|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party or save it?
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Forgive me if there's already a thread on this that I've missed. This afternoon there will be free vote in the House of Commons on the legalising of Same Sex Marriages. Many Torys are horrified by this idea; some constituency parties are threateningto deselect any MP who votes for the motion. They feel that this move will alienate traditional Tory activists, and there will be no one left to campaign at the the next election.
On the other hand, for a long time the Torys have been seen as the "nasty party"; defined by all the things they are against. The fact that this bill is being introduced by a Tory PM could show that he is serious about "compassionate Conservatism", and help his party move out of the dark ages.
Obviously we are very close to a Dead Horse here, but I am interested in the effect this could have on the Tory Party, whether it goes through or not. Any thoughts?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Forgive me if there's already a thread on this that I've missed. This afternoon there will be free vote in the House of Commons on the legalising of Same Sex Marriages. Many Torys are horrified by this idea; some constituency parties are threateningto deselect any MP who votes for the motion. They feel that this move will alienate traditional Tory activists, and there will be no one left to campaign at the the next election.
On the other hand, for a long time the Torys have been seen as the "nasty party"; defined by all the things they are against. The fact that this bill is being introduced by a Tory PM could show that he is serious about "compassionate Conservatism", and help his party move out of the dark ages.
Obviously we are very close to a Dead Horse here, but I am interested in the effect this could have on the Tory Party, whether it goes through or not. Any thoughts?
Both - it will certainly weaken the current membership in terms of older people and bigots which will help to properly shed the image of a 'nasty-party'.
I continue to believe that the Conservative philosophy is not anti-change, but is a philosophy based on appropriate change with considerable consideration and reflection, appropriate change that repsects the right of the individual and the wider needs and strength of society, as David Cameron was right to say "I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative, I support gay marraige because I am a Conservative."
This will see the people which give the Conservatives the image of the 'nasty-party' die-off/go elsewhere, which will leave the reformers and new peeps coming in to continue to improve society and the party.
Not everyone who is against the proposed bill is homophobic or a bigot, and they will continue to be proper members of the Conservative party - it is the homophobes and bigots who will leave...
One commentator I was reading earlier was saying that if the Conservative party lost the next election (which would most likely trigger a leadership election too) but continued on this route it would see itself back in power in 2020 - I can't remember on what basis, but that was his outcome. That would all depend on who was elected to the leadership (imagine, one of the gay Tories - the party with the largest number of out LGBT memebers I do believe- becoming leader... that would be the finally whammy for the true bigots in the party.)
[ 05. February 2013, 11:40: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's not their attitudes, current or historical, to sexuality that identifies the Tories as the "nasty party" to me.
It's going to school with the buggers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to bring this bill in (and cynically I wonder whether it's a smokescreen), I think that it's another betrayal by a political party of those who voted for it. What's in the manifesto is ignored once in office, or resurfaces the next time they want to use it to collect votes. Meanwhile, they carry on with the unwritten agenda.
I don't differentiate between parties, it seems that it's the way they think it should be done and they continue the culture, out of touch with those they're supposed to be leading.
Honour and honesty would be good, for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.
[ 05. February 2013, 12:08: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
"Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party or save it?"
Neither. Makes very little difference in the medium term. Tories aren't Tories because they have some irrational prejudice against gay men, they are Tories because they have a rational interest in supporting the party of property and wealth. (The question of why so many people who aren't wealthy vote conservative against their rational interests is left as an exercise for the reader)
This is, I suspect, mainly about votes. They are looking for votes at the margin - like any other successful political party in a FPTP system - and they are guessing that the number of people so badly offended by gay marriage that they will no longer vote Tory is smaller than the number who will move the other way. Smaller, that is, where it counts - among voters in marginal constituences who are willing to change cotes between the Tories and Labour.
Where are the offended ones to go? They aren't going to change from Tory to Labour or Green or Liberal just on this issue because those parties are also in favour of gay marriage. And they aren't the sort of people who would dream of voting Labour or Green or Liberal anyway. So either they won't turn up, or they will move to BNP and/or UKIP. And that doesn't matter much as long as there aren't too many of them in marginal constituencies.
Its a bit like the Labour party's ambiguous stance on nuclear weapons. The Labour Party in the country has mostly been in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament for fifty years or more. But when they get into government they have been more hawkish on nukes than the Tories have (and they buld more submarines and aircraft carriers as well) They can get away with this because building big shiny weapons doesn't lose them many votes where it matters, because the people who are so pissed off about it that they can't bring themselves to vote Labour any more aren't going to vote Tory either. Even the Iraq fiasco, which is probably the single biggest thing that the Labour Party in Parliament has done to piss off its members and activists in the party's history, almost certainly didn't cost them more than a large handful of seats at the last general election. Although in the nearly-hung Parliament in 2010 that handful might have been significant.
The Tories are currently taking the opposite view on the EU referendum. The government don't want it, and they know its a bad idea, and they want to stay in the EU. But they feel forced to go along with it because the anti-EU media have got such a lock on public imagination - at least among the more xenophobic end of Tory support - that they fear losing voters to UKIP if they don't promise a referendum (a promise that I suspect they are at least vaguely hoping not to keep)
So basically its a bet on the voter's mood. They jump to the left on social issues, and they jump to the right on immigration and free trade, because that's what they think the mood of the people is - "the people" in this case being the people who count, that is floating voters in suburban constituencies in the southern half of England
[ 05. February 2013, 13:45: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not their attitudes, current or historical, to sexuality that identifies the Tories as the "nasty party" to me.
It's going to school with the buggers.
Karl, I'm sure I've misunderstood you, but your final comment there surprises me. Are you really saying that the Tories (or anyone else) are nasty, because they went to the same schools that gays go to (presumably every school in the country)?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The fact that this bill is being introduced by a Tory PM could show that he is serious about "compassionate Conservatism", and help his party move out of the dark ages.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) How could anyone believe that Cameron is 'serious about compassionate Conservatism' (or any other sort of compassion) ??
He and his misalliance have implemented the most savage programme of cuts and vindictive persecution of the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless (and those whose homes are 'too big' - apart from MPs) that we have ever seen. Even Thatcher didn't come this close.
And supporting gay marriage means he is 'compassionate'???
Don't get me wrong. I believe gay couples should be able to marry. And it's a good thing this bill is being introduced. But just because Cameron is leaping on this particular bandwagon doesn't absolve him from the damage he is doing to millions of ordinary people.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, I'm straight. It's just that the people I went to school with were as blue as a summer sky and a lot of them had some deeply unpleasant attitudes that I now see being played out by the Tory administration under the guise of "dealing with the deficit" - essentially kicking people they despise (the unemployed, public sector workers, the low paid) in the bollocks and watching their suffering with some relish.
Just my experience. Make of it what you will.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well said, Karl. Bullies, the lot of them. That's why if I was gay and wanting to be married I'd be very suspicious of this lot of Greeks bearing gifts.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Well said, Karl. Bullies, the lot of them. That's why if I was gay and wanting to be married I'd be very suspicious of this lot of Greeks bearing gifts.
Even gay Tories?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I can only speak from a Canadian and New York State experience.
Only a very, very few will permanently switch parties over one issue. After gay marriage passed in Canada and New York State, the bubble of anxiety over it deflated very quickly. Few, pro- or con-, can point to any visible change in the social fabric after passage and other issues appear on the radar that take over. Very few people are in agreement with everything in a party platform. Most people pick the lesser of two evils when they send money or vote, anyway.
On the State level, we have a party that is to the right of the Republicans called the New York Conservative Party, which are adamantly anti-gay. After the law passed (with the help of several Republicans) there was no collapse in membership in the Republican Party, nor growth in the Conservatives. 3 of 4 Republican senators who voted for the measure did not come back to office after the next election but that is due to other issues.
I would be surprised if it destroyed or saved any political party. Six months from now, no one will be talking about gay marriage. It will have been forgotten as a hot button issue.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Well said, Karl. Bullies, the lot of them. That's why if I was gay and wanting to be married I'd be very suspicious of this lot of Greeks bearing gifts.
Even gay Tories?
Well quite. Margot James (openly lesbian Tory MP) doing a great job debating on the bill today.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'm watching the debate and I thought Margot James' speech was rather poor (despite being a fairly good media performer, her came across as being very nervous). I thought Nick Herbert was very good, though.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Rather than bringing before Parliament a Bill to allow for “gay marriage” what the government should have done is present a Bill to state that all ceremonies creating a registered couple are marriages but that religious organisations have the right to perform a ceremonial wedding for those of their adherents who wish it at the same time as registering their marriage.
The only variation between current “marriages” and civil partnerships are that the ceremony to mark one may take place in a place of worship and the other may not, and the decision for that to change should be down to religious leaders, not parliament. Otherwise, the requirements for giving notice, registering the union, the process to bring the union to an end other than by the death of one party – the rules are exactly the same for marriage and civil partnership, as is the law on inheritance and taxation. Laws relating to children are irrelevant since naturally conceived children cannot be born to a same-sex couple; the law relating to the natural child of one of the parties is the same for either a married couple or a civil partnership in that the non-parent has the right to be registered as a step-parent.
People who wring their hands and talk of marriage being “redefined” have missed the boat – it left in 2004. It will be a pity if the Tory party is cast in the role of villain solely because the previous Labour government did not have the courage to call “civil partnership” by its correct name – marriage.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I detect lots of anger around here. I'm picking up on some tension in the room!
I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons I've always voted Tory even before earning a decent income, was because I knew even then that as a working man, I would be better off under the Tories because thety would leave more money in my pocket than Labour would.
There are other reasons such as instinctively disliking people who think that groups are better than individuals, but mainly it's the money in my pocket.
I see no reason to change.
On the gay marriage issue, it will benefit us. Who else are the "outraged" going to vote for? Labour? The Lib Dems? I don't think so. Our core vote is called our core vote because they will vote for us whatever we do. Even allow gay marriage. All this will do is draw more support from the leftist parties.
You never know, we might get votes from gay people who think they know how to spend their own money better than the Government does.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I detect lots of anger around here. I'm picking up on some tension in the room!
I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons I've always voted Tory even before earning a decent income, was because I knew even then that as a working man, I would be better off under the Tories because thety would leave more money in my pocket than Labour would.
There are other reasons such as instinctively disliking people who think that groups are better than individuals, but mainly it's the money in my pocket.
I see no reason to change.
On the gay marriage issue, it will benefit us. Who else are the "outraged" going to vote for? Labour? The Lib Dems? I don't think so. Our core vote is called our core vote because they will vote for us whatever we do. Even allow gay marriage. All this will do is draw more support from the leftist parties.
You never know, we might get votes from gay people who think they know how to spend their own money better than the Government does.
Well Brighton Kemptown IS a Tory constituency....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Most journalists seem to be saying that it will make no difference to any party, since social issues like ssm don't actually affect the way people vote in the UK.
The classic example are the liberal measures brought in by Roy Jenkins in the 60s - it seems unlikely that Labour lost the election in 1970 because of this. The economy trumps everything.
If the Tories preside over an economic boom (looks unlikely!), they will probably win in 2015.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Wouldn't right of centre Conservatives who feel a need to leave the party join UKIP?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Wouldn't right of centre Conservatives who feel a need to leave the party join UKIP?
Unlikely. They're not quite daft enough to split the right-wing vote and let a left wing party in.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Wouldn't right of centre Conservatives who feel a need to leave the party join UKIP?
Not if they want their referendum on the EU. Every vote for UKIP is a vote lost for the only party that has promised that referendum. UKIP is a spent force.
People wont leave the Conservative Party over SSM. It just doesn't figure on most people's radar.
Just because some people are "outraged", dont think that is all it takes. They may well be outraged, but how much of a priority does that outrage take over other things.
Some Tories may well be 100% against SSM, but it might only be the 20th thing on their list of "things they use to vote on". Number one being the money in their pocket and two being the EU referendum.
In mine, one is the money, two is not the referendum, and SSM isn't on my list.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I would be better off under the Tories because thety would leave more money in my pocket than Labour would.
While I would agree with this, it's a mistake to think that the extra money would stay there very long, once the banks, private health care and privatised utilities have all raided your piggy bank, and taking a little extra while they're there. Some things are simply better done collectively.
But whilst hoping that the Tory party will fracture in two and UKIP further dividing the right-wing vote, it'll all be a big bag of meh come election time. Most people will hold their noses and vote for the least-worst option, as always.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The fact that this bill is being introduced by a Tory PM could show that he is serious about "compassionate Conservatism", and help his party move out of the dark ages.
How could anyone believe that Cameron is 'serious about compassionate Conservatism' (or any other sort of compassion) ??
He and his misalliance have implemented the most savage programme of cuts and vindictive persecution of the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless (and those whose homes are 'too big' - apart from MPs) that we have ever seen. Even Thatcher didn't come this close.
And supporting gay marriage means he is 'compassionate'???
Don't get me wrong. I believe gay couples should be able to marry. And it's a good thing this bill is being introduced. But just because Cameron is leaping on this particular bandwagon doesn't absolve him from the damage he is doing to millions of ordinary people.
Completely agree Angloid. The cynical part of me thinks Cameron is doing this to deflect attention from other issues - but it is good to see him doing something right for a change, whatever his motives.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well Brighton Kemptown IS a Tory constituency....
Sad, isn't it? It's traditionally been the most Labour-voting of the two (now three) Brighton constituencies.
My oldest political memory is Dennis Hobden winning Kemptown for Labour by seven votes in 1964. He lost it again a couple of elections later, and Kemptown languished in Tory thralldom for another generation ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I know how the process works in Canada, but am unfamiliar with the UK. This passed and now it's off to a committee. Is this the final House of Commons vote or will it be read and voted upon again? Can (and does) the House of Lords override it? Then what?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I think this is the result of dirty dealings between Clegg and Cameron behind the scenes:
"We don't care about social policies, so we'll have a free vote, Nick, and you can have this one. On condition we get free reign on economic policies."
*thinks* "What my honourable friend doesn't realise is that it will also probably ruin his party. Roll on the next General Election, when we can go into coalition with Red Ed" *snigger!*
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Whilst being very much Not A Tory, I was very impressed by the moving speeches by many Tories in favour of the bill. I think Sarah Wollaston's was so good she's in the wrong party ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In the long-term bringing same-sex marriage legislation forward can only strengthen the Conservative Party. Its been depressing to see so many backbench MPs droning on about "re-defining" marriage; and while it would be nice to think that those who have cited "christian" traditions are regular worshippers I suspect this is not the case.
But its also depressing to read the knee-jerk "anti-tory at any price" posts in this thread. No, I'm not and never have been a member of the Conservative Party but equally I tend to judge the other two parties by what they actually do in office at local and national level, and by looking beneath the PR handouts to see if they ever bother to think-through some of their schemes. (Having been a member of a VERY well-connected Labour family has helped in this regard.) And I can tell you that in my experience there is just as much hypocrisy on the opposition benches over this issue as there is on the government side - indeed, perhaps more.
Wake-up, ditch the student knee-jerk leftism and actually look and find out what politicians say and do - you may be surprised.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Well, I stopped voting for Labour over specific issues. And I'll stop voting for the Tories now over this and other matters. My own Tory MP told me he'd vote against and I'll check to see this in the morning. It won't change my mind. I've voted Labour ad they've failed to deliver what they promised and delivered crap they didn't. Now the Tories are doing the same. I'll probably spoil my ballot in future.
And no, I'm not the sort of person who forgets these things on Election Day.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Whilst being very much Not A Tory, I was very impressed by the moving speeches by many Tories in favour of the bill. I think Sarah Wollaston's was so good she's in the wrong party
Maybe so, but a majority of Tory MPs voted against, 139 to 132. Quite a peculiar situation to have a Conservative PM introducing and passing truly significant legislation without even a bare majority of his own party supporting him.
Still, I suppose such a show of bigotry reinforces the old saying about the CofE being the Tory Party at Prayer.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That was a decent debate. I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting. Some moving testimonies by gay MPs and others. Well done, the Commons.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I know how the process works in Canada, but am unfamiliar with the UK. This passed and now it's off to a committee. Is this the final House of Commons vote or will it be read and voted upon again? Can (and does) the House of Lords override it? Then what?
There will no doubt be lots of votes on amendments in Committee. Given this was a free vote it will interesting to see how the Committee is composed as normally it's done in proportion to party representation in the whole House. There is then an opportunity for the whole House to vote on amendments again during Report stage. It's very unusual nowadays for there to be a further vote on the Bill as a whole at 3rd Reading.
The Lords can vote against the Bill at its own 2nd Reading. This happens very rarely but if it does the Bill will fall. The Government can then reintroduce it in the next session when potentially it can invoke the Parliament Act which means the Commons simply overrides the Lords. We will be in uncommon but not completely uncharted territory then as the ostensible purpose of the Parliament Act is to allow the elected will of the Commons to have its way. That is why the Lords will almost never vote down a Bill which gives effect to a manifesto commitment, but of course this Bill wasn't in the manifesto.
Normally the Lords prefers to let a Bill through at 2nd Reading so it can then get down to detailed work as a revising chamber. At the end of all that the Bill as passed by the Lords goes back to the Commons, and then backwards and forwards as many times as it takes for both Houses to agree on the same text.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I know how the process works in Canada, but am unfamiliar with the UK. This passed and now it's off to a committee. Is this the final House of Commons vote or will it be read and voted upon again? Can (and does) the House of Lords override it? Then what?
It goes off to committee, where evidence from concerned parties will be taken, and any anomalies corrected. The Lords can block it, but the nuclear option for the govt is to use the Parliament Act, which forces it through.
There is a 3rd reading, which is more of a formality, before the Lords.
However, there is also a kind of moral argument, whereby whips and others meet some peers, and say to them, look it's gone through with a thumping majority, dare you reject it?
Be interesting to see if the bishops table a wrecking amendment!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
The mind boggles at such a completely irrelevant distraction that will only affect a tiny tiny number of gay people.
If the Tories think that voting for this piece of fluff will make them appear more "liberal" on social issues, I think they might be rapidly dissauded of such batty illusions at the next general election, given the largely damaging consequences of their other social and economic policies. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Well, I stopped voting for Labour over specific issues. And I'll stop voting for the Tories now over this and other matters.
How extraordinary. "And other matters"? It looks like you want to have it both ways, but I can't tell whether you're trying to overstate the influence of this vote (in which the Tories as a group voted against) to emphasise your displeasure, or just covering up kneejerk bigotry.
But then, nor can I decide which option would make me respect you less.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I know how the process works in Canada, but am unfamiliar with the UK. This passed and now it's off to a committee. Is this the final House of Commons vote or will it be read and voted upon again? Can (and does) the House of Lords override it? Then what?
It goes off to committee, where evidence from concerned parties will be taken, and any anomalies corrected. The Lords can block it, but the nuclear option for the govt is to use the Parliament Act, which forces it through.
There is a 3rd reading, which is more of a formality, before the Lords.
However, there is also a kind of moral argument, whereby whips and others meet some peers, and say to them, look it's gone through with a thumping majority, dare you reject it?
Be interesting to see if the bishops table a wrecking amendment!
Indeed. I imagine that if the unelected HoL overrode the elected HoC's overwhelming free vote, it might bring about calls for Lords reform in a way they may not like.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The Lords can vote against the Bill at its own 2nd Reading. This happens very rarely but if it does the Bill will fall.
It will be tighter in the Lords but I'd be astonished if there was a defeat for this in that place.
There seems to be a view abroad that this will all be forgotten a few months after the first so-called gay marriage. That's just the first skirmish.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There seems to be a view abroad that this will all be forgotten a few months after the first so-called gay marriage. That's just the first skirmish.
Why what are you going to do? Start picketing gay weddings a la Fred Phelps?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Dear Spawn
I get the impression that you would be against promiscuous behaviour and very much in favour of committed life-long relationships - am I right? If so, then why not try to encourage those praise-worthy attributes in the relationships of the gay community?
As for "marriage" and procreation, I don't recall being quizzed on whether or not I was capable of reproducing before my marriage at the age of 47.
It is striking that the last thing on many objectors minds seems to be love - love between couples and love for our fellow humans.
And surely there's something about ..."him without sin cast the first stone..." in the message we're all supposed to believe in? Or doesn't that apply to gay people either.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And if the bishops make too much noise and racket, and for example, support a wrecking amendment in the Lords, they might find rather critical eyes directed at them. Now why do we have bishops in the Lords? Hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Can we keep this off the dead horse subject itself and on topic?
Again, in the two places I have lived where these laws have passed in the past, there has been next to no fallout in the following election. Those who think it's going to lead to the persecution of their group are disappointed to find out that after passage gays marry and everyone else gets on with things. By the time the election rolls around, no one wants to talk about it again.
I have very little love for the conservative political outlook or the Tory Party, but think this won't change much at all.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Can we keep this off the dead horse subject itself and on topic?
Again, in the two places I have lived where these laws have passed in the past, there has been next to no fallout in the following election. Those who think it's going to lead to the persecution of their group are disappointed to find out that after passage gays marry and everyone else gets on with things. By the time the election rolls around, no one wants to talk about it again.
I have very little love for the conservative political outlook or the Tory Party, but think this won't change much at all.
Yes, I agree. Elections are not determined by such social measures, but by the economy, obviously. Gay marriage will be a 9 days' wonder.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Sure thing, Dan.
No, the "gay-marriage" thing won't destroy the Tory Party: yes, it might just help it to revive by giving a more accurate picture of itself that than presented by some of its more extreme MPs and local party activists with an axe to grind who, as usual, have crawled out of the woodwork over this issue.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
How extraordinary. "And other matters"? It looks like you want to have it both ways, but I can't tell whether you're trying to overstate the influence of this vote (in which the Tories as a group voted against) to emphasise your displeasure, or just covering up kneejerk bigotry.
But then, nor can I decide which option would make me respect you less.
No, I don't want it both ways but there's often a last straw and this is it for me. I'll ignore the remark about bigotry and respect (partly because I don't give a damn about your opinion) since this is not Hell or Dead Horses. I'll just put it to you that there's little point in having a thread about the effect of gay marriage on the fortunes of the Tory party if you don't tolerate evidence from people who will withdraw support over this?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
To find something that would destroy the Tory Party would be a wondrous thing. This isn't it.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I would say that "Tory party does something right" is news, but since the majority voted against it, I'm left thinking that Cameron is actually more decent (in this respects at least) than the rest of his party.
I'm still struggling with his motivation. It's not something he had to go to the wall on, and it's not like he's a reputation for being a social radical. Perhaps we have a stopped-clock situation here, but I genuinely don't know.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There seems to be a view abroad that this will all be forgotten a few months after the first so-called gay marriage. That's just the first skirmish.
Why what are you going to do? Start picketing gay weddings a la Fred Phelps?
Look just call me to Hell rather than make your snide comments. If you think I'm a God--hates-fags-type Christian then you're both an arsehole and a bigot.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
