Thread: Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party or save it? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024598
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
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?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
"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 ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
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)?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
"Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party?" I hope so.
[ 05. February 2013, 14:23: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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....
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Wouldn't right of centre Conservatives who feel a need to leave the party join UKIP?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
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.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Makes sense. It's similar to the state level dynamics here.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Well, it just passed the 2nd reading by a 400-175 vote margin.
Pink News: MPs vote to 400 to 175 to pass same sex marriage bill
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
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?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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!*
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
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.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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!
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on
:
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)
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
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.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
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.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
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.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
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?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
To find something that would destroy the Tory Party would be a wondrous thing. This isn't it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
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.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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.
So go on, enlighten us about what your ongoing, tolerant skirmishing will consist of?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
A lot of journos are saying it's about detoxifying the party. Seems plausible to me. Also appeal to young people?
Nice cartoon in the Guardian yesterday, with various Colonel Blimps demonstrating, with one placard 'Retoxify the party', and another 'My third marriage is sacred'.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
When I lived in Canada I worked with some conservative Christians who, strongly rallied against gay marriage, but then after passage, almost seemed to welcome it because they believed it would lead to the oppression and persecution of "true" Christians. That would give them a rallying cry for support from more nominal conservatives ("enough is enough") as well as a chance to prove how faithful they were. They seemed to be greatly disappointed when no such persecution happened.
I'll simply never understand the fundy mind.
[ 05. February 2013, 20:17: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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.
An if clause does not make a statement less of a personal attack. You know better. Cut it out.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of journos are saying it's about detoxifying the party. Seems plausible to me. Also appeal to young people?
Nice cartoon in the Guardian yesterday, with various Colonel Blimps demonstrating, with one placard 'Retoxify the party', and another 'My third marriage is sacred'.
Demographics have the potential to kill the Tories dead, in the same way the Republicans lost this year - so perhaps Cameron does have his eye on that. Except then all the opposition have to point out is that over half the sitting MPs voted against a government-sponsored Bill, indicating that yes, they are still toxic.
Also, "My third marriage is sacred" rofls.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Interesting that Thatcher supported the decriminalization of homosexuality, way back in 1967. So there is some Tory tradition of backing gay rights; they are not all 'damn sodomy'. Then again, she put forward clause 28.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Beware Greeks bearing gifts... or paranoia?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Paranoia, definitely.
List of non-Tories voting against also quite illuminating. Sarah Teather, anyone?
And if you want a giggle - whichever side of the line you're on - read the words of Christopher Chope in Hansard. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Simon Hughes was also sounding deeply confused.
The best speeches (by a mile) came from Tories: Freer, Herbert and James particularly stood out.
Interesting fact: while church and Tory party tearing themselves apart over this "vital" issue there was only 1 (ONE) anti protester outside Parliament...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Paranoia, definitely.
List of non-Tories voting against also quite illuminating. Sarah Teather, anyone?
And if you want a giggle - whichever side of the line you're on - read the words of Christopher Chope in Hansard.
Simon Hughes was also sounding deeply confused.
The best speeches (by a mile) came from Tories: Freer, Herbert and James particularly stood out.
Interesting fact: while church and Tory party tearing themselves apart over this "vital" issue there was only 1 (ONE) anti protester outside Parliament...
Agreed re Tory speeches - the only stand-out Labour one was from David Lammy. Would add Crispin Blunt and Sarah Wollaston to the Tories.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting that Thatcher supported the decriminalization of homosexuality, way back in 1967. So there is some Tory tradition of backing gay rights; they are not all 'damn sodomy'. Then again, she put forward clause 28.
It's all a bit of a mixed bag - the Wolfenden Committee was set up by a Tory Home Secretary (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, albeit grudgingly) no doubt in part as a result of widespread sympathy for the Tory peer Lord Montagu (and others) who had been jailed for homosexual offences.
The Bill decriminalising homosexuality was (I think) put forward by a Tory and Thatcher and Enoch Powell voted in favour.
Thatcher was responsible for Section 28 but Labour and the Liberals didn't vote against it - at the time they only called for the provisions to be watered down.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Just checked the full breakdown of votes. I live in a solid blue area; I e-mailed my MP asking him to support the Bill but he voted against. On the other hand, an ex-student of mine is now a Tory MP (in another true blue constituency) and he voted for it. Quite irrationally that makes me feel happy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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.
With respect, that seems a very odd attitude to take. Especially in a country such as yours where party discipline is not so rigid that an individual MP's positions mean nothing.
Why would you punish your local MP if he votes the way you want him to vote? If you want the Tories to be more reflective of your values, then surely you should support those particular Tories that reflect those values. Otherwise you are abdicating any opportunity to affect the overall composition of the Tories.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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.
With respect, that seems a very odd attitude to take. Especially in a country such as yours where party discipline is not so rigid that an individual MP's positions mean nothing.
Why would you punish your local MP if he votes the way you want him to vote? If you want the Tories to be more reflective of your values, then surely you should support those particular Tories that reflect those values. Otherwise you are abdicating any opportunity to affect the overall composition of the Tories.
I might be able to change my mind if there was any evidence that my vote could affect the composition of the Tory Party. But it would have to be in the context of a potentially effective tactical voting campaign.
The next election is likely to be conducted along presidential lines. That is a determining factor.
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Despite all the evidence from other parts of the world where this has become, if not a non-issue, a very minority beef?
When the US presidential elections go off and barely a word mentioned about same-sex marriage? Any illusory smugness I might harbour is trumped by the facts.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I think that a few of the votes by Tories against the bill were more for public consumption back in their constituency parties. They have to be reselected (or can be deselected) for the next election and I suspect that some were pandering to the Chairs of their constituency Conservative Party.
They knew the vote would go through easily, so they voted against to shore up their own positions back home. I think some of the “nays” were actually “eyes”!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Robert: quote:
I live in a solid blue area; I e-mailed my MP asking him to support the Bill but he voted against.
I wrote to my MP when the C of E response was made public to explain that I supported the Bill and that not everyone in the C of E was against it. I could tell by his reply (which was diplomatic but vague) that he was against it himself.
I replied again to the further points he'd made in his letter, but it was a free vote so MPs were entitled to vote according to their conscience. And it would have been dishonest to threaten not to vote for him because I don't vote Tory anyway... so the fact that he voted against will not affect my decision on who to vote for in 2015 at all.
The big issues for me at election time are education and health, with a caveat that I will not vote for wackoes like the BNP or UKIP. If it was a choice between the BNP and the Tories in my constituency I would hold my nose and vote Tory (as the lesser of two weevils), but that's the only situation in which I'd consider it. So for me at least, the economy doesn't trump everything but I certainly wouldn't choose which party to support on the basis of who can get married to who.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
I'm guessing that Blair's commitment to market forces managed to attract to Labour a fair number of people who are actually quite Tory in economics but who couldn't stomach the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' faction of the party. Cameron is hoping to get them back. That's the best explanation I can think of, anyway.
ETA: realistically, since the majority of seats in Parliament are held by parties that are notionally to the left of the Tories, Cameron will have to attract votes from the left if he doesn't want another hung Parliament.
[ 06. February 2013, 08:21: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Furthermore, I reject the smugness of same-sex 'marriage' proponents that opposition will just die away. Voting patterns of opponents will be part of future campaigning.
Despite all the evidence from other parts of the world where this has become, if not a non-issue, a very minority beef?
When the US presidential elections go off and barely a word mentioned about same-sex marriage? Any illusory smugness I might harbour is trumped by the facts.
Selective facts, no doubt. This is all very new so the very fact that there isn't very much media reporting of problems in countries which have same sex marriage should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there aren't outcomes and problems ahead. In Spain, For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
Furthermore when I look across to your side of the Atlantic I see stark divisions. I don't think you can gloss over the plebiscites you have held in some states as barely a word mentioned about gay marriage.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
... as, for example, with the remarriage of divorcees?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
... as, for example, with the remarriage of divorcees?
Not quite the same thing as has been pointed out far too many times before. Divorcees are not conceived of as a 'community'. Divorce is not a protected characteristic. Being divorced is not an orientation or an identity.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Not quite the same thing as has been pointed out far too many times before. Divorcees are not conceived of as a 'community'. Divorce is not a protected characteristic. Being divorced is not an orientation or an identity.
And how (as I have asked several times before) is that relevant to the argument as you presented it?
You say that society is divided if some marriages are recognised by some sectors of society but not others. The remarriage of divorcees is recognised by civil society but not the Catholic Church. How is it relevant that divorce is not an orientation or an identity?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
It is somewhat jarring to refer to her in this context only in relation to her husband. She stands a greater chance than him of high government office in the future. And her speech was one of the better ones from opponents (though by concentrating on the wedding day she played into the hands of opponents).
Maria Miller's speech deserves some criticism because she quoted so copiously from her own article in The Times. All of a piece with government by spin. Her role in the quadruple lock fiasco should also give cause for concern. The idea that the government was proposing to ban the C of E and C in W from performing gay marriages was a typical example of party political dishonesty.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Yes, I've only ever seen her on Question Time and the like, where she usually seems quite gauche. But in a longer speech, she actually was lively and kind of fun and thoughtful.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I enjoyed Yvette Cooper, who was lively and interesting.
Has to be the first time I've ever heard praise for Ed Ball's wife... ever...
Yes, I've only ever seen her on Question Time and the like, where she usually seems quite gauche. But in a longer speech, she actually was lively and kind of fun and thoughtful.
Having been working most of the day, and then out with the dog in the early evening, I missed most of the speeches and only got back in time to hear the vote results announced... I shall have to go and find her spech and listen to it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
Bluntly put, they will die off and the younger generation won't give two hoots. Divorced-and-remarrieds find themselves in the same fortunate position regarding their own marital status, due to generational change.
Back to the OP. I'd like to believe that Conservative divisions over this continue to play out across the airwaves and the front pages for weeks and months to come, but it'll probably only surface when someone says something particularly reprehensible. I'd much rather they got turned over for their handling of the economy, the benefits system and their handing out favours for the rich while screwing the poor.
Still, every little helps.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Maria Miller's speech deserves some criticism because she quoted so copiously from her own article in The Times.
This sentence is uttter bull and makes no sense in the real world.
By your logic it would seem an author should never reuse their own material in discussion or debate - seems like academics are going to have an awful lot more work to do.
If the SoS wrote an article on this subject, and then presents an argument on this in debate of course the two are going to overlap and share common features in terms of arguments.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I don't think it will lose the Conservatives the right-wing vote other than casue some to stay away from the polling booths (possibly) as the promise of a referendum on the EU has made UKIP far less of a bolting-hole for those types. If anything, it is likely to increase the Tory vote by attracting back the 'Worcestershire Woman' voter beloved of New Labour.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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?
I'm interested in what people think, but I'm under no obligation to like or approve of any given reaction.
What bothers me is that you're acting as if this single vote (however your own MP voted, and despite the fact that the Tories as a party remain mostly opposed) will ensure that you never vote for the party again. However ludicrous and frankly unpleasant I find that opinion, it's a data point of interest.
Or it would be, if you hadn't hinted darkly at "other matters" which were being weighed in your decision. That rings alarm bells with me. It suggests that if it hadn't been this bill, it would have been something else next week, or the week after. It tells us nothing of interest, because you're obfuscating over the precise role this legislation has played in that decision. All I can reliably conclude is that you're pissed off that you lost, which I could have guessed anyway.
But you may be able to explain something that's puzzling me. You knew this legislation was coming. You surely knew it was overwhelmingly likely to be passed in the Commons. And it duly was, despite a majority of Tories opposing the bill. So why do you now say you'll never vote for them again? They represent the only mainstream opposition on this issue, and if you're basing your decision on the actions of the leadership (which is changeable, making such an absolute statement all the stranger) there's been no change in their actions. You have no less reason to vote for them today than yesterday, or last week, or last month.
It's common for people to make dramatic statements in the wake of high-profile votes, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all, so I'm interested in your reasoning.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd much rather they got turned over for their handling of the economy, the benefits system and their handing out favours for the rich while screwing the poor.
Still, every little helps.
I'm sure you know the one about the scorpion and the frog?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
What bothers me is that you're acting as if this single vote (however your own MP voted, and despite the fact that the Tories as a party remain mostly opposed) will ensure that you never vote for the party again. However ludicrous and frankly unpleasant I find that opinion, it's a data point of interest.
Or it would be, if you hadn't hinted darkly at "other matters" which were being weighed in your decision. That rings alarm bells with me. It suggests that if it hadn't been this bill, it would have been something else next week, or the week after. It tells us nothing of interest, because you're obfuscating over the precise role this legislation has played in that decision. All I can reliably conclude is that you're pissed off that you lost, which I could have guessed anyway.
No, it's not just the Second Reading vote but the fact that the Party I voted for is putting this through this without a manifesto commitment and after a closed and truncated consultation process - no white paper etc. Last night's vote merely confirmed for me that this it is virtually impossible to defeat the government on this in spite of a slight majority of Tories opposing it.
Voting is always a matter of holding your nose. I strongly disagree with some key things that this government has done but that would not be enough to cause me to withdraw my vote for a constituency MP I know and like. This redefinition of marriage is a deal breaker for me at the next election, though I don't want to give the impression that I will have the same strategy and identical calculations at all future elections.
I don't think I'm in a tiny minority on this one. It could cause some interesting voting patterns (and perhaps even some upsets). We'll see.
Ricardus cannot see how continuing disputes over the nature of marriage is different in the case of divorce and orientation. It is partly the fact that though the remarried divorcee might feel hurt he/she won't feel that their identity is being attacked. There is also the fact that the characteristic of divorce cannot be the ground for the sort of legal disputation we might see in future.
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Sergius-Melli says my criticism of Maria Miller is bull. Not at all, she read out her Times article in her speech. All of a piece with successive governments which trail their initiatives in the press rather than first subjecting themselves to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least it demonstrates laziness that she can't be bothered to write a new speech.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
They [Tory MPs] knew the vote would go through easily, so they voted against to shore up their own positions back home. I think some of the “nays” were actually “eyes”!
Listening to some of the speeches, I think some of them may have voted against because the Bill is atrociously drafted.
While in favour of gay marriage in principle, I'm also very much in favour of well-drafted and well thought through legislation. If I was a Tory MP, I would probably have voted in favour, but I think it would have been a close run thing.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
No, it's not just the Second Reading vote but the fact that the Party I voted for is putting this through this without a manifesto commitment and after a closed and truncated consultation process - no white paper etc. Last night's vote merely confirmed for me that this it is virtually impossible to defeat the government on this in spite of a slight majority of Tories opposing it.
How did it confirm anything? What did you expect - that the Speaker would stand up yesterday and say that the government had decided it was a pretty daft idea, so the debate was cancelled and everyone could go home? Based on your stated arguments and criteria, I can see no rational reason for deciding not to vote Tory at the next election yesterday, as opposed to months ago.
quote:
Voting is always a matter of holding your nose. I strongly disagree with some key things that this government has done but that would not be enough to cause me to withdraw my vote for a constituency MP I know and like. This redefinition of marriage is a deal breaker for me at the next election, though I don't want to give the impression that I will have the same strategy and identical calculations at all future elections.
Voting is indeed a matter of holding your nose. Yet you don't want to do so. You say your own MP's vote is irrelevant, even though it was a free vote. And despite a belief that the battle isn't over, you're withdrawing your support from a party that's the only significant source of opposition to the bill, while claiming that a single vote is a deal-breaker. I just can't join up these dots into a coherent picture.
[Code fail]
[ 06. February 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't think it will lose the Conservatives the right-wing vote other than casue some to stay away from the polling booths (possibly) as the promise of a referendum on the EU has made UKIP far less of a bolting-hole for those types. If anything, it is likely to increase the Tory vote by attracting back the 'Worcestershire Woman' voter beloved of New Labour.
That depends on what you mean by "Worcestershire Woman". Are you referring to Emma of Evesham or Rebecca of Redditch?
Unless Emma & Rebecca are an item I doubt this will be in their minds come the next election.
[ 06. February 2013, 11:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
The middle-class, socially progressive but economically fairly conservative women who (or so we were told) voted for Blair and Co in 1997.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The middle-class, socially progressive but economically fairly conservative women who (or so we were told) voted for Blair and Co in 1997.
That would be more likely to be Emma then.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sergius-Melli says my criticism of Maria Miller is bull. Not at all, she read out her Times article in her speech. All of a piece with successive governments which trail their initiatives in the press rather than first subjecting themselves to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least it demonstrates laziness that she can't be bothered to write a new speech.
So she shouldn't have bothered writting an article for a newspaper on an issue that is under her direct oversight then to avoid possible overlap in her argument and description (since she couldn't not give a speech in the House on the subject)?
As I say, you seem to be expecting people to re-invent the wheel everytime they speak on a subject, which nobody does, MP's have blogged on this issue since it was announced, I imagine (as I haven't checked but it is a safe and fairly logically sound presumption) that most will have utilised the wording they used in their blogs in their speeches in the House yesterday... It is even possible that what they said in their speeches was verbatum things discussed around the dining table of an evening - should they have avoided reusing arguments and thoughts they had already worked their way through just so that you didn't have to listen to the same arguments again?
The SoS's article was an explanation and defence of the Bill, the SoS's speech in the House yesterday was an explanation and defence of the Bill... they were going to sound like the same words regardless of whether the SoS had written a completely new speech or not, cut the SoS some slack, and realise that in the real world people reuse speeches time and time again.
(In fact some politicians share the same speeches completely and only change one or two bits as evidenced here )
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Whilst it is unlikely (please God the indoctrination takes) that the Torlets will ever vote Tory for a whole raft of reasons, it is also likely that, and I pray for, their continued involvement in the church.
All the surveys show that there's a majority of Christians under 40 (evangelical Christians to boot) who want equality for gays. Indeed, who knows what the future holds, but on current trends, opposition - both political and religious - to gay marriage will decrease with every passing year.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Doc Tor suggests that opposition will just die off. It may reduce by natural wastage over time but will not completely die out. Who know what the future holds? At any rate I anticipate the churches being around for a long time to come.
Whilst it is unlikely (please God the indoctrination takes) that the Torlets will ever vote Tory for a whole raft of reasons, it is also likely that, and I pray for, their continued involvement in the church.
All the surveys show that there's a majority of Christians under 40 (evangelical Christians to boot) who want equality for gays. Indeed, who knows what the future holds, but on current trends, opposition - both political and religious - to gay marriage will decrease with every passing year.
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
On this particular issue, yes. Is there ANY evidence of growing opposition to gay marriage in any of the countries that already have it?
[ 06. February 2013, 12:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
Fair point, but I do see storm warnings for the Tories if, as I suspect (and ken indicated earlier) subsequent polls show a disaffection benefit for UKIP.
Here is UKIP policy.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...[QUOTE]
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Those seem like odd analogies, particularly the teacher one, because surely there isn't a different audience from the previous audience. The general public is the audience in both cases.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
If you're suggesting that subsequent generations might look back at this one's dalliance with gay rights as a dangerous affectation, I think denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Yes, certainly, if all the Daily Mail headlines about Islamification come true, then gays will be stoned in the street, along with adulterers and the women showing too much flesh. Otherwise, no.
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
On this particular issue, yes. Is there ANY evidence of growing opposition to gay marriage in any of the countries that already have it?
Haven't seen anything of the sort in Canada or New York.
In fact, in Canada, after the passage of gay marriage by the Liberal Government in 2004, the opposition Conservative Party vowed to have another vote on the issue if it came to power. After the Conservative Party became the government, they held such a vote in 2006 and same sex marriage passed by even a greater margin than before (158-133 in 2004 and 175-123 in 2006). There haven't been any calls to revisit the issue since.
[ 06. February 2013, 13:12: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process.
Three really bad analogies:
1. Journalists rarely write the same article twice (by which I mean, an article that is to cover exactly the same salient points). They might write a similar article, but will approach it from a different pov, or with a different intent, or with fresh new knowledge. The SoS was giving the same argument, covering hte same points, with no new knowledge or arguments as there were none that were necessary to raise.
2. Teachers adapat because things have not worked properly in one class, or there are very different needs in another class. With this point you seem to be indicating that the SoS is required to write over 62 million individualised speeches on the same topic to ensure that differentiation is covered. What a load of tosh. The SoS is still a busy person, they produced an article and speech that were intended to cover as much ground as clearly as possible whilst being intelligiable to the widest number of people in the country. I don't demand a lecturer to reinvent their research results presented in a book for a lecture, why demand a SoS to reinvent their argument...
3. Preachers of course do go over the same thing over and over again (eventually regardless of what lectionary you use) but there is not just one meaning to any piece of Scripture, there are multiple meanings, links to be made, understanding to be gleaned, the need to listen afresh and be open to the new thigns that it teaches us everytime we read it. The SoS was not engaging in Biblical exegises, she was presenting an argument on something that doesn't really have hidden meanings and fresh new insights each year...
It seems that you are just bitter that the Conservative Party has done something you don't like and you're being a little childish in your response to it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
And should add that almost 8 years after same sex marriage has passed in Canada, 2/3rds of the country supports it (which is higher than the 52% that supported it in 2004):
Forum Research polling 2012
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... they were going to sound like the same words...
They were in large part exactly the same words. Good journalists always start from scratch; the best teachers always adapt their lesson plans for different children and good preachers engage in a similar process. Perhaps I expect too much from government ministers but I certainly don't expect them to recite previously published material.
Those seem like odd analogies, particularly the teacher one, because surely there isn't a different audience from the previous audience. The general public is the audience in both cases.
Well a speech to the House of Commons should be mainly addressed to MPs through the Speaker, whereas her Times article was aimed at the general public. It's difficult to argue they're the same audience given her need to address dissent in her own party.
-sorry x-posted with Sergius-Melli-
[ 06. February 2013, 13:25: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Simple answer to the original question - No, neither - obviously.
The Tories have been around since about 1700. They were eclipsed from 1715 until the 1780s. Since then, they've survived predictions of their doom in the C19, the aftermath of the First World War (when the Whigs did go down), 1945, 1997, and ongoing over Europe each of which has been a much greater threat to their continuity.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
B****cks. Sadly, and disturbingly, people are far more openly prejudiced against chavs, the working class, the lower orders now than they were fifty years ago.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I doubt VERY much that many speeches in the House of Commons treat the members of the House as a specific constituency separate from the public. Not least because they're supposed to be representing the public.
Especially not on a topic such as this where they all knew perfectly well there would be a high degree of public interest. I mean, how often do people actually have a discussion like this thread where you can comment on the quality of the speeches and other people heard them?
(Also, when there's a free vote, there isn't any 'dissent' to address.)
[x-post and page break: replying to Spawn. That will teach me to not quote. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
]
[ 06. February 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You're assuming that social attitudes inevitably move in only one direction.
If you're suggesting that subsequent generations might look back at this one's dalliance with gay rights as a dangerous affectation, I think denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Yes, certainly, if all the Daily Mail headlines about Islamification come true, then gays will be stoned in the street, along with adulterers and the women showing too much flesh. Otherwise, no.
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
The Victorians were not necessarily more egalitarian than the Georgians, so I understand.
Islamification is an interesting point, though: in my area and other parts of the city, attitudes may well be less liberal than they were in the past, because the 'egalitarian', indigenous population have moved away in increasing numbers. It's not a question of stoning people in the streets, but of a city that will have to tolerate and include those who don't have PC values, simply because they make up a considerable percentage of the population.
We're all presuming, of course, that our civilisation will exist in something like its current form forever. But civilisations die. What replaces them may be better in some ways, but worse in others. The Dark Ages came after the fall of Ancient Rome.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Doc Tor: quote:
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
Long may it continue. But you are not looking back far enough. In England*, for example, women had more rights in the sixteenth century than they did in the seventeenth (see, for example, Antonia Fraser's The Weaker Vessel ). At the end of World War II, women who had been working to support the war effort were encouraged/persuaded/coerced out of the workforce so that the men who'd been in the armed forces would have jobs to come back to. In the US, Woodrow Wilson's administration (early 20th century) introduced racial segregation in federal offices, thus depriving African American white-collar workers of the opportunity to work for their government.
Rights can be lost as well as won. We need to remember that, and not give in to complacency.
*Yes I do mean England. Scotland was independent until the beginning of the eighteenth century.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
No, it's not just the Second Reading vote but the fact that the Party I voted for is putting this through this without a manifesto commitment and after a closed and truncated consultation process - no white paper etc. Last night's vote merely confirmed for me that this it is virtually impossible to defeat the government on this in spite of a slight majority of Tories opposing it.
How did it confirm anything? What did you expect - that the Speaker would stand up yesterday and say that the government had decided it was a pretty daft idea, so the debate was cancelled and everyone could go home? Based on your stated arguments and criteria, I can see no rational reason for deciding not to vote Tory at the next election yesterday, as opposed to months ago.
quote:
Voting is always a matter of holding your nose. I strongly disagree with some key things that this government has done but that would not be enough to cause me to withdraw my vote for a constituency MP I know and like. This redefinition of marriage is a deal breaker for me at the next election, though I don't want to give the impression that I will have the same strategy and identical calculations at all future elections.
Voting is indeed a matter of holding your nose. Yet you don't want to do so. You say your own MP's vote is irrelevant, even though it was a free vote. And despite a belief that the battle isn't over, you're withdrawing your support from a party that's the only significant source of opposition to the bill, while claiming that a single vote is a deal-breaker. I just can't join up these dots into a coherent picture.
[Code fail]
You're looking into too much detail. I intend to exercise a protest vote next time round. Your questioning about timing is totally irrelevant. You assume this has come out of the blue for me. I know plenty of people who voted Labour up until the Iraq War and then used their vote differently at the following election. I'm exercising the same choice over a matter of principle.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And should add that almost 8 years after same sex marriage has passed in Canada, 2/3rds of the country supports it (which is higher than the 52% that supported it in 2004):
Forum Research polling 2012
Actually, a third against is rather a lot eight years after the fact. There is still considerable opposition in Canada. There is also legal skirmishing. It's not going to go away.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I intend to exercise a protest vote next time round.
I think the conceptual difficulty I have is that your protest vote is going to be against the only significant party that sided overall with your position, and against a local member who personally sided with your position.
I can only conclude that minority government has created this logical knot for you. Which isn't a surprise in one sense, as I've seen it creating logical knots for people here in Australia as well.
Because in the current situation the Tory party isn't the government. They are one part of the government. And while I can well understand you have a desire to exercise a protest vote against the government as a result of this issue, when it comes to election day you won't find 'Tory/Lib Dem coaltion' as one of the boxes on your ballot paper.
[ 06. February 2013, 13:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I intend to exercise a protest vote next time round.
I think the conceptual difficulty I have is that your protest vote is going to be against the only significant party that sided overall with your position, and against a local member who personally sided with your position.
I can only conclude that minority government has created this logical knot for you. Which isn't a surprise in one sense, as I've seen it creating logical knots for people here in Australia as well.
No it is simple. I'm not voting next time for the party that introduced this bill whether or not they relied on opposition votes to get it through.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Sorry to keep double-posting. I ought to have been more specific, I'm talking about the Conservatives because that is the party I previously supported. Yes this doesn't take into account the nature of a coalition but this legislation is closely associated to Tory modernisation. Had I been a Labour voter I would be facing a different calculation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
At the end of World War II, women who had been working to support the war effort were encouraged/persuaded/coerced out of the workforce so that the men who'd been in the armed forces would have jobs to come back to. In the US, Woodrow Wilson's administration (early 20th century) introduced racial segregation in federal offices, thus depriving African American white-collar workers of the opportunity to work for their government.
Rights can be lost as well as won. We need to remember that, and not give in to complacency.
Whilst I agree with your point in general, in specific these two examples might not be accurate. The women were not granted a right that was then rescinded, but given a pass which was intended to be temporary. Wilson's action did not rescind any rights which were in place in any practical terms, but prevented them from occurring.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I should have been more nuanced in my assertion. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But the point stands. Assuming we're falling short of a revolution, no one will be sending the furrins back home, revoking the Equal Pay Act, or dissolving all second marriages (with a surviving partner) as adulterous.
(and also, the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome gave rise to some of the greatest art and literature Europe has ever seen. Not so dark...)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
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.
Yeah but Jesus did say to the woman that she could go, her sins were forgiven (adultery) but told her not to sin again. For those who see active gay sex as sin then that changes things a bit.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And should add that almost 8 years after same sex marriage has passed in Canada, 2/3rds of the country supports it (which is higher than the 52% that supported it in 2004):
Forum Research polling 2012
Actually, a third against is rather a lot eight years after the fact. There is still considerable opposition in Canada. There is also legal skirmishing. It's not going to go away.
Neither will racism and sexism and there are skirmishes around that too, but the answer isn't to allow discrimination to continue. (Besides, the survey says that the opposition comes mostly from older Canadians.)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Whether it will destroy the Tory party remains to be seen. The one thing that does seem clear to me is that it is a cynical vote garnering exercise by making out that the Tories are the party of social conservatism and change. Yes, they may have moved on this issue and they might presume that we are "all in this together" but one decision and one advance doesn't usher in a new society.
Yes there is some history to Tories supporting social changes (decriminalising homesexuality, abortion) but a lot of it has always been self interest. Some breathed a sigh of relief in that they didn't have to rely on conncetions to help them if they got caught.
Where are the atavistic concerns, the vocation to help the less fortunate?
It all seems akin to the "good day to bury bad news mentality" albeit rather more ramped up. Gay marriage? Great. Don't though ask too many questions though about health, education, social care, benefits or anyone living in "social housing" (God how that phrase sticks in my throat even after 30 years out of it). Don't ever work alongside mental health services, which even for vulnerable children in schools is stretched beyond breaking point: don't even go there for elderly services, Don't be a nurse because you'll get shouted at because you've breached the time allocated - no matter that you don't have enough staff to cover 24 beds let alone the 50 you do have.
Don't be on the receiving end of housing benefit - you're losing an average of £25 - £30 per week per family. How the hell will you eat? The foodbank is swamped now. God help us in April.
Oh, if you don't pay your council tax, then they issue proceedings faster than anyone else and give you less chance to come to an arrangement. The summons is on your doorstep faster than a richard slides off a shiny shovel.
Don't go to court if you're homeless. Why? They'll ASBO you out of town - oh and don't quote the Elizabethan Poor Laws of the 1570's at them, they get a bit nasty and threaten contempt (reading my mind if you ask me). Boo hoo - I was (almost) scared by the Borough Solicitor talking absolute rubbish. It happened. (This is a big city of 200,000 and there's only about 25 emergency beds for the homeless).
It's all happened on my doorstep within the last few weeks and it's all down to the softly softly pinky Tories who just love gays, don't you know. Huh!
Can't we see that this is a cynical ploy? They are only interested in your vote not your welfare or your life. While we're fussing over this, the Government are screwing the free press and carrying on as before with their expenses and voting themselves a 30% pay rise in the process. Who do they think they are? Let's wake up to these lying toe rags before it is too late and they get in again.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For example, I would be asking the question of what happens to the cohesion of a society when in the long term the 'marriages' of some of its citizens are volubly disputed by a substantial minority.
... as, for example, with the remarriage of divorcees?
Not quite the same thing as has been pointed out far too many times before. Divorcees are not conceived of as a 'community'. Divorce is not a protected characteristic. Being divorced is not an orientation or an identity.
Not the same thing also because:
a)remarried divorcees have broken their vows and, in the eyes of most Christians, are living in sin
whereas lesbians and gays haven't had the chance to make any vows, let alone break them
b)remarried divorcees want a second chance whilst, in some cases, want to deny others any chances at all
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
a)remarried divorcees have broken their vows and, in the eyes of most Christians, are living in sin
Wahoo! When I go home tonight and kiss Lady J in our usual chaste early evening manner there will be the added thrill that we're as good as fornicating. Thanks.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
a)remarried divorcees have broken their vows and, in the eyes of most Christians, are living in sin
Wahoo! When I go home tonight and kiss Lady J in our usual chaste early evening manner there will be the added thrill that we're as good as fornicating. Thanks.
Hey, that's nothing. Me and Mrs Tor always have illicit sex ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can't we see that this is a cynical ploy? They are only interested in your vote not your welfare or your life. While we're fussing over this, the Government are screwing the free press and carrying on as before with their expenses and voting themselves a 30% pay rise in the process. Who do they think they are? Let's wake up to these lying toe rags before it is too late and they get in again.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And should add that almost 8 years after same sex marriage has passed in Canada, 2/3rds of the country supports it (which is higher than the 52% that supported it in 2004):
Forum Research polling 2012
Actually, a third against is rather a lot eight years after the fact. There is still considerable opposition in Canada. There is also legal skirmishing. It's not going to go away.
Neither will racism and sexism and there are skirmishes around that too, but the answer isn't to allow discrimination to continue. (Besides, the survey says that the opposition comes mostly from older Canadians.)
One more thing that you chose to ignore: the % of people who are opposed has declined since it passed. The anti-gay marriage backlash you seem to believe is coming, hasn't.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Is there any chance that people could drop this ridiculous whiggish nonsense? Arguments supporting SSM don't rely on it and in the end you'll probably just shoot your own feet off.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
a)remarried divorcees have broken their vows and, in the eyes of most Christians, are living in sin
Wahoo! When I go home tonight and kiss Lady J in our usual chaste early evening manner there will be the added thrill that we're as good as fornicating. Thanks.
Hey, that's nothing. Me and Mrs Tor always have illicit sex
You lucky lucky bastard!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You lucky lucky bastard!
Actually, it's more mundane than that.
In a now infamous exchange between me and Ingo, Ingo opined that since I have irrevocably removed the prospect of procreation from the act of intercourse (ie, I've had the snip because Mrs Tor narrowly missed death, and the death of the child, with both her pregnancies), the infrequent fumblings that we do manage despite utter exhaustion are necessarily illicit.
Though our marriage is still valid, which is nice.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
I don't think the gay marriage issue will destroy the Tory party for one minute. I think the topic will rumble on for a while but there are far more important matters which will ensure the Tories stay together. However, I think David Cameron may just have signed his leadership death warrant because not only was this clearly a divisive issue, it was a divisive issue handled in the worst possible way: by force, without proper and full debate. I don't think he will be trusted again as a result, particularly by those who were either against a change or against the process by which the change was brought about.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
TBF, I think he (and still more G Osborne) may be dumped for the fine old political reasons that they look more like liabilities than winners.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
I for one will not be voting for the Conservatives again, I have lost faith in all parties and will probable spoil my paper as I did last time.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I intend to exercise a protest vote next time round.
I think the conceptual difficulty I have is that your protest vote is going to be against the only significant party that sided overall with your position, and against a local member who personally sided with your position.
I can only conclude that minority government has created this logical knot for you. Which isn't a surprise in one sense, as I've seen it creating logical knots for people here in Australia as well.
No it is simple. I'm not voting next time for the party that introduced this bill whether or not they relied on opposition votes to get it through.
You're just proving my point. The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE] The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
The Tory party's contribution towards the introduction of the Bill is the more contentious given it was not expl,icity mentioned in the manifesto, nor had they given much sign they were considering it. The Lib Dems were rather more clear on what they wanted and where they stood up front.
It's the duplicity, bluster, misinformation and manoevering of the Tories that has annoyed people - perhaps a lot more than the decision itself. If they are prepared to do this, what is next using the same approach? It wasn't as free a vote as has been made out, there was a lot of pressure exerted behind the scenes.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]You're just proving my point. The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
No you're ignoring a couple of things I've already indicated. We don't vote for a coalition we vote for a candidate whose party we hope will become the government. The trouble is British politics has an increasingly presidential nature. To vote Tory is to vote not just for your local candidate but for the party leadership. Cameron has staked his political reputation on this. This is his legacy. It's also about his modernisation programme and his intent on detoxifying the brand. I'm not going to give him my approval. I have no doubt that the leadership of both parties in the government will take credit. But in my case, I voted for one party in the coalition and will not do so again.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, that severely limits your voting options then.
I was just having a look at the list of parties in the current UK parliament. From what I can gather, a lot of the remaining ones wouldn't be putting up candidates in England anyway.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Why do people insist on taking a manifesto as “The full and complete list of all legislation we will introduce… ever!”
They are not. They are guidelines to what a party will do. They are a general indication of the way the party want to govern. Many of the manifesto pledges will happen, many will not for one reason or another, and many policies will be made given the circumstances at the time.
The Conservative Party has always approached Government in the same way – to govern based on what is right for the country at the time. It is time to resolve this issue, manifesto pledge or not.
But then we get people who say “Oh but how can we tell what you will do in Government”. Well, you can’t. That holds true for every party. All you can do is base your choice on the general guidelines in the manifesto and what the politicians say. Was gay marriage an issue at the last election? No. Does that give us the right to ignore it now? No.
All parties in Government do this. People who think manifestos are the be all and end all of policy making agree always going to be seriously disappointed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Definitely agree with you on this one, deano. I mean, in any other environment, does anyone actually live in a situation where they know everything they're going to do, and every circumstance that will arise, for 5 years in advance?
I certainly shudder at the thought of anyone criticising my actions now on the basis of "but you didn't tell me you were going to do that in 2010". You might be able to criticise me on the basis of it being inconsistent with my character, or something along those lines, but that's different to a bald argument that anything not declared up-front is thereby off limits.
[ 07. February 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, that severely limits your voting options then.
I was just having a look at the list of parties in the current UK parliament. From what I can gather, a lot of the remaining ones wouldn't be putting up candidates in England anyway.
If people are going to ditch the Tories for this issue then does it open the door for the DUP (Paisley's Party) to cross the water? They have a "solid moral stance".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes there is some history to Tories supporting social changes (decriminalising homesexuality, abortion) but a lot of it has always been self interest. Some breathed a sigh of relief in that they didn't have to rely on conncetions to help them if they got caught.
By that logic, any person who fights for their cause is just acting out of self interest. Martin Luther King? Self interest. The Suffragettes? Self interest. Labour Unions? Self interest. Let's dismiss them all, shall we?
quote:
They are only interested in your vote not your welfare or your life.
Just like every political party ever. Do you honestly think Labour gives a shit about you for any reason other than your vote? Ha. I laugh.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
lilbuddha: quote:
Wilson's action did not rescind any rights which were in place in any practical terms, but prevented them from occurring.
<tangent> As I understand it, there was no specific right to employment in federal agencies granted. However, there *were* some African American federal office workers - in the Post Office, for example - before Wilson introduced segregation. So 'in practical terms' it affected some people directly (by causing them to lose jobs that they were already doing for no other reason than the colour of their skin) and others indirectly (by denying them the opportunity to apply for similar jobs). That certainly sounds like a backwards step to me, and it stuck in my mind because Wilson has this reputation as the champion of Self-Determination For Oppressed Minorities (which led to all sorts of other problems at the Versailles peace negotiations, but that's way off topic).
I'm willing to concede the point about temporary workers in WWII, though. I should imagine the munitions workers were quite happy to go back to whatever they were doing before the war... </tangent>
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair point, but I do see storm warnings for the Tories if, as I suspect (and ken indicated earlier) subsequent polls show a disaffection benefit for UKIP.
Here is UKIP policy.
Although UKIP seem to be having troubles of their own at the top....
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
A coalition where one side spend most of their time saying yes-sir no-sir three-bags-full-sir. The Tory elephant seal ate the Liberal herring's spine a long time ago, and the poor little yellow fishy is gasping for breath on the beach as the grey-blue giants rumble past it on their own business.
[ 07. February 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We haven't seen any reversals of egalitarian attitudes before. We are now less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we were even twenty years ago.
The Victorians were not necessarily more egalitarian than the Georgians, so I understand.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:Long may it continue. But you are not looking back far enough. In England, for example, women had more rights in the sixteenth century than they did in the seventeenth.
I don't think either of those are real counterexamples. I don't think the Georgians are more egalitarian than the Victorians on principle. If they were, it was because they didn't care as much about the inegalitarian principles they had, rather than having egalitarian principles that they did care about. Among people who did have strong principles I think the Victorian is more likely to be egalitarian. It's just that the Georgians were more tolerant of open hypocrisy.
In the same way, while the legal position of women in the sixteenth century may have been better than that in the seventeenth century, I don't think that's because people's moral principles became less egalitarian. I don't think there was any wide body of people who would have defended what legal equality there was on moral grounds.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
A coalition where one side spend most of their time saying yes-sir no-sir three-bags-full-sir. The Tory elephant seal ate the Liberal herring's spine a long time ago, and the poor little yellow fishy is gasping for breath on the beach as the grey-blue giants rumble past it on their own business.
That may very well be true in any number of other respects, but we all know that same sex marriage is something from the Lib Dem policy platform, not the Tory one. Otherwise people like Spawn wouldn't be upset about it.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A coalition where one side spend most of their time saying yes-sir no-sir three-bags-full-sir.
But they managed to block the boundary changes by voting with Labour so I very much doubt they will be viewed by the Tories as the party which spends most of its time saying 'yes sir, no sir' etc. As is always the case in a coalition - or so it seems anyway - it is the smallest party that has the most power.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
And the Lib Dems have defeated Michael Gove's planned education reforms, too. So it seems that, contrary to Ken's assertion, the Lib Dems are exercising real influence. (By buggering up any sensible ideas that this government has, but that's another story.)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Dafyd: quote:
In the same way, while the legal position of women in the sixteenth century may have been better than that in the seventeenth century, I don't think that's because people's moral principles became less egalitarian. I don't think there was any wide body of people who would have defended what legal equality there was on moral grounds.
Why do you think the position of women became worse in the seventeenth century, then, if the changes in their legal status were not a result of people's opinions becoming less egalitarian? I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the seventeenth century (the more I learn about it the less I seem to know) but it seems at least *plausible* that one of the reasons for the changes might have been the influence of Presbyterians and other non-conformists in Parliament. Or are you merely saying that you think women would have been just as oppressed in the sixteenth century if Parliament had got around to enacting the legislation? Which may be true, but is impossible to prove either way.
The Diggers and Levellers believed in equality, but they were considered the lunatic fringe...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd: quote:
In the same way, while the legal position of women in the sixteenth century may have been better than that in the seventeenth century, I don't think that's because people's moral principles became less egalitarian. I don't think there was any wide body of people who would have defended what legal equality there was on moral grounds.
Why do you think the position of women became worse in the seventeenth century, then, if the changes in their legal status were not a result of people's opinions becoming less egalitarian? I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the seventeenth century (the more I learn about it the less I seem to know) but it seems at least *plausible* that one of the reasons for the changes might have been the influence of Presbyterians and other non-conformists in Parliament. Or are you merely saying that you think women would have been just as oppressed in the sixteenth century if Parliament had got around to enacting the legislation? Which may be true, but is impossible to prove either way.
The Diggers and Levellers believed in equality, but they were considered the lunatic fringe...
Non-conformist influence, generally, helped women to be seen as equals and also placed great emphasis on education for women so that they could read the Bible for themselves. This disappeared with the Restoration - hence Reformed-influenced women in the 16th century such as Lady Jane Grey being highly educated, and Mary II being very intelligent but barely educated beyond writing her own signature.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I have seen it claimed that the rise of the merchant classes, and the relative decline of the nobility, tended overall to reduce the power of women. Noble women could be powerful because of their birth. Merchants, however, were always men.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0