Jump to content

Recommended Posts

David Cameron wants more people to marrry because evidence seems to suggest it provides a more stable basis for bringing up children and supporting wider society.


Having just attended the wedding of an old friend's daughter I have another idea. Spending by wedding guests could kick the economy - over the course of three days (the wedding was in Scotland) I must have pumped hundreds of pounds into getting UK out of recession.


New shoes for Mrs MM. Wedding present. Travel to and from Scotland. Hotel on motorway half way to Scotlland. Two nights in a local hotel. One local dinner. Some local shopping for "bits & pieces". Multiply my experience by the 150 guests and that's a sizeable sum. Multiply that by the number of weddings every week and it becomes bigger still.


And this wasn't some fancy dancy wedding - humanist service held in the Bride's garden, home catering, celigh band and dancing in the evening in a marquee loaned from the Scouts. The bigger bashes must generate proportionately even more spending!

Do you think it is necessary to give a wedding present if you spend all that money on travel and hotel? I am curious as to the etiquette of this? Once attended a wedding far from here, although still in this country and not on the home ground of either bride or groom and they cheekily asked for money for their honeymoon trip as a wedding present.

Marriage is not a religious thing, but I understand was merely a formal arrangement to protect the women when the fishermen didn't come from from fishing trips. Religious folk have taken it over. Politicians who realise how powerful the religious thing is use it to bash us over the head with even though there seems to be no evidence that monogamy is a natural need.


We only got married because of the pension rights having lived together 18 years. We'd have had a Humanist wedding too had it been legal in England. We had to go to Southwark Registry Office. We did not tell anyone so no money was spent.


Marriage is not necessarily good for the economy but it is good for us all to be in identifiable units so we can be monitored more easily by governments.


My thoughts for what they're worth!

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marriage is not a religious thing, but I

> understand was merely a formal arrangement to

> protect the women when the fishermen didn't come

> from from fishing trips.


I think marriage may be a much older sociological phenomenon as it exists in hunter gatherer societies some of whom haven?t even invented fishing let alone boats, fishing trips, cooler boxes, beer and all the other things that go with them.

Andystar Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's also the only word in the English language

> that is also a sentence :)-D

>

> ..I only say that because no-one wants to marry me

> :-$


Maybe you're not such a star after all....


Your time will come I'm sure.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...