5 years at the damn debt, I still owe about 8 grand out of the 10 I borrowed.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:56, Reply)

Who's that fucker who's being throwing money at the tories and not paying tax?
He needs cunting in the fuck.

Edit - Lord Ashcroft.
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:53, Reply)

I like Mark Thomas' idea
To get rid of one particular tax haven, by invading Jersey.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:55, Reply)

Threatening to nuke every tax haven could have some useful side effects.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:57, Reply)

it'd show that we still need trident at least

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:58, Reply)

It could be a way to get rid of the nuclear waste when we scrap trident.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:59, Reply)

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not
But I'm PUMPED for invading tax havens. I'm going to start putting some woad on right now.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:59, Reply)

I think it's a great idea.
"Oh you want to put all your money and stuff in a tax haven? Want to live there every so often. Well just so you know we're going to nuke them when we get round to it, just a warning"
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:01, Reply)

but if you get rich you'll be well annoyed about the 50% tax rate
and the capital gains tax.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:45, Reply)

"real terms"
Means imaginary
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 15:53, Reply)

It means whatever they want it to mean at the time.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:54, Reply)

yeah, basically
But it's a useful phrase to look out for if you want to spot a lie.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 15:58, Reply)

Real terms is aphrase tacked to the end of points on spending
to prevent opposition parties pulling them up on the effects of inflation.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:04, Reply)

or indeed
pointing out that they have not, in fact, spent more money on the given area, it's a term open to endless interpretation.

Edit: actually never mind, hadn't noticed who I was replying to, I'm sure you'll turn out to be right, and I shall be exposed as the godless commie that I clearly am.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Don't worry, the state can be your god

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:21, Reply)

oh, goody
then I won't have to worry my little brain hating 2 things, I can hate both together in a fabulous 2-for-1 deal, where do I sign up?
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:33, Reply)

£6bn is 1% of govenrment spending in a year
this should be achievable without massive reductiosn in services.

The real issue is that the current £160bn deficit that is banded about by policticians and the media is only about 1/3 of the issue.

However, it is argued that UK’s national debt is actually a lot higher. This is because national debt should include pension contributions and private finance initiatives PFI which the government are obliged to pay.

The Centre for Policy Studies (at end of 2008) argues that the real national debt is actually £1,340 billion, which is 103.5 per cent of GDP. This figure includes all the public sector pension liabilities such as pensions, and Private Finance Initiative contracts e.t.c (Northern Rock liabilities).

These pensions do not need paying for yet, but will be a blot on the horizon for many years to come.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:55, Reply)

I'm stopping my pension and putting all my money into porn.
People will always need porn.
( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:57, Reply)

Two birds, one stone.
.... no, that's not the title.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:02, Reply)

Top stuff

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:03, Reply)

Oh, I love that one!

( Larry Vest One day at a time, sweet Jesus, FFS., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:36, Reply)

The £160 billion is what we're paying interest on now.
Getting rid of that is the priority.
and the 1% reduction turns into 3-4% when you think about inflation and fixed term pay increases etc.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:05, Reply)

Of course, but it's worth mentioning the future debt as it is
mainly as a result of Labour increasing the public section in an unsustainable manner. Buy now and we all pay later.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:07, Reply)

The thing that absolutely annoys me most
Is when polictians have to answer questions about why a certain area of public services are not performing as well as they should. Their answer is without fail, "Well we've spent £10bn in the last 4 years etc etc"

How are they not picked up on this? If I failed a project at work and tried to justify that falure by saying, "Well yes, it was an almighty cock up, but I did spend £300k on it", I would be fucking fired and rightly so.


More money does not automatically mean better results, Labour never understood this, and that is one key reason why, going into the recession we had borrowed up to our eyeballs to expand and fund the public sector (buying votes) rather than having a decent policy of economic expansoion that took advantage of the most favourable economic climate since the second world war.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:02, Reply)

Tangent, but related to discussions above...
Can someone explain to me why marriages (civil partnerships etc.) are seen as making relationships stronger, better, more stable etc?

I'd have thought the quality of a relationship was down to the people involved, their personalities and how they interact, rather than a peace of paper that may, or may not have legal mumbo jumbo attached to it.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:45, Reply)

It's a traditionalist thing
marriages were originally stronger because divorce wasn't an option. It's not necessarily true anymore because you can divorce at the drop of a hat, but I personally still want to get married because I like the idea of it. I know it's only 'a piece of paper' but I would want my kids to all have the same name and when I get married I intend it to be forever, so I think of it as signifying a strong union.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:49, Reply)

signfying a strong union succinctly puts my view of it
that's why I'm doing it. I'm not intending to have any kids, so the name thing isn't an issue, but if I was, then it would be.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:51, Reply)

It kind of bugs me when people say it doesn't mean anything
because it does to me. One of my friends said she was surprised that I wanted to get married because she thought I was more sensible than that which really pissed me off because it might be a silly tradition that doesn't have the same value as it did 500 years ago, but I still think it's the strongest of committments. She described it as a person's way of making sure the other person never leaves, which was cynical and not really true now that divorce is so easy.

Really I just want a massive dress and for everyone to pay attention to me for the day.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)

I agree with you about the commitment
I love Mrs V, and a very good way of showing that is marrying her. so I'm going to.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)

damn that was my plan
she shall have to choose between us.

I challenge you to a duel!

*glove slaps*
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:04, Reply)

oh god
not another b3ta woman who wants my gf....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:05, Reply)

I feel your pain
Ever since I pointed out the Matt Bellamy thing in Wiggy the boys* are lining up to have me killed.

*May only be Darth Foxtrot
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:10, Reply)

thanks :-)
he is a colossal dirt-road bandito

Darth Foxtrot that is
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:18, Reply)

BACK OFF KITZO

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:19, Reply)

*is genuinely a little scared*
O_O
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:37, Reply)

not quite the drop of a hat
speaking as someone who's going through an uncontested divorce, it still takes a year or 2 and costs a few hundred quid, but relatively speaking, point taken.Point about signifying a strong union also, although personally when I had the commitment to a lifelong relationship I didn't feel I needed the marriage to formalize it, and at the point that things broke down irretrievably, that commitment was lost, and the marriage, was again, irrelevant.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:55, Reply)

I know, with divorce being so prevalent it does seem that marriage is just a pointless formality nowadays
but I still like the idea of having a husband and being someone's wife rather than just 'boyfriend and girlfriend' forever, as that seems so casual and almost teenager-like. I understand why people think you shouldn't have to have a big ceremony to be committed to someone forever, but sometimes it's nice to be traditional.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:58, Reply)

I would not dream of denying you the right to you ceremony
nor mocking you for it. My question, I suppose is more, is my commitment to be counted for less because it does not come with the same ceremony.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)

not at all
except in a legal sense, which is unfortunate but that's the way it is

the law frowns on my close relationship with Mary Jane, but that doesn't stop it going on.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)

It's true,
it's a bit unfair that things like insurance go down if you're married, but unfortunately that's the way the law works in this country at the moment.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:05, Reply)

insurance goes down?
I am woefully ignorant of the financial implications of being married.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)

I think your life expectancy goes up
dunno why, but heard it somewhere.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:25, Reply)

yeah, apparently you drive more safely when married
until the marriage breaks down and then you strap the kids into the back, telling them you're going for a picnic when really you're going to take them deep-lake diving without the scuba gear.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:38, Reply)

excellent
it looks more promising all the time!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:39, Reply)

I may be wrong
but it's not the piece of paper that does it, but what the paper represents, a strong and binding commitment between two people, financially (because weddings are usually fucking expensive) and otherwise.

in practice this is not quite the case, as any old twat gets married to some bint these days *looks at NakedApe*
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:50, Reply)

*puts mirror between you and NakedApe*

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:55, Reply)

well, hello.....

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

It's something to do with benders.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:51, Reply)

then you must know all about it

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:52, Reply)

ZING!

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:53, Reply)

I challenge that ZING.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:54, Reply)

I should,
but I confess when you were telling me all about it I simply wasn't listening, sorry.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:53, Reply)

too busy staring at my groin eh?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:54, Reply)

I was, yes.
Staring, and pitying your poor under-serviced fiancee.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)

neither she, nor your mother have had any cause to complain about my servicing of them
both remain very satisfied
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:58, Reply)

Funny - they both complain to me about it on a regular basis.
My mother when I take tea with her, and your missus when I backscuttle her in Morrison's car park.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:09, Reply)

I'm sure I've mentioned to you before that it's my missus
it's someone else in drag. I suspect Al
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:14, Reply)

Your missus looks like Al in drag?
HOT.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:35, Reply)

I know right?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:38, Reply)

A committment I guess
Marriage indicates at least your intent to try and stay together whether there are children or not. A lot of people view it as more than a piece of paper,- as an actual committment
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:54, Reply)

Yes, but if you have that commitment, why must it be written down?
and if you lose such a commitment, what good does having it written down do?
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 16:57, Reply)

the piece of paper isn't the commitment
it's what it represents. the actual certificate is irrelevant except in a legal sense.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

you're missing the point
marriage is more than a piece of paper having 'marriage' written on it. It's an open and visible symbol of committment- sometimes an expensive one true, but always a clear symbol of the regard you feel.

If you lose such a committment, it's sad, but I can't see the harm of having had it in the past
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)

I think this is my point
The commitment is what matters, the paper, the ceremony, all the rest are just symbols.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)

that doesn't always mean they aren't good things though
and having been through the process of displaying these symbols, the theory is that it will make for a stronger relationship.

That isn't necessarily the case though.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:03, Reply)

Would not dream of saying they aren't good things
merely questioning their necessity.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)

certainly not necessary
it is entirely up to the individual
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:12, Reply)

Wine isn't necessary
But it's brilliant and I hereby pledge my commitment to our relationship
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)

you're still missing the point
it's easy to say you have a committment. To follow that through and make a lasting acknowledgement in the form of an open/honest committment whether in a religious or civil ceremony is more of a leap
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:03, Reply)

It's true
symbols are symbols for a reason, they are physical objects that are created to represent untangible things such as emotion and in this case committment. Like when people are given Medals of Honour.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)

kindly stop telling me I am missing the point
I am disagreeing with you, which is not quite the same thing.Your point seems to be that my feelings are some how more valid if "make a lasting acknowledgement in the form of an open/honest [statement or display of] commitment" My contention is that the feelings involved are more important than how they are publicly expressed or solemnified.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)

I feel that you are correct in this instance.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:10, Reply)

Well, as long a b3ta's resident relation ship expert agrees with me...
How can I be wrong. :)
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)

definatly missing the point

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)

you are missing the point *chortle*
not really. it's more a case of debating slightly different things.

The emotions aren't more valid either way, but a marriage is more than just a piece of paper, it is an outward display of commitment to the emotions.

It's not necessary, but some people want to do it and the theory is that having some kind of commitment while make for a stronger relationship, although that is not always the case.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)

I claimed
you were missing the point because you kept asking why it should be written down, and I answered that 2 or 3 times
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)

you answered (repeatedly) by saying the piece of paper was not the point, the commitment is symbolised was
what you did not do, was explain, why the paper (or any of the rituals and legal formalities) were necessary, in addition to the commitment they symbolise.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:23, Reply)

It's the publicity.
All about the ME ME ME factor is marriage.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:24, Reply)

well, this would explain
why women are so fond of the idea
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:27, Reply)

Loads of men like it too
My uncle Terry for one was over the moon with all that wedding stuff.
My auntie could have taken it or left it.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:29, Reply)

your uncle Terry
is clearly a girly in disguise
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:31, Reply)

That has been discussed

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:33, Reply)

one of my male friends wants to get married
but his girlfriend doesn't.

In my opinion she should take what she can get.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:39, Reply)

Also please remember
that it's a strange state of affairs where my parents would be financially better off if they chose to divorce, than by staying together as they currently are
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)

I would've been much better off at uni if my parents had got a divorce
the selfish bastards.

they can sod their 40 years of marriage.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:04, Reply)

exactly
my mother would get so much more money if she was a single mother, and my time at university would be much easier.

There was almost a point where the difference was so overwhelming they were thinking of getting seperated because of it. Luckily they didn't
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)

It's like this:
See you, you're the most brilliant person in my world. I'm not just going to GO OUT with you or LIVE with you, I'm going to MARRY you.
We'll be each other's Mister/Missus.
And to everyone else: See this cracker here, this cracker is the best thing since sliced bread. We are getting married, that how boss we each think the other is. We're bothering to do all that 'I do' biznizz.
Then we're going to Llandudno to have all of the sex.
I thank you.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)

that's my wedding day speech sorted
ta duck
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)

You're welcome luv
Took me ages to write.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:10, Reply)

I'll give you writing credits when I present it at my wedding

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:12, Reply)

It's ok
You can have it as a wedding present
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:14, Reply)

I hate the nuclear deterrent argument
Only a handful of countries have nukes. We would never use them. Ever, even if we were nuked. Can you imagine a bunch of extremists nuking us and our response being to nuke their country of origin? No country is going to decide to nuke the UK.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:55, Reply)

We should get rid of trident.
What if the other bloke has a net and a big fucking sword? Pretty useless then.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Wed 12 May 2010, 17:20, Reply)

the net always goes with the trident
:)
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:42, Reply)

I like kittens.

( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 12 May 2010, 21:21, Reply)