|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will "gay marriage" destroy the Tory Party or save it?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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...)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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>
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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....
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Tory party didn't introduce the Bill. The government did. A government made up of a coalition.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
