Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

"They are just ordinary men and women, not part of the ruling elite. They are passionate, motivated and determined to fight on against a law that renders terms like husband and wife meaningless..."
Click to expand...
:lol:

"...and threatens one of the foundations of the institution of marriage: fidelity and faithfulness"
Click to expand...

Is he saying here that gay people are more likely to screw around?

Lord Cormack said:
But in doing that I would just ask them to bear in mind that although this may be a day of unqualified rejoicing for them, there are many in our country who by no stretch of the imagination could be called either homophobic or bigoted who are unhappy about this Bill.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Can and will.
 
There are plenty of people who aren't homophobic who don't agree with the bill. Even some gay people aren't in favour - around 10% according to one poll I saw in the Times last week.

Admittedly, 10% isn't a lot, but it does bring into question this argument of 'if you're against, you're a homophobe.'
 
Gay marriage clears the House of Lords
Click to expand...

That headline makes it sound as though the House emptied because they all went off to marry each other.
 
A fair amount are ignorant homophobes.

The argument is born from homophobia, just because some non-homophobes have bought into it, the objections against gay marriage don't become any less homophobic.
 
alastair said:
There are plenty of people who aren't homophobic who don't agree with the bill. Even some gay people aren't in favour - around 10% according to one poll I saw in the Times last week.

Admittedly, 10% isn't a lot, but it does bring into question this argument of 'if you're against, you're a homophobe.'
Click to expand...

10% of gay people don't think gay people should be allowed to marry? Are you sure this isn't from one of your dreams?
 
niMic said:
10% of gay people don't think gay people should be allowed to marry? Are you sure this isn't from one of your dreams?
Click to expand...


I was amazed too, but it strikes me that given I'm not gay, I probably don't know how gay people think.

The point is simple - it clearly isn't just homophobes who are against gay marriage, which is important to note.
 
I imagine that most of the 10% of gay people who apparently oppose same sex marriage do so because they have no interest in what traditional marriage offers, not because they have any deep rooted objection to other gay people getting married. I'm sure if the question was phrased correctly, you wouldn't get a 10% figure among gay people.

The trouble with the argument that not everyone who opposes same sex marriage is homophobic, is that if you were to look deep enough, these people also object to the homosexual lifestyle per se. It has little to do with marriage, and everything to do with legitimising homosexuality. Maybe I'm being unfair, but from where I'm standing, the only people opposing it are religious people and old socially conservative bigots. I've not come across a single reasonable person who is against it.
 
rednev said:
I imagine that most of the 10% of gay people who apparently oppose same sex marriage do so because they have no interest in what traditional marriage offers, not because they have any deep rooted objection to other gay people getting married. I'm sure if the question was phrased correctly, you wouldn't get a 10% figure among gay people.

The trouble with the argument that not everyone who opposes same sex marriage is homophobic, is that if you were to look deep enough, these people also object to the homosexual lifestyle per se. It has little to do with marriage, and everything to do with legitimising homosexuality. Maybe I'm being unfair, but from where I'm standing, the only people opposing it are religious people and old socially conservative bigots. I've not come across a single reasonable person who is against it.
Click to expand...


Correct. There are the people that resort to religious reasons, which are homophobic, and people that resort to social reasons, also homophobic. I said this during the time that the gay marriage debate was going on in the lords - I'm yet to hear one rational and decent argument against it. For something that's caused this much friction, that's stunning. Go back a few decades and put "interracial" instead of "gay" and you'd hear the exact same rubbish from them.
 
Christ. :( This is the best-rated readers' comment on that Telegraph article:


Very disappointing.

I trust one day morality and common sense will prevail to correctly uphold marriage as being only between a man and woman, and will rescind so-called "gay marriage."
Click to expand...
 
Sadly, that is a large part of the tory membership speaking. It's one thing I'll actually applaud Cameron for, standing up to that mob.
 
The Conservatives are neck-and-neck with Labour in the polls for the first time in more than a year after a fall in support for the UK Independence Party, a survey suggests.


Of course with the EU elections in 2014 and proper campaigning come 2015, UKIP's presence wont' so easily fade. An if UKIP like the Lib Dems before them target a smaller number of constituencies in strength, the margins are likely to be so fine that even a few gains could wreck all for Cameron.

No 10 could do with an additional protest movement to divide the disill8usioned, unfortunately for the Prime Minister the Greens won't attract the required sections of the electorate in enough places [at least i shouldn't think so].
 
Drifter said:
Poor from Milliband today at PMQs
Click to expand...

Poor is not the word. Little wonder he trails Labour's ratings by ten and Cameron leads his by ten. People think pmqs doesn't matter, but it's crucial what goes on in that pantomime of shit gets reported positively on the news bulletins.

Anyway, my gripe isn't with that; it's the disgusting way the Tories are trying to make deaths in the NHS a political matter. The Keogh report exonerated Labour, but Hunt went on a shameless smear campaign ignoring all facts.

All the Tory papers - particularly the Mail - have launched a disgusting attack on the NHS to make it appear not fit for public use, despite record levels of satisfaction when they took over. Even that cretin Dan Hannan got involved in the Telegraph, despite his partisan Fox news interview calling for it to be scrapped.

We all know the agenda anyway. Talk and smear the NHS down, cut back nurses until mistakes happen, make the public think it should better in private hands. Says it all when the normally moderate Tim Montgomery said Tory Hq would be `smiling` at the article on NHS deaths reported in the mail.

Utterly mendacious and downright shameful.
 
Just read that piece. He's right as well.

In the Staggers a few days ago, George Eaton(i think) wrote about the dangers of Byrne trying out Tory the Tories and engaging in a race to the botttom.

Trying to win an election on that strategy. Gooooooood luck.
 
So what do we think of Clegg and his buses then?

A gimmick with only surface benefits if in isolation IMO.
 
Figures out later today are expected to report 0.6% growth in the UK economy, representing a 0.3% increase from the first quarter of this year.

If GDP continues to steadily improve or at the worst remain flat how do you think this will influence the general election?

I still believe that Cameron has trouble awaiting him so far as his core vote is concerned [for a wide range of reasons] however the floating voter is likely take note of a positive trend in the economy.
 
Ed Balls was on Fivelive earlier and got in such a muddle in his attacks on the government.

One minute he was drawing attention to the fact that the growth was not as good as America's or Germany's, the next he was comparing the 2015 election to Obama's victory of 2012 which implies that Cameron would remain in office.
 
2015 is still a way away, an improving economy (even if it is far too late) and a lacklustre opposition make the tories strong bets in my eyes.

Osborne must have sacrificed several people to the gods of late, the double-dip revised away and growth popping its head up at a very opportune moment.

Obviously there are a couple of bombs in the road ahead for the tories as well, but still...
 
Is that what modern Britain is to become, moving billboards on the streets telling the illegals to go home seven days a week?

Perhaps the opposition will hire ones where sign reads "Improve Border Security".

It's a crass bit of PR as opposed to actual policy.
 
I read the news today, oh boy...

4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
Click to expand...
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723

At least we know what the Tories think we are good for now.
Click to expand...




I think the reaction to his comments have been a tad harsh. Obviously he wasn't referring to the urban areas of the North East of England or the region as a whole, he was referring to the large stretches of non-National Park land in the North of the region which are sparsely populated. I don't see the objection to this being pointed out as an example.
alastair said:
The Labour party really, really care about the north. They've done wonders for it.
Click to expand...

Indeed they have. Most of the major cities in the North of England are unrecognisable compared to how they were 20 years ago. Poverty has been reduced and industry has been modernised. Some of the wealthiest areas in the UK are now in the North of England (parts of Cheshire and North Yorkshire in particular). The big problems lie in some of the old industrial towns and small cities which never recovered from the policies of the Thatcher era, and you'd be right to point out Labour's failings here. But away from these old industrial areas, most of rural and semi rural Northern England isn't much worse off than areas in the Midlands, the East of England and even the South West. The North-South divide is growing, and the main reason for that is of course the dominance of London.

Current Coalition policy is undeniably damaging the North of England.
 
Well I think you should listen to his speech again.

What is the difference between a beautiful rural area and a desolate part of the NE where it wouldn't matter? Except that one is in the North and the other in the south. The point he is making which is staggeringly stupid by the way, is that it would be a mistake in his view to have a discussion about fracking as a nation. Is it safe or harmful; what are the advantages/disadvantages, what safety measures should be taken and controls/regulations should be introduced?

No we shouldn't do that because that will set the bar to high and there should be a lower bar for the north with all its desolate ugly countryside which remember very importantly isn't in the south where people he gives a shit about might not like it.

Isn't this guy Osbourne’s father in law?

Osbourne of the we don't want people from Sheffield on aeroplanes remark.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-in-hunt-for-illegal-immigrants-8742754.html

This is absolutely disgusting, gutter politics. So much for compassionate conservatives. Any Tories on here gonna defend this?

Witnesses who saw the operations in London claimed the officers stopped only non-white individuals, and in Kensal Green said that when questioned, the immigration officials became aggressive.

Phil O’Shea told the Kilburn Times: “They appeared to be stopping and questioning every non-white person, many of whom were clearly ordinary Kensal Green residents going to work. When I queried what was going on, I was threatened with arrest for obstruction and was told to ‘crack on’.”
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't defend it if it were true. Being written in the Independent, having carefully chosen some 'witnesses,' and briefly glossing over the fact that they found 3 people they wanted to detain strikes me as being quite economical with the truth.

I mean, come on. Do you really think the police had a meeting that morning where they discussed how they were best going to rid this country of some ethnic minorities? It's just scaremongering.
 
alastair said:
I wouldn't defend it if it were true. Being written in the Independent, having carefully chosen some 'witnesses,' and briefly glossing over the fact that they found 3 people they wanted to detain strikes me as being quite economical with the truth.

I mean, come on. Do you really think the police had a meeting that morning where they discussed how they were best going to rid this country of some ethnic minorities? It's just scaremongering.
Click to expand...

They did mention people being arrested, for 'immigration matters', which is quite a vague term. There's been no word as to how many of them are actually illegal immigrants. Accuse them of economical with the truth if you will, but don't do it at the same time as ignoring the article.
 
I also refuse to believe someone who politely asks what's going on gets threatened with arrest. I have done this on numerous occasions in my life and the policeman has either told me or has said 'sorry, I can't tell you' and it's been fine. The whole story is just so clearly a load of tosh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.