Indeed while Macmillan, Wilson and Cameron can be said to be above average, Eden and Brown were arguably the worst PMs since the War.
Cameron was the worst prime minister since Lord North
And the absurd introduction of gay 'marriage' by a Conservative government.
Are you a parody? How is gay marriage an affront to your working class values?
I didn't say it had anything to do with working class values. I'm against gay 'marriage', and would have voted against as most Tory MPs did, because I believe marriage is one man + woman.
And I believe your "beliefs" have no bearing on equality before the law.
Governments should stay out of the personal relationships of consenting adults. Neither do we live in theocracy - marriage is a civil as well as a religious matter. Small government means just that.
If you don't like gay marriage then the solution for you is clear - don't marry a gay man.
This is a country where a Twitter post can have the Police knocking on your door - we don't live under this concept of a small government. If we lived in some Ron Paulesque libertarian state, I could see the logic in your point. But we don't. And given that we don't, I therefore wish to see the state moulded in my image.
And I have adopted that solution. I am gay myself, but have chosen to remain abstinent and not have relationships due to my moral view on the subject.
That is your right but you do not have the right to consider yourself any better than the LBGT community who are free to enter loving relationships.
G, This country is f****ed, excuse my French. This is just another symptom, what is this obsession with LBGT nowadays and everybody having to prove how great they are, why can people not just get on with their own lives instead of trying to get one up on some other group, make out who is the best , etc. WTF is it all about.
I cannot answer your question because I cannot tell what you are actually aggrieved about from your comments.
Malc. You express it perfectly, let everyone get on with their own lives and that includes LBGT. I do not give it a moments thought normally but I will defend their civil rights in our society. I am not going to go on a march though
Chuka Umunna has been appointed Treasury and business spokesman for the Liberal Democrats just days after the former Labour and Change UK MP joined the party.
A good platform for a future leadership bid
Do not trust [recent] past enemies who bring you gifts.
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
What exactly?
- Religious (Clearly condemned by all major religious texts). - Natural (A wire crossed wrong/some genetic mutation). - Health (STDs and HIV make it risky behaviour)
That poll must be quite worrying for the Conservatives - given Boris seems pretty certain at this point, you'd expect a bigger jump. Maybe it'll happen but it does show the danger of people becoming entrenched (for the two main parties).
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
Religious, I grant you. Anything can find itself objected to on religious grounds. Not sure what you mean by natural, homosexual behaviour is long observed in nature, and as for health, well, I find it hard to imagine homosexual intercourse is that much more hazadous than heterosexual intercourse!
Edit: Ah, I see your edits. Well, it's good to know what others think on the topic, without obfuscation, but that's about all I can say on that.
That poll must be quite worrying for the Conservatives - given Boris seems pretty certain at this point, you'd expect a bigger jump. Maybe it'll happen but it does show the danger of people becoming entrenched (for the two main parties).
The start of the decline in TBP and Farage
Possibly, but only permanent if the Tories deliver before 31st October.
If they break that, then the polling now will look like a golden age.
It's not often that I quote Tim Montgomerie, let alone quote him because I approve of what he writes, but this article back in 2012 made a huge impression on me, to the extent of completely changing my view. Not many articles do that.
It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don't mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents. As Mary Ann Sieghart has written, reflecting on her own experience, most people take a different approach to marriage than to cohabitation. The preparation for marriage, its legal structure, the involvement of others in its ceremonies and celebrations, these things add up to mean that that those within marriage generally behave differently from those who haven't entered such a commitment.
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
Religious, I grant you. Anything can find itself objected to on religious grounds. Not sure what you mean by natural, homosexual behaviour is long observed in nature, and as for health, well, I find it hard to imagine homosexual intercourse is that much more hazadous than heterosexual intercourse!
Many things are observed in nature, but it does not make them right. And look the statistics for HIV transmissions - in London it is something like 1 in 7 gay men have HIV, and those are the ones we know about. If that were repeated in heterosexuals, it would be classed as an epidemic.
Many things are observed in nature, but it does not make them right. And look the statistics for HIV transmissions - in London it is something like 1 in 7 gay men have HIV, and those are the ones we know about. If that were repeated in heterosexuals, it would be classed as an epidemic.
That's an argument, if anything, in favour of gay marriage. As the Book of Common Prayer (a conservative document if ever there was one!) puts it:
[Marriage] was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Bozo also said it was a waste of tax payers money to investigate historical child abuse . He called it spaffing money up the wall ! I’m sure the survivors of abuse are touched by his empathy !
Far better to spaff it up the wall on non-existent bridges and sweetheart tenancies for stadiums to the benefit of his mates.
A feeble hearsay story about Boris swearing is not going to stop his campaign.
I was having this chat with a Labour-voting friend an hour ago.
His womanising and bastard-breeding and general caddishness is priced in. Everyone knows it, and shrugs, or they don't know it and they don't care anyway. A scandal that might stop him, now, will need to be monumental.
My friend and I were speculating what such a Boris-scuttling scandal might be. A rape, perhaps. Or a secret heroin addiction. A tape recording of the most outrageous racism. That's what the anti-Borisites need now, at this late stage. Something truly shocking.
Boris is simply a pound-shop Trump though not racist in the same mould ! He can say a few words in Latin and Greek. To Trump those are also "foreign" languages.
Written in a way which makes it impossible to compare between the years. There have been 56 murders so far this year, but had been 77 homicides this time last year.
Unless we know how many non-murder homicides there have been this year, we can't draw any conclusions.
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
Religious, I grant you. Anything can find itself objected to on religious grounds. Not sure what you mean by natural, homosexual behaviour is long observed in nature, and as for health, well, I find it hard to imagine homosexual intercourse is that much more hazadous than heterosexual intercourse!
Many things are observed in nature, but it does not make them right
But it does not make them unnatural either as a matter of course.
Is there some percentage of displayed behaviour where you would accept something as being natural, but below that it is not right? 10% not following the 'norm' ok? 20%? 5%?
Or if there were no perceived physical harm in your eyes (say the STD issue were combated to your satisfaction) would that make it natural?
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
On tonight's YouGov the only question is whether it will be Farage or Boris PM, the Brexit Party and Tories and DUP are more combined than Labour and the SNP and LDs and Plaid and Greens combined
Telegraph says Corbyn wants a lifetime gifts tax to tax all gifts from parents to children - to replace inheritance tax.
Sounds like a real vote winner.
I have concluded (quite seriously) that Corbyn has almost zero interest in winning an election. Then he might have to enact his policies, and see them fail, miserably. Sure, if the job fell in to his lap he'd do it, with definite curiosity, but he won't go out of his way to enable this.
Instead, he has two very different interests: 1, his own moral purity, and the consequent and agreeable virtue signalling to his followers, and 2, saying a Boris-like Fuck You to the Blairites, who he hates with a true vengeance (whereas he merely dislikes Tories)
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
Religious, I grant you. Anything can find itself objected to on religious grounds. Not sure what you mean by natural, homosexual behaviour is long observed in nature, and as for health, well, I find it hard to imagine homosexual intercourse is that much more hazadous than heterosexual intercourse!
Many things are observed in nature, but it does not make them right
But it does not make them unnatural either as a matter of course.
Is there some percentage of displayed behaviour where you would accept something as being natural, but below that it is not right? 10% not following the 'norm' ok? 20%? 5%?
Or if there were no perceived physical harm in your eyes (say the STD issue were combated to your satisfaction) would that make it natural?
Not sure really, but hypotheticals aren't they.
Believe me, I have struggled with this question for 6 or 7 years reading and watching arguments on it. But in my view, there just isn't a way out of it.
It is a Yougov poll. Some signs of the major parties recovering with Brexit Party down to 24% and the LibDems in 4th place - latter is first time since EU election. Yougov also has tended to overstate Brexit Party.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
It is a Yougov poll. Some signs of the major parties recovering with Brexit Party down to 24% and the LibDems in 4th place - latter is first time since EU election. Yougov also has tended to overstate Brexit Party.
It is a Yougov poll. Some signs of the major parties recovering with Brexit Party down to 24% and the LibDems in 4th place - latter is first time since EU election. Yougov also has tended to overstate Brexit Party.
Labour would hold Peterborough on the YouGov poll despite nationally it being a Brexit Party plus Tories plus DUP government so even with the by election result YouGov may be right
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
There are more people out there who think such things than you might think. Better to know which people think it than it be hidden away, I guess.
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
On tonight's YouGov the only question is whether it will be Farage or Boris PM, the Brexit Party and Tories and DUP are more combined than Labour and the SNP and LDs and Plaid and Greens combined
The polling with four parties close together can’t tell you how the seats would end up because you’re likely to see large variations between different seats . Any GE will also have different issues thrown into the mix .
The BP will do much better in the Midlands than say London or Scotland . Say the Tories and BP do a pact If they don’t stand in certain seats to help the Tories the problem there is you won’t have Labour Leavers voting Tory. Are the Tories willing to stand aside in high Leave areas for the BP I can’t see that .
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Boris using fruity language isn’t quite the black swan required to derail his campaign in my humble opinion.
Yes. The Mirror story shows a rather touching, naive faith in the continued prudishness of the British people, even though the word "fuck" is now common parlance on our TV screens, and we all watch pornhub on our phones. When we are not sexting.
The issue is more who he allegedly said it about - families of victims of terorrists. It'd be odd if true (why would anyone feel that?), but would be damaging. I see the Mirror includes someone else denying it.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
1 Where is this poll people are citing? Have scrolled back, and can't see it, maybe I missed it? Can someone reprint it please? 2 The views of the Viceroy and Justin are far more common in the population than are represented on PB. I disagree with them, but they do represent a large swathe of thinking in this country. The more diversity of views on this site the better, I say. 3 However, my religion makes no mention of homosexuality in any of its texts. Get rather cross when we are lumped in with the rest. Advocacy for LGBT rights is not a clear religious/non-religious divide.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Telegraph says Corbyn wants a lifetime gifts tax to tax all gifts from parents to children - to replace inheritance tax.
Sounds like a real vote winner.
I have concluded (quite seriously) that Corbyn has almost zero interest in winning an election. Then he might have to enact his policies, and see them fail, miserably. Sure, if the job fell in to his lap he'd do it, with definite curiosity, but he won't go out of his way to enable this.
Instead, he has two very different interests: 1, his own moral purity, and the consequent and agreeable virtue signalling to his followers, and 2, saying a Boris-like Fuck You to the Blairites, who he hates with a true vengeance (whereas he merely dislikes Tories)
I don't actually think he hates anyone - certainly he's privately polite about Tony, and contrasts him favourably with e.g. Renzi, who pitched similarly to Tony in Italy but seems to Corbyn to have less substance. I know people (including some "moderates") who do hate political opponents, and I try to steer clear of them.
But a tax on lifetime donations does seem fairer (though harder to implement, surely?) than a one-off tax at the moment of death.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
I've always assumed yours was.
Whereas I can never remembering reading anything from you, so have no view on ‘TudorRose’ either way!
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
It's not often that I quote Tim Montgomerie, let alone quote him because I approve of what he writes, but this article back in 2012 made a huge impression on me, to the extent of completely changing my view. Not many articles do that.
It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don't mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents. As Mary Ann Sieghart has written, reflecting on her own experience, most people take a different approach to marriage than to cohabitation. The preparation for marriage, its legal structure, the involvement of others in its ceremonies and celebrations, these things add up to mean that that those within marriage generally behave differently from those who haven't entered such a commitment.
I too used to think that Gay marriage was unnecessary in the era of civil partnership. I was wrong, and having seen how happy getting married has made some gay friends am a supporter. It is an important part of equality.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
Must be.
It probably isn't a spoof.
Tragic if true.
It would be more tragic if people felt they couldn't express their views because of opprobrium on here.
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
On tonight's YouGov the only question is whether it will be Farage or Boris PM, the Brexit Party and Tories and DUP are more combined than Labour and the SNP and LDs and Plaid and Greens combined
The polling with four parties close together can’t tell you how the seats would end up because you’re likely to see large variations between different seats . Any GE will also have different issues thrown into the mix .
The BP will do much better in the Midlands than say London or Scotland . Say the Tories and BP do a pact If they don’t stand in certain seats to help the Tories the problem there is you won’t have Labour Leavers voting Tory. Are the Tories willing to stand aside in high Leave areas for the BP I can’t see that .
There won't be a pact no, the figures electoral calculus gives producing a BP + Tories + DUP majority are with BP and Tory candidates in every seat, the BP for instance would gain Yvette Cooper's seat electoral calculus predicts even if most of their gains come from the Tories
1 Where is this poll people are citing? Have scrolled back, and can't see it, maybe I missed it? Can someone reprint it please? 2 The views of the Viceroy and Justin are far more common in the population than are represented on PB. I disagree with them, but they do represent a large swathe of thinking in this country. The more diversity of views on this site the better, I say. 3 However, my religion makes no mention of homosexuality in any of its texts. Get rather cross when we are lumped in with the rest. Advocacy for LGBT rights is not a clear religious/non-religious divide.
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
On tonight's YouGov the only question is whether it will be Farage or Boris PM, the Brexit Party and Tories and DUP are more combined than Labour and the SNP and LDs and Plaid and Greens combined
The polling with four parties close together can’t tell you how the seats would end up because you’re likely to see large variations between different seats . Any GE will also have different issues thrown into the mix .
The BP will do much better in the Midlands than say London or Scotland . Say the Tories and BP do a pact If they don’t stand in certain seats to help the Tories the problem there is you won’t have Labour Leavers voting Tory. Are the Tories willing to stand aside in high Leave areas for the BP I can’t see that .
Mmm. You won't have many Tory Remainers voted for Farage's mob either. A TBP Tory pact is theoretically a winner. However, my home town of Wigan will vote TBP in a Euro election quite happily. I remain to be convinced it would elect TBP MPs standing on an open platform of enabling a Tory government.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
There are more people out there who think such things than you might think. Better to know which people think it than it be hidden away, I guess.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
I've always assumed yours was.
Whereas I can never remembering reading anything from you, so have no view on ‘TudorRose’ either way!
Boris using fruity language isn’t quite the black swan required to derail his campaign in my humble opinion.
Yes. The Mirror story shows a rather touching, naive faith in the continued prudishness of the British people, even though the word "fuck" is now common parlance on our TV screens, and we all watch pornhub on our phones. When we are not sexting.
Arent we all supposed blocked from doing so thanks to may genius purity law?
From 1st July
On some estimates 20 million Brits will find what they could freely access before is now blocked.
And I doubt most of them have any idea.
And the easiest legal way round it involves going along to your local corner shop or supermarket to buy a £5 token for each device. Some awkward hushed conversations may ensue methinks!
1 Where is this poll people are citing? Have scrolled back, and can't see it, maybe I missed it? Can someone reprint it please? 2 The views of the Viceroy and Justin are far more common in the population than are represented on PB. I disagree with them, but they do represent a large swathe of thinking in this country. The more diversity of views on this site the better, I say. 3 However, my religion makes no mention of homosexuality in any of its texts. Get rather cross when we are lumped in with the rest. Advocacy for LGBT rights is not a clear religious/non-religious divide.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
I'm wondering if Sean T has finally managed the trick of creating a character that isn't a facsimile of his own. If so, well done old sport.
It's not often that I quote Tim Montgomerie, let alone quote him because I approve of what he writes, but this article back in 2012 made a huge impression on me, to the extent of completely changing my view. Not many articles do that.
It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don't mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents. As Mary Ann Sieghart has written, reflecting on her own experience, most people take a different approach to marriage than to cohabitation. The preparation for marriage, its legal structure, the involvement of others in its ceremonies and celebrations, these things add up to mean that that those within marriage generally behave differently from those who haven't entered such a commitment.
I too used to think that Gay marriage was unnecessary in the era of civil partnership. I was wrong, and having seen how happy getting married has made some gay friends am a supporter. It is an important part of equality.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
I followed the same path on gay marriage. I wasn't against it, I just didn't see why it was so very necessary, and why Cameron made such an effort, and expended so much political capital, to legalise it. Surely gay people were accepted, or at least tolerated, by 99% of people?
As homophobia rises, I now, belatedly, see why it was very important. Probably Cameron's greatest achievement.
It was legalised civilly. It wasn't legalised for Churches, unless the Church chooses by its own choice to do it - which is surely the Churches own right?
Why repeal it? What does taking civil rights away from anyone achieve?
I don't view gay 'marriage' as a civil right.
Why not? Since this is a civil law not a religious one, the Churches make religious decisions, give me one civil reason why gay people should be denied marriage.
Because I don't view gay 'marriage' as being equal to actual, real marriage. I don't view it as legitimate which is why I wouldn't attend one. It's as simple as that.
Sorry "I don't view" is not a civil reason to deny equality before the law.
If I write "I don't view interracial 'marriage' as being ..." would that be a valid reason to deny people equality before the law? No.
The Churches can deny it if they want but give a civil reason to deny it in law.
Homosexual behaviour is very different to the pigmentation of someone's skin, and it is a controversial behaviour in terms of morality and religion.
Bit of a silly comparison to make. But I can see why you would think that if you personally don't have moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour.
Assume this new account is a spoof?
I'm wondering if Sean T has finally managed the trick of creating a character that isn't a facsimile of his own. If so, well done old sport.
I wonder if the Greens would be able to form a government in Germany if an election is held in the near future. Would they be able to find coalition partners?
Farage could have a field day with Bozo . Not sure the Tories really have thought this through . And Farage wants to stay relevant , he doesn’t want Brexit delivered but wants the BP to be a force longer term .
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
On tonight's YouGov the only question is whether it will be Farage or Boris PM, the Brexit Party and Tories and DUP are more combined than Labour and the SNP and LDs and Plaid and Greens combined
The polling with four parties close together can’t tell you how the seats would end up because you’re likely to see large variations between different seats . Any GE will also have different issues thrown into the mix .
The BP will do much better in the Midlands than say London or Scotland . Say the Tories and BP do a pact If they don’t stand in certain seats to help the Tories the problem there is you won’t have Labour Leavers voting Tory. Are the Tories willing to stand aside in high Leave areas for the BP I can’t see that .
Mmm. You won't have many Tory Remainers voted for Farage's mob either. A TBP Tory pact is theoretically a winner. However, my home town of Wigan will vote TBP in a Euro election quite happily. I remain to be convinced it would elect TBP MPs standing on an open platform of enabling a Tory government.
Farage shrewdly would not commit to back either Labour or the Tories before the election but as Kingmaker simply promise to back whichever of Corbyn or Boris will deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal, in reality that means Boris.
I too used to think that Gay marriage was unnecessary in the era of civil partnership. I was wrong, and having seen how happy getting married has made some gay friends am a supporter. It is an important part of equality.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
It was the social context which I had failed to understand. By that I mean that of course we all know long-term gay couples, and no-one was fussed or disapproving about it, but the relationships weren't something which formed part of the social fabric in the way that a marriage does. Civil partnerships went some way towards correcting that, but they were still essentially about the two people in isolation rather than as a couple linked into wider social ties.
On your second paragraph: you are too harsh. He's expressing views commonplace in many places, and certainly mainstream in the UK only a few years ago.
I wonder if the Greens would be able to form a government in Germany if an election is held in the near future. Would they be able to find coalition partners?
It would have to be the Union on those numbers, SPD and Linke not enough
I must admit to finding Rory Stewart refreshing, although I would be amazed if anyone (other than Boris) canderail Boris.
Stewart's father was a high ranking officer in SIS (MI6) and highly regarded. He was the model of Q from the James Bond films. Rory Stewart was,I understand, and almost certainly still is, a serving officer in MI6. If, Boris, as seems likely, becomes PM, and if, as usually happens with Boris, things descend into chaos, SIS will have their man ideally placed to step into pole position.
This is not the first time they have acted in this way; they were ready to oust Wilson, but never did so. But it is good to know that those whose job it is to protect us are doing their duty; indeed I find it most reassuring.
Wasn’t it MI5 that tried to overthrow Wilson? MI6’s job is overthrowing other countries’ governments.
What exactly are your "moral/religious objections to homosexual behaviour"?
- Religious - Natural - Health
Religious, I grant you. Anything can find itself objected to on religious grounds. Not sure what you mean by natural, homosexual behaviour is long observed in nature, and as for health, well, I find it hard to imagine homosexual intercourse is that much more hazadous than heterosexual intercourse!
Many things are observed in nature, but it does not make them right. And look the statistics for HIV transmissions - in London it is something like 1 in 7 gay men have HIV, and those are the ones we know about. If that were repeated in heterosexuals, it would be classed as an epidemic.
HIV is a chronic disease nowdays - it can be managed in the way diabetes is
I too used to think that Gay marriage was unnecessary in the era of civil partnership. I was wrong, and having seen how happy getting married has made some gay friends am a supporter. It is an important part of equality.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
It was the social context which I had failed to understand. By that I mean that of course we all know long-term gay couples, and no-one was fussed or disapproving about it, but the relationships weren't something which formed part of the social fabric in the way that a marriage does. Civil partnerships went some way towards correcting that, but they were still essentially about the two people in isolation rather than as a couple linked into wider social ties.
On your second paragraph: you are too harsh. He's expressing views commonplace in many places, and certainly mainstream in the UK only a few years ago.
I agree.
Such views are still not unusual, indeed even Mayor Pete went through such a stage of self denial before getting over it. I guess some never do,
Lovelock's is a good illustration of how difficult it is when you start with a blank piece of paper which is always the way it is. Most writers never write anything as memorable. (Though CDP was famous for it's original campaigns)
"For mash get Smash!"
That was a great idea more than a great line. It was written by the most famous advertising copywriter of modern times now sadly dead.
A truly great piece of copywriting is a work of modest art. It is a meme. It is an ear worm. It lasts and lasts.
Cup hands here come Cadbury's. A hazelNUT in EVery BITE.
I too used to think that Gay marriage was unnecessary in the era of civil partnership. I was wrong, and having seen how happy getting married has made some gay friends am a supporter. It is an important part of equality.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
It was the social context which I had failed to understand. By that I mean that of course we all know long-term gay couples, and no-one was fussed or disapproving about it, but the relationships weren't something which formed part of the social fabric in the way that a marriage does. Civil partnerships went some way towards correcting that, but they were still essentially about the two people in isolation rather than as a couple linked into wider social ties.
On your second paragraph: you are too harsh. He's expressing views commonplace in many places, and certainly mainstream in the UK only a few years ago.
I agree.
Such views are still not unusual, indeed even Mayor Pete went through such a stage of self denial before getting over it. I guess some never do,
Being in my 20s, I know I am in a very small minority on this among my demographic. Even amongst all my friends and most of my family.
It's not what they think though, it is what I think.
Boris using fruity language isn’t quite the black swan required to derail his campaign in my humble opinion.
Yes. The Mirror story shows a rather touching, naive faith in the continued prudishness of the British people, even though the word "fuck" is now common parlance on our TV screens, and we all watch pornhub on our phones. When we are not sexting.
Sounds like the government's forthcoming porn blocking nonsense is going to be unfuckingpopular!
Comments
Predicting the future accurately is unlikely in these times.
- Natural
- Health
So Tories plus Brexit Party plus DUP would have a majority and that is with May still PM
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=21&LAB=21&LIB=19&Brexit=24&Green=2&ChUK=0&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVChUK=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTChUK=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
Greens plus Union though gets to 51%, Union plus SPD only gets to 35%
Apparently jezza wants to ramp up inheritance tax (by counting life time gifts) and oxfam in trouble again over cover up.
You can’t out Brexit the BP. His message will be you can’t trust Bozo.
Goodnight PBers ....
- Natural (A wire crossed wrong/some genetic mutation).
- Health (STDs and HIV make it risky behaviour)
Edit: Ah, I see your edits. Well, it's good to know what others think on the topic, without obfuscation, but that's about all I can say on that.
His last significant hurdle is the BBC debate on Tuesday. If he clears that obstacle, he is surely our next PM.
If they break that, then the polling now will look like a golden age.
It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don't mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents. As Mary Ann Sieghart has written, reflecting on her own experience, most people take a different approach to marriage than to cohabitation. The preparation for marriage, its legal structure, the involvement of others in its ceremonies and celebrations, these things add up to mean that that those within marriage generally behave differently from those who haven't entered such a commitment.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2012/02/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
https://twitter.com/rorystewartuk/status/1140003248205697024?s=21
Sounds like a real vote winner.
[Marriage] was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Unless we know how many non-murder homicides there have been this year, we can't draw any conclusions.
Is there some percentage of displayed behaviour where you would accept something as being natural, but below that it is not right? 10% not following the 'norm' ok? 20%? 5%?
Or if there were no perceived physical harm in your eyes (say the STD issue were combated to your satisfaction) would that make it natural?
Instead, he has two very different interests: 1, his own moral purity, and the consequent and agreeable virtue signalling to his followers, and 2, saying a Boris-like Fuck You to the Blairites, who he hates with a true vengeance (whereas he merely dislikes Tories)
Believe me, I have struggled with this question for 6 or 7 years reading and watching arguments on it. But in my view, there just isn't a way out of it.
So school fees, cars and diamonds won’t count but pocket money will.
Says will raise £9Bn.
Lab 210
Con 157
Brexit Party 157
LD 47
The BP will do much better in the Midlands than say London or Scotland . Say the Tories and BP do a pact If they don’t stand in certain seats to help the Tories the problem there is you won’t have Labour Leavers voting Tory. Are the Tories willing to stand aside in high Leave areas for the BP I can’t see that .
2 The views of the Viceroy and Justin are far more common in the population than are represented on PB. I disagree with them, but they do represent a large swathe of thinking in this country. The more diversity of views on this site the better, I say.
3 However, my religion makes no mention of homosexuality in any of its texts. Get rather cross when we are lumped in with the rest. Advocacy for LGBT rights is not a clear religious/non-religious divide.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1139998724439064576
But a tax on lifetime donations does seem fairer (though harder to implement, surely?) than a one-off tax at the moment of death.
It 100% is.
Viceroy clearly has some issues about his own sexuality. I hope he resolves them before it is too late.
A TBP Tory pact is theoretically a winner. However, my home town of Wigan will vote TBP in a Euro election quite happily. I remain to be convinced it would elect TBP MPs standing on an open platform of enabling a Tory government.
And I doubt most of them have any idea.
And the easiest legal way round it involves going along to your local corner shop or supermarket to buy a £5 token for each device. Some awkward hushed conversations may ensue methinks!
As homophobia rises, I now, belatedly, see why it was very important. Probably Cameron's greatest achievement.
Another of Sean’s unworldly new PB characters? Testing them out for his new book, perhaps?
On your second paragraph: you are too harsh. He's expressing views commonplace in many places, and certainly mainstream in the UK only a few years ago.
Such views are still not unusual, indeed even Mayor Pete went through such a stage of self denial before getting over it. I guess some never do,
The Esso sign means happy motoring.
Ear worms - all of them.
Dead Fred
It's not what they think though, it is what I think.