The Ghost of John Galt

Absolutely brilliant comment at Aunty's have your say forum on Davos:

"Capitalists are fine, if they EARN the fruit of their labour.
Corporatism is the problem whereby the big established companies use regulation to keep the little hard working capitalist out of business". Billy, Birmingham

I would add that its parasitic wealthy elites and corrupt establishments which make it possible for this perversion of capitalism to continue! The problem truly is the an elitist global corporate fascism which is destroying free enterprise, trade & job creation!
The Ghosts of John Galt, Ghost Town

Cracks are beginning to appear and light is shining through them; especially important with idiotic comments like this right beneath:

Forget the ridiculus concept of continuous economic growth. We fool ourselves that we have growth by increasing the wealth of the highest profile individuals to idiotic levels (directors, bankers, advertisers and celebrities).

Inevitably this leads to the poor becoming poorer while having high and ultimately, unrealistic aspirations. Leading to less happiness and more crime.
[virtualpenguin], Glos, United Kingdom

Remarkable considering that actual quality of life for everyone has been improving since markets were let off the leash more.

Avoid people who talk about "(in)equality"; pennies to pounds they are purposefully ignoring obvious questions about overall quality.

War

Today is apparently a very important day for the swivel eyed left; Tawny Boil is today giving evidence about his involvement in the Iraq war, obviously the hope being he will crack, say it was Bush's charm, tact and word-craft that convinced him to kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis.

Whilst, as a libertarian trying to espouse the non-aggression axiom, I believe the Iraq war was a particularly cynical means of securing it's numerous resources, as well as removing yet another ex-CIA liability (which I am with Ron Paul in it's disestablishment); but I can't help but agree with the Tebbmeister - that the war itself was not illegal by any standards I hope anyone who believes in freedom of the individual.

I'll explain; most of the arguements for "illegality" come from interpretations of international law, laid down by that great bastion of justice and fairness, the United Nations; as I see it laws which we elect our members of parliament to advocate and implement or cry down are subverted by what are effectively an elite bunch of beuraucrats with no accountability to those paying the bills, us.

Like the EU federated law structures trend towards authoritarian diktat; can anyone honestly say it is right for one country to have a democratic say in anothers, when, say in places like China, they have no democratic accountability to their own citizens? Likewise, only milder, how rich is it for the Belgiums to lecture us on governance considering their own national structures are in tatters?

No. The failing lies elsewhere for this; it lies at our doors for not spending more time scrutinising those we elect to stand for our interests; over half of us in the last several elections failed to even vote either way, effectively voting Labour in on a "landslide" majority representing less than 25% of the population by their non-vote.

Worst of all we have failed to recognise that their are a core of rights that not even politicians should touch, but in our attempts at leading simpler, fraughtless lives we abrogated our responsibilty to them for these core rights, and to each other in helping everyone become more self-determined; when was the last time you really wanted to support a charity because of it's works rather than what it represented?

No. Blair will walk with head held high, the elite chatteratti will have more fodder and you will continue to vote/non-vote for the same big 3 who will ultimately destroy what remains of a world superpower.

But, if you want change, there is only really one place that change will come: you.

Parties like LPUK are only as small as the people who support them; if you want to become the authority in your own life the donate; sponsor a candidate*, tell your friends, donate! Vote in your local LPUK candidate!



What's that? Don't have a candidate standing for parliament or your local council elections? Better yet! Be that change in a very real way! Join and sign up as your local candidate.



Ultimately it is incumbent on all of us to be the change we want, to be greedy and hungry for it, or else we get someones elses we might not; Labour will fund itself through it's union/regneration money rinse, the Borys will groom their party for greatness with money from their little-lord-fontleroy doners, the lib dems will rinse their student social democratic advocates for their rich parents money and rinse the taxpayers for money; we are against a lot of corrupt and unscrupulous individuals who thirst for power over you.

But if you believe in voluntary actions and interactions with others without a third party getting in the way, start here.

*= last year I signed up as a PPC for my home district, Leeds West. I had an ok paying job and was willing to sacrifice a fair amount to stand for what I believe in.

Now that I've lost my job post crunch, post baby and post spare cash I have nothing left to sacrifice; i'm in begging bowl territory here but my point stands- if you won't or can't stand send someone who will. You want me to stand locally then give money to LPUK with that precondition. I may be hideously unsuccessful but I may not be - don't you think it's time the voiceless who care nothing for others dictation of their lives had a voice?

At least forward this to all you know and spread the word; time is by far the most valuable commodity you own; I'm asking for a little of it and appreciate all already given.

Why We Are Doomed to Frosty, Dangerous Christmas' For Years

The above is what remains of a council grit bin in an area of Leeds that became near impassable a few weeks ago for the frost. The remains are littered all kinds of debris from the great unwashed, leading me to suspect it was used as a bin either before, and mist likely after.

Credit where credit is due, ZanuNuLabout have over-ridden local councils with enough foresight to buy enough grit for the frosts to lend to those councils who didn't; thereby rendering an entirely different lesson to the one those councils really need.

However, how can this sort of idiotic behaviour be squared against an old lady breaking a hip next year for want of a clear, ice free, gritted road?

The Climates' they are a'changin

Via Watts up with that (h/t to Dr North at EU Referendum which is reaching a worthy peak in it's campaign) comes this notable comments from the WUWT blog:

I write this from the middle of the eastern China coastal Plain where particulate air pollution is out of control, water pollution is out of control, solid waste management is out of control, industrial conversion of Ag land is out of control, all of which is reduced to side show by fixation on the trivial warming effects of a trace gas.

The legitimate causes of pollution control and conservation have been hijacked by a scientific freak show, demanding that the entire world fiddle while substantial portions of the planet burn. Those forces (political and industrial) that have no interest in addressing reality will happily spar forever in the fantasy shadow game of carbon control.

Forget the trillions wasted on chasing carbon targets over the years this is the real costs; misdirected anger allowing countries to pollute while everyone runs in fear of a fake problem, charities becoming over paid lobby groups for more money to lobby govt. for more action to in turn lobby govt. more, and our children indoctrinated to hunt their parents and other thought criminals.

All whilst bilge tanks on CO2-offset transports empty, ruining Eco-systems, corporations dump toxic waste off the coast of Somalia ruining any trade other than piracy and millions of tons of nitrate fertiliser are dumped on land irresponsibly, to end up polluting water supplies and killing the fish stocks and Eco-systems here (ironically, the BBC ran a piece on just this happening to the Amazon, blaming it on acidification caused by CO2).

This is the lasting damage; whatever minor effect CO2 is having on the planet is vastly overwhelmed by the effects of more obvious pollution the almighty church of Gorethalism does not recognise as a sin against nature.

Imps

Angers me this morning reading the Metro about yet another child causing untold misery to another. Yet more grist for the mill of malcontents to bleat over whilst allowing the machinery causing this social rot to stay in place, unchanged, if not torn down.

I cannot give the kind of focus I would like to writing about the underlying causes of this and Edlington, writing this on my phone on the way into work; beside, others have done a considerably better job than I could; I'll follow up later with some of my own experiences.

What I would like to talk about is the approach to sentencing monsters like this; 3 years? For what is likely to have caused permanent psychological scarring of this poor women?

I particularly find his guilty plea galling as there is no mention of remorse; just calls from his lawyer of "anger managment" and "dealing with a very immature young man"; how likely is it that he will see freedom before he sees his 16th birthday?

The solution? The metro piece, and no doubt others, will use this as a call for "tougher sentences", "enquiries" and knee-jerk quango formation when really all we need is something considerably simpler: democratise the justice system.

District judges who found themselves buying into the moral inversion, or electing those magistrates who do, where criminal becomes the "victim of society" will find themselves sentenced to the dole queue. This would dilute the effects of angry victims or relatives acting irrationally against perceived, but reasonable, justice whilst acting as a brake to the judiciary being too light a touch or too ready to implement European law over our own.

You want real justice for victims? We should stop the kneejerk reaction of going to Whitehall to make yet more draconian, unworkable laws; we need justice to be pliable and answerable to it's environment, not fly-by-night politicians. Nothing will change till then.

Hang on...

According to Sky News we are expected to be exiting the recession

Let's see:

GDP as of 2008: £1627Bn

6% of GDP (rough estimate in drop from recession): ~£100Bn

Increase in money supply by QE: ~£200Bn

Cost of bank bailouts: ~£120Bn in buying Labour heartland bank shares, increasing up to ~£850Bn in costs of insurance and providing liquidity to the banking industry wholesale.

therefore:

£100Bn - £200Bn -£120Bn = minus £220Bn that the taxpayer are online to pay for, with a fourfold increase in this liability once the banks admit the scale of their toxic assets.

And Gordo wants to celebrate?

Don't Panic! And for the Love of God Don't Riot!

This should get the blood pressure up - a mere morsel of things both long lasting and short stinging that we have endured as a nation under the present shower that occupy Parliament.

But remember - don't riot; once Labour are kicked out they will have crushing party debts levelling every senior party member, hopefully crushing them underfoot.

Then, whoever occupies your constituency seat you write to them like crazy and demand they repeal the Civil Contingencies act.

Then you riot.

(h/t to Leg-iron)

Health & Safety Returning from Madness

Following yesterday insanities involving my bro's fun and games I have heard yet another fun anecdote for you all, this time from my friend Mr P.

His boss, my pastor, despite being the owner of their successful business still delivers some stock.

Recently he was delivering some of his product to a school, the fancy kind with a colour arch with a welcome sign, when he misjudged the size of the truck and knocked the plastic arch off, shattering it.

The school are trying to claim their entire teaching wage for the day, having had to send their pupils home as a result of plastic splinters being strewn across the entrance. You know, for health and safety reasons.

Glad to see people taking the madness of H&S laws, turning them on their head, and then gouging business for all their worth.

There are time when I really wish I was making this stuff up.

The Moral Inversion Comes Home

So my phone just goes off, Mrs Tomrat answers it and I catch the semi-eratic calls of my mum. Mrs Tomrat puts the phone down.

Turns out my Brother, Buffrat, was on the tube in London going to the bus stop home after a business doohickey very early this morning.

A mugger held a knife to his throat demanding his wallet; unbeknownst to our chancing ruffian aside from his main role in recruitment he also temps as a personal bodyguard and bouncer at various big events, highly trained in close quarter protection.

The mugger left the carraige with a broken nose, several broken ribs and fingers.

And he's pressing charges.

I'll keep you posted fearless readers. For words fail me tonight.

MICRO-UPDATE

Spoke to Buffrat this morning; is perfectly fine, had a witness to the event and they found the (Stanley knife); does not look good for our perp. More to come...

My Irony Detector Must Be Malfunctioning...

Because it should have peaked at 20Megapisstakes/second at this (h/t to Old Holborn)

Mrs Tollefsen, told The Sun: “Every woman has a right to be a mother.” No, they don’t. Having a child, becoming a parent is a privilege, not a right.

This coming from a labour MP. Priceless.

For years they have infantilised a population of pram-faced, unwashed teenage mums to escape the drudgery of working class life for...underclass existence. They live in an impoverished existence which still costs the earth to run considering the plethora of benefits and schemes in place to "help".

But of course Mr Harris is being a bit flippant with the language here; the lady appears to have paid for this out of her own pocket and of her own back - no, Mr Harris believes this to be a privelege handed down from a group of wise plebs, rather than it being a matter of personal sacrifice.

Mr Harris should think twice before deciding which vaginas he chooses to subsidise and which he chooses to restrict; we might have fewer of the problems we do have in this country.

Quote of Today*

"If there are two foci of power, then those of us who are without either can play at the game of balancing one off against the other, allowingneither to become overly strong. Buy when the same set of hands that controls the police and the military also controls the money and means of production, then tyranny is as absolute as human inefficiency will allow."

Rev. Edmund A Opitz
A survey of the social action literature.

*all the quotes of late are from a collection of essays from by the above author, primarily because married life, job hunting and fatherhood have absorbed nigh on all my time; this flagrant lazy bit of blogging is brought to you by the wonder which is the iPhone.

For the love of God is there nothing they won't stick there nose into?

I don't smoke, I don't drink much and I don't use drugs; heck, I try to avoid curse words unless it's really really funny, but when I read things like this on something I do do, gaming, I get a bit more vitriolic than normal.

Do you trust a Labour MP to have a reasoned discussion on gaming? Do we honestly think this'll be where it ends if their public consultation reveals people are fine with it? Hah!

If you can be there go, they've intentionally not held it within runnin distance of me otherwise i'd be all over it.

How long before the bansturbation calls and mass disc burning do we reckon?

The Sky is Blue

Excerpts of a blog post's comment roll that may or may not have occurred in my head:

...
Trotsky needs his head examining wrote:

"What a ridiculous arguement!!! Of course the sky is blue! Looked outside this morning - definately blue!"

K Boatang wrote:

TNHHE or whatever you call yourself,

Fuck you. Where do you get off coming onto my blog telling me something is so clear cut.

My point was that variances in the upper atmosphere's chemical makeup, plus a hundred other factors such as incidence of the sun to our atmosphere all play a part and can vary from place to place meaning the sky colour can change even over time and season. Oh, but if you ask me and my giant brain the sky is clearly a light greeny blue."

JustSomeNewGuy wrote,

"Hang on Mr Boatang I though you said there was opportunity for variation so a definite answer is impossible? And what does it matter anyway what colour the sky is?"

K Boatang wrote,

"JustSomePooGuy,

You can take a full reund and fuck off also matey; I don't want to get into specifics at the moment but I have made my opinion on sky colour clear to the aforementioned unmentionable political party (hint: LPUK, the bastards) and don't have to take this sort of questioning because I'm way more important than you. so neugh."

Old Holborn wrote,

"A thought experiment: what colour is the sky? Blue, what colour is the star of David? Blue - what does this tell us? FILFEE JOOS ARE CONDUCTING A PROPOGANDA EXERCISE BY ALTERING SKY COLOUR!!! there 5th dimensional lizard people don'tcha know."

JustSomeNewGuy wrote,

"KB You just is a second ago!

OH,

Wait, what?"

Obnoxio the Clown wrote,

"This post is so rich it's fattening luvvies. (mutters some Saxon profanities then leaves)"

Bella Gerens wrote,

"Echoing JustSomeNewGuy and putting in a defence of LPUK his second point is really the only valid one here; what does it matter what colour the sky is? The only thing really important is that it stops air leaving the earth so we don't die. Simples.

As for LPUK we allow forums to debate such things as sky colour; most of the time this isn't really a problem as the forum users tend to discussing important, life altering things they can change, not chunter inanely about conspiracy theories or things they can't."

Old Holborn wrote,

"FILFEE JOOS!

Don't believe me? Check out this YouTube, source of all credible evidence on everything, video, clearly demonstrating Joos stealing my shreddies."

J Demetriou wrote,

Bella,

You can fuck of as well; I have first. hand. experience. of how LPUK treats divergent view points. And as you will clearly be able to see in a forthcoming post I will demonstrate how sky colour is responsible for all life on earth, why it means you are wrong and why myself and the mighty KB are right and why LPUK smells faintly of kippers. If you can't wait till then I will forward the slides and PowerPoint presentation I did on the subject to you."

FabledCityofArkansas wrote,

"boy I wos a reeder of yoo lot but now ill stick with surfing for porn thanks. Boring an no boobs or anything heer."

Old Holborn wrote,

"JOOS! Grrr."

Devils Kitchen wrote,

What are you cretins going on about? Honestly surely there are better conversations and debates to be having? LPUK policy is a reflection on how we get from the shit tip we are in now to the place we want to be in a freer more just United Kingdom. After an initial policy formulation we put it to forum and they tweekes and changed as was necessary to get a more amicable libertarian solution to the problems we face, and how beat to implement them as we move forward."

J Demetriou wrote,

DK,

Don't try to tell me what I know?Everyone knows you are constructing an army of drones to sing the party lines of illiberal rubbish! I have the slides to prove it!!"

Devils Kitchen wrote,

"Wait, say what now?"

Obnoxio the Clown wrote,

"Ooh handbags at dawn c**ts."

Old Holborn wrote,

"A Joo once poo'd in my wife's handbag. True story."

Devils Kitchen wrote,

"So you guys know about my clone army do you? Too bad your not in time to stop me BWA HA HA HA HA HRGH! oh wait you are? Crap - DAMN THE INTERNET AND THE EROSION OF THE INNER MONOLOGUE IT ENCOURAGES!"
...
(and it goes on like this for a very long time - Ed)

Earth Needs Extremists

Leg-Iron has a piece on Jamjar Chutney's silencing. He rightly points out that as far as hegelian synthesis go this one has started to take hold:

1. Thesis: want everyone to sound the same.

2. Antithesis: have voices crying out in dissent from accepted normative crud.

Sythesis of 1 + 2 = ban the former to push it underground (as it will - no view point is ever silenced, it is merely made an island for the lost and a path of least resistance for the weak willed and foolish to go; look at the labour party) which eventually pushes a "third way" view which is acceptable to precisely noone = no one is happy.

The problem with politicians on either side of the "divide" (it took me awhile to figure out this "divide" itself is artificial) is that they frequently get the dividing lines between thesis and antithesis wrong - as a result they lose ground and credibility on the grounds on what they originally represented because the synthesis merely strips some of the veneer away from themselves alone.

An example: can anyone truly say the Labour party is still the party of the working man? For all of Nu & Old Labours struggle to create their brave new world all they have really succeeded in doing is stripping away more of the mask they presented as their creed, and removed the people who represented the least dishonest side of their party; as wrong as the likes of Benn the elder is we can at least have respect for his adherence to his viewpoint. 

How can they claim this when every action has been to strip working men of money and property to replace it with privilege at the behest of a (supposedly) benevolent state? When we have income tax returns that are now dwarfed by the cost of welfare they no longer hold any credibility to these claims.

No it is because of this falsehood - that 2 opposing views can be synthesised into a middle ground in any meaningful and long lasting way - that we need groups like Choudray's; however odious this little scared man gets, however wrong his views are, they are colliding against reality and the natural righteousness of things. We glibly use terms like "you cant buck the market" or "you have no right" far too often without realising their true power - no matter how much interference their is in the natural justice of things their is always a reckoning.

The right will out - the more extremists we have the more clearly this comes into view, not because Hegel was right, but because he was so very wrong.

If libertarianism is anything it is not that we represent this greater righteousness; it is simply that we understand that it exists and is immutable; one of the reasons why I can proudly claim to be a Christian libertarian methinks.

Peace.

Before I Fall Asleep

Have had graveyard shift for babywatch, am full of chesty coughiness and have been beside myself with money worries, but I am now calm.

We have mad Muslims practicing their right to free speech by saying we should lose ours, the holy church of AlGoreism telling us the brass monkey weather, the thousands already dead and billions lost worldwide as a result of it, have nuffink to do with the pattern of rising despite 3 paltry summers and 3 worsening winters (climate change being cyclical; skating on the Thames in Victorian times or vineyards in the highlands in the middle ages) still insist the sky is falling unless we prop it up with paper with the queens face on it, not realising that as a fiat currency that is really all the pound is anymore - paper with the queens face on it; you are the currency Brown is trading in, when he sells bonds he is selling you offspring into bonded slavery for a few measly pence for some new shibboleth he hopes will keep him in power. Labour are no longer the party of the working man anymore than the Borys are the groomsmen of government; the former being a vessel by which union bosses, their cronies and the Orren Boyles of this world get rich without effort, the latter a confused bunch of public schools boys - the product of too much weed, hazings and inbreeding.

Despite all this I am calm, because the answer has always been simple, and can begin with us all individually and lies in these words by one of the good guys:

"In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene. - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801."

With that I leave you tonight to ask yourself just where you think that country surely exists.

Genuine Yougov Survey Question

Seriously survey is here, seefor yourself.

What FIVE things can you do with a brick?

And my totally genuine answers:

First idea
Build with it.

Second idea
Throw it.

Third idea
Ground it down to make a street class excipient for several recreational drugs.

Fourth idea
Use as a forge base for my manufacture of samuri and tanto blades.

Fifth idea
Ground down to use as a light frosting for a tesco value tiramisu

Equality, Diversity & Democracy

Full of cold, hopped up on cough drops and painkillers and arriving at work to find your pc is kaput is not the best way to read this on your twerp-deck in the morning.

Seriously, my apologies for the Anglo-Saxon, but this is starting to become fucked up beyond belief now. Discrimination laws, racial, sexual or otherwise, were introduced in this country by Labour governments. We now have a Labour minister for "equality" who is more than happy to discriminate against groups to create "diversity".

Labour appear to have screwed up again - not in their intent here you understand; I'm certain Harriet Hormone is actively trying to undermine democracy by collecting minorities and people lacking a Y chromosome and that is here full intention, no - I believed they have screwed up the operative in her title: it shouldn't be Minister for Equality, it should be Minister against Equality.

A question to all the knuckle dragging, swivel eyed leftist buffoons out there - why is it not ok for a predominately Asian/black/lady populace to select a white guy to represent them in parliament?

Quote of the Day

"I do not like to see the clergy, who were monarchists under a strong monarchy, and oligarchs under the oligarchy, tumbling over each other in their eagerness to become court chaplains to King Demos. The black coated advocates of spoliation are not a nice lot."

- Dean William R. Inge
St. Paul's Cathedral, London


-- Post From My iPhone

Preparing For The Right Eventuality

Via EU Referendum comes this piece from some jobsworth at the department of transport about why they've not prepared for the possibility of economy stopping snow such as this, pointing out no doubt the millions spent on the Knutian belief that we can revert the sipher of global warming by turning our lights off and not filling our kettle to the top; I nominate this idiot to not breath as often by packing himself in a vaccuum chamber.

To any civil engineers who may randomly read this blog - how much would it cost to encase every main road in a perspex canopy? Sound insane? We built thousands of miles of railway lines in the early Victorian era and maintain them to this day; why not prevent snow from reaching major road surfaces?

Marriage and Tax: Spreading the Misery

Whilst searching my tweet-deck this morning after the drudgery that was walking through a several inches of snow I came across this cross post from a blog called "LabourMatters" talking about this piece in the financial times by Chris Giles decrying the Boiled New Potatoe's tax plans for married people and junk.

From what I've been able to gather Cambo's basic plan is to reintroduce the transferable tax allowance for married peoples to encourage them - you know, to get married and stuff; the basic idea of transferable tax allowances is one I discussed in this post in a highly liberalised form as a bridge to yet greater liberty from the state, putting everyone in direct control of their finances and welfare whilst encouraging voluntary collectivism; all good things.

As a result the FT piece is pretty much a proto-fisk of my idea so let's break it down for posterity, particularly as, like Friedman, I'm in favour of tax cuts whenever we can get them:

British politics is obsessed with a silly row over whether the Conservative policy of “recognising marriage in the tax system” is affordable. This is an idiotic question. Anything is affordable if you are willing to raise taxes elsewhere or borrow to fund it.

Or, you coul not fund the particular activities that put government spending up needing higher taxes.

The only relevant issue is whether a transferable tax allowance (or other tax breaks for marriage) are a good idea. This important debate has been forgotten. Here are some reasons why transferable tax allowances are a terrible idea:

- Simplicity. Transferable tax allowance further complicate the income tax system.

Further. complicate. the. tax. system? You know, he's right - the last thing we need is one extra page of legislation in the tax rule book which is already the size of the bloody phone book.

Independence. Recognising marriage in the tax system undermines a woman’s (or a man’s) ability to keep her income separate from that of her spouse. Women’s legitimate irritation at being treated by the state as an appendage to their husbands was one of the main reasons the tax system became increasingly blind to marriage under the last Conservative government in the 1980s and 1990s.

Cept that, even the original transferable tax credit was transferable both ways.

Besides couldn't the same arguement be applied to the institution of marriage? The loss of (some) independance? The purpose of the tax credit itself enables one partner not to work so they devote more time to their family; from personal experience my wife has expressed a desire to go part time or even quit altogether so she could do just that. Could we finally put this pseudo-feminist rubbish to rest?

Misunderstanding history. It wasn’t nutty progressives who got rid of the married man’s allowance and undermined the married couples’ allowance in the tax system. It was a combination of those awful lefties (Nigel Lawson, John Major, Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke) who were Conservative chancellors between 1983 and 1997. Gordon Brown took the last bit of the married couples allowance and called it the children’s tax allowance in 2001. It now has a new and horrible name: ‘the family element of the child tax credit’ and it is assessed on joint family income.

I'm not entirely certain what this has to do with anything; Bory's got rid of it so they can no longer suggest it in the future.

Incoherence 1. George Osborne wants to get rid of the family element of the child tax credit - ie the one part of the tax system that is a remnant of the old married man’s allowance. In his 2009 Party Conference speech, he said: “We can no longer justify paying means-tested tax credits to families with incomes over £50,000.” This passage came just six paragraphs after he said: “That is why we are going to support marriage in the tax and benefit system.”

One of the current criticisms of the tax credit schemes is that as a means of supplying more money to "'ard up fam-il-ees" it does tend to give a awful lot of money to the middle classes - something that benefitted Blair in establishing the NuLabour dynasty which has screwed us all so royally.

Incoherence 2. The standard argument for a marriage tax break goes like this. Children of married parents have better and more stable lives, therefore marriage is good, therefore the tax system should support marriage. While the correlation is true, there is no evidence that proves the causality runs in this direction. Only the most bone-headed reject the possibility that stable, well-meaning couples are likely both to marry and to raise children well. This wilful confusion of correlation with causation is really worrying in politicians that seek to govern.

Yes correlation and causation, it's a pity that most of the media and elites tend to ignore this arguement in other areas - Global warming must be down to CO2; the current financial crisis is down to bankers bonuses.

Incoherence 3. Is the world really a better place if a couple who would have chosen not to marry decide to tie the knot because they would pay a little less tax? It strikes me as perhaps the most morally dubious reason possible for marriage.

Agreed; if only this logic would be applied to the benefits enjoyed by our burgeoning underclass of teen mothers, or the long term unemployed or sick, or even the terrorist apologist.

It probably won’t work 1. This is pure conjecture, but I don’t think the elasticity of marriage to a tax break is likely to be very high.

Of course! Because a few measly quid is what drives people to spend thousands on weddings. Idiot.

It probably won’t work 2. Politically, the Conservatives have already said that civil partnerships (between same-sex couples) will be eligible. Given this, it will be difficult to discriminate against cohabiting couples or even lone parents by excluding them from any tax break. The obvious unfairness that a married couple with two kids pays less tax than their stable cohabiting equivalent will cause a huge political stink.

My guess is that few cohabiting couples will care, being gouged for huge amounts of their income either way - all the more reason to completely liberate the system so everyone benefits.

Income distribution. The beneficiaries of transferable tax allowances are single-earner couples who tend to be at the upper end of the income distribution. The policy is therefore a straight-forward redistribution from poor to rich. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - it is a political choice - but anyone proposing such redistribution must be honest about the consequences.
Labour supply. A transferable tax allowance is a straight subsidy of single-earner couples compared with two-earner couples. So those in favour of it must also be in favour of reducing the potential labour force. It really is something when a political party is insistent on getting more disabled and sick people back into work, so that they can pay taxes to allow rich mothers to stay at home.

Ah you see there's that cause and effect thing, this time being inverted - mothers staying home give rise to more nurtured kids who become more successful adults who become higher earners enabling wifey to stay home breeding more successful kids...and so on. Also Cambo's TTA would enable poorer couples to act in the same way as richer couples - why wouldn't Giles want that?

Also note the Freudian slip near the middle of this comment - "reducing the work force"? Won't go into the obvious repurcussions in somehow saying a stay at home mums somehow don't contribute to the economy; if we take that logic to it's conclusion we could get rid of all the public sector, producing no profits, nor the apparent belief that we are somehow obligated to serve our brethrin in the pursuit of some fascolist wet dream.

As for the other point, about this being unfair - fine, let's raise the tax bracket and enable everyone to transfer it a they see fit; I'm tired of politicos picking winners; they aren't very good at it and it disenfranchises us all- it is not their money to redistribute as they see fit; married and unmarried couples would be wise to remember this before any other fact.