The Conservative Party

[BobKowalski]

I’m starting to think the Govt really doesn’t like the idea of Britons going abroad. Or maybe just doesn’t like Britons...

 

[Ban-jani]

For the record ... Gay marriage was just a tiny step further than the huge step Labour took by allowing Civil Partnerships it didnt happen under Labour because it was felt that it was "intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom". However it became Labour Party policy and was included in their manifesto of 2010.

If you want to know the record of the Tories in this respect

They passed the Nullity of Marriage Act, which effectively banned marriage between same-sex couples in England and Wales. In 1973 they replaced it with the Matrimonial Causes Act, which says that a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female. It remains in force to this day.(they cant even get rid of crap legislation)

Then in 1988 Section 28 was passed by the Tories, which prohibited "the teaching in any publicly funded school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a family relationship". In 2003 it was repealed and in 2009 David Cameron formally apologised for his party introducing the law.

The same sex marriage Act was driven by the Liberals in the coalition particularly by Lynne Featherstone.

Please don't try and tell me that the Tories are on the side of the LGBTQ community.

You’ve actually missed the point and gone off on an anti Tory rant, which I’m not surprised about.

My point is gay marriage isn’t a policy within classic conservatism and yet the Tories did it, because they are called the Conservative party, it doesn’t mean they are the exact personification of what conservatism is.

You’re actually trying to rewrite history there, Cameron had a face off with back benchers over gay marriage and he was driven to make it happen. He’s since called it one of his proudest moments and he stated views within the Tory Party changed.

 

[urban genie]

You’ve actually missed the point and gone off on an anti Tory rant, which I’m not surprised about.

My point is gay marriage isn’t a policy within classic conservatism and yet the Tories did it, because they are called the Conservative party, it doesn’t mean they are the exact personification of what conservatism is.

You’re actually trying to rewrite history there, Cameron had a face off with back benchers over gay marriage and he was driven to make it happen. He’s since called it one of his proudest moments and he stated views within the Tory Party changed.

Cameron adopted any policy that he thought would preserve tory governance.

If there had been a hint the national mood was against gay marriage he wouldn't have gone near it as a policy.

Tories crave power and will bend their beliefs ever so slightly to keep it, while finding ways to make cash out of it too in most cases.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

You’ve actually missed the point and gone off on an anti Tory rant, which I’m not surprised about.

My point is gay marriage isn’t a policy within classic conservatism and yet the Tories did it, because they are called the Conservative party, it doesn’t mean they are the exact personification of what conservatism is.

You’re actually trying to rewrite history there, Cameron had a face off with back benchers over gay marriage and he was driven to make it happen. He’s since called it one of his proudest moments and he stated views within the Tory Party changed.

Your missing my point ...... without the Lib Dems in the Coalition it would never have got to the debate stage let alone made it onto the statute books,

 

[Ban-jani]

Cameron adopted any policy that he thought would preserve tory governance.

If there had been a hint the national mood was against gay marriage he wouldn't have gone near it as a policy.

Tories crave power and will bend their beliefs ever so slightly to keep it, while finding ways to make cash out of it too in most cases.

I don’t disagree but then that proves my point doesn’t it?

That they aren’t really always representative of Conservative politics.

 

[Ban-jani]

Your missing my point ...... without the Lib Dems in the Coalition it would never have got to the debate stage let alone made it onto the statute books,

I haven’t, you’re still ignoring what I’m trying to say.

You think this discussion is pro-Tory vs anti-Tory, it isn’t, I’m merely saying they aren’t always representative of conservatism as a political ideology.

 

[urban genie]

I don’t disagree but then that proves my point doesn’t it?

That they aren’t really always representative of Conservative politics.

No it proves they are power hungry and would sell out priciples for it if if in reapity they don't agree with it.

They needed the coalition to work so they bend their beliefs slighly on some subjects

but for tge good (or bad) of poliics I would rather have an honest conservative and all their biggotry, than a liar and liars like the present rabble.

 

[Rascal]

Tories crave power and will bend their beliefs ever so slightly to keep it, while finding ways to make cash out of it too in most cases.

Alan Clark, Thatcher's favourite boy wrote in his book about the History of the Conservative Party that they will take any position in order to gain power, because power is why the Conservative Party exists. They truly believe they are the natural party of Government, but it also shows they are an intellectual vacuum although the recent libertarian stirrings have introduced a semblance of ideological fervour.

 

[Ban-jani]

and would sell out priciples

So I’ll take that as a yes.

This is exactly what I am saying.

 

[urban genie]

So I’ll take that as a yes.

This is exactly what I am saying.

Saying what?

Having a basic ideology and having priciples is different.

Conservatives have their basic ideology, monarchy, the union, property acumilation, anglicanism, the traditional family.

They ignored the two of those to keep coalition power, cameron wasn't a traditional conservative in fact he really didn't care, another one of the toffs who just wanted to get the tag PM sometime in life, first sign of problems and he either capitulated or fucked off, no principals or ideals.

 

[mat]

Gaslighter Gove all over BBC/Sky this morning. He makes Boris sound honest.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Gaslighter Gove all over BBC/Sky this morning. He makes Boris sound honest.

wonder why he didn't campaign in a referendum and 2 GE's explaining about bumps in the road and currency restrictions within the Union? Just can't understand why..............oh yeah thats it he's another colossal opportunistic liar

 

[Chris in London]

They passed the Nullity of Marriage Act, which effectively banned marriage between same-sex couples in England and Wales. In 1973 they replaced it with the Matrimonial Causes Act, which says that a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female. It remains in force to this day.(they cant even get rid of crap legislation)

That’s only part of the story. At common law marriages were always the Union of one man and one woman. The idea that same-sex marriages were lawful before the Nullity of Marriage Act is simply wrong. The real effect of the Act was to declare various matters such as duress or mistake to be grounds for nullity.

There was a concern that if you say X, Y and Z are grounds for nullity that some might conclude from that that by excluding A, B and C you are by implication saying they are not grounds for nullity. Parliament intended to widen the scope of what could be declared void. It did not however change the law in relation to the requirement that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The tories can be blamed for many things, but banning same sex marriages in 1971 is not one of them.

None of this is to disagree with the balance of your post. Clause 28 remains one of the most vindictive pieces of legislation. But accusing the tories of banning same sex marriage in either 1971 or 1973 is historically incorrect.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

That’s only part of the story. At common law marriages were always the Union of one man and one woman. The idea that same-sex marriages were lawful before the Nullity of Marriage Act is simply wrong. The real effect of the Act was to declare various matters such as duress or mistake to be grounds for nullity.

There was a concern that if you say X, Y and Z are grounds for nullity that some might conclude from that that by excluding A, B and C you are by implication saying they are not grounds for nullity. Parliament intended to widen the scope of what could be declared void. It did not however change the law in relation to the requirement that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The tories can be blamed for many things, but banning same sex marriages in 1971 is not one of them.

None of this is to disagree with the balance of your post. Clause 28 remains one of the most vindictive pieces of legislation. But accusing the tories of banning same sex marriage in either 1971 or 1973 is historically incorrect.

It's the Tories though innit

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

That’s only part of the story. At common law marriages were always the Union of one man and one woman. The idea that same-sex marriages were lawful before the Nullity of Marriage Act is simply wrong. The real effect of the Act was to declare various matters such as duress or mistake to be grounds for nullity.

There was a concern that if you say X, Y and Z are grounds for nullity that some might conclude from that that by excluding A, B and C you are by implication saying they are not grounds for nullity. Parliament intended to widen the scope of what could be declared void. It did not however change the law in relation to the requirement that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The tories can be blamed for many things, but banning same sex marriages in 1971 is not one of them.

None of this is to disagree with the balance of your post. Clause 28 remains one of the most vindictive pieces of legislation. But accusing the tories of banning same sex marriage in either 1971 or 1973 is historically incorrect.

I posted detail because the Tories never moved from their anti LGBTQ stance even when they had the opportunity yo move with the times... they chose to stay with the status quo. Nothing progressive about them or their policies .. all they want to do is to keep the inequalities and the wrongs in place

 

[Chris in London]

I posted detail because the Tories never moved from their anti LGBTQ stance even when they had the opportunity yo move with the times... they chose to stay with the status quo. Nothing progressive about them or their policies .. all they want to do is to keep the inequalities and the wrongs in place

Not arguing with that as a generality but you bolstered an essentially sound point with an example that is historically wrong. It dilutes the strength of your point when you do.

 

[Ban-jani]

Saying what?

Having a basic ideology and having priciples is different.

Conservatives have their basic ideology, monarchy, the union, property acumilation, anglicanism, the traditional family.

They ignored the two of those to keep coalition power, cameron wasn't a traditional conservative in fact he really didn't care, another one of the toffs who just wanted to get the tag PM sometime in life, first sign of problems and he either capitulated or fucked off, no principals or ideals.

This is exactly my point.

I said originally that the Tory Party isn’t necessarily representative of conservatism as a political ideology.

I have also said they will drop principle to stay in power.

You’re making the exact point I was trying to make to ificouldjust... and I’m in full agreement with you.

 

[Fame Monster]

I've always thought there's something fundamentally homosexual about the Conservative Party. I saw s28 as pure theatre tbh.

 

[Ban-jani]

I've always thought there's something fundamentally homosexual about the Conservative Party. I saw s28 as pure theatre tbh.

Why aren’t you in it then?

 

[mat]

I've always thought there's something fundamentally homosexual about the Conservative Party. I saw s28 as pure theatre tbh.

Some Tories say they against homosexuality only because making all their rights equal means there's no danger in it for the kinky men.