Equilty has alway upset one side, its the name of the game. I think you are too much on the fence Mr Blunkett. Lay your cards on the table and be counted, either way.
My guess is he’ll vote no. Listening to one’s constituents isn’t the be all and end all of an informed decision. If for example the majority told him they wanted to exclude disabled people from marriage, would he really think he would have to vote for it? The man shouldn’t even hold public office. He’s nothing but a hypocrite.
He can’t make up his mind but at least we know he doesn’t think marriage is for just ONE woman and one man.
Not with the many mistresses he’s had . . .
Am I reading it right? Is he evading answering the question completely, and concealing it behind a smokescreen of criticism?
Frankly, the easy bit in politics is saying “the other side sucks.” Taking a stand and meaning it will always impress me a whole lot more. And this letter? Sounds like the former to me.
Pretty much just using this as a way of attacking the government which is disappointing but not unexpected of Blunkett. When responding my (Labour) MP was totally non partisan and simply said that in the interest of equality he would support the measure. Having read this I’m none the wiser as to whether he supports equal marriage rights or not. Surely he can make that clear even if he wants to have a pop at the coalition?
Typical politician isn’t he? How many times do we see them on TV and never really answering the questions that are put to them.
Mr Blunkett’s hypocrisy here is earth-shattering!!!! What about the cosmic ‘dog’s dinner’ that New Labour gave us with the Civil Partnership Act of Segregation? If Mr Blunkett and other Blairites had had any Balls (apart from Ed) and given us true equality and dignity when they had the chance, then perhaps the opportunity for the Tories to make such astonishing and unexpected headway into the liberal vote – which is what I imagine concerns Labour most here – would not have arisen.
I think the Prime Minister knows EXACTLY what he is doing by pursuing marriage equality in the way he is. It’s a difficult balancing act for him but the Tories will come out as electoral winners in the end.
Thank goodness David’s marriage is not called ‘blind marriage’ and that he does not have to call it a ‘civil partnership’ in case he is unaware of the gender of his partner. Equality is equality – marriage is marriage!
And of course Blunkett’s own private life wouldn’t stand up to much moral scrutiny given he is divorced adulterer who fathered a child out of wedlock. It’ll be interesting to see where he goes from here but if opposes on moral grounds then he’s just another Bob Blackman, Nadine Dorries or Roger Gale with a ‘do as I say not as I do’ attitude.
Roger Gale MP is just homophobic full stop (google him)
you hardly have a good track record to start judging other people – are the church happy to have you given your pass history.
Whether the plans could have been drawn up better is irrelevant. Is he for equal marriage or not? Answer, Mr Blunkett!
Obviously hes gonna call it a dogs dinner because he wants to make it look like he did it with CP when he was on the cabinet – the coalition government is doing something they didn’t have the balls to do and that is to recognise that gay people are actually a couple in love no different to a straight couple.
I sent my Party Card back because of this guy. Edwina Currie’s amendment (equal age of concent) was defeated by 307 votes to 280. Those who voted for it included John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Paddy Ashdown and William Hague. Those voting against included David Blunkett and Ann Taylor, both on the Labor Party front Bench. So I sent my membership card back.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. I have never liked this guy. He seems to me to epitomise the homophobic macho male workerism which pervaded Old Labour. And I say that as a lefty!
This adulterer is incapable of an informed rational discussion about equal marriage if he’s now so concerned about the CoE and Wales being so upset about the quadruple lock. The CoE wasn’t exactly upset now was it? They’ve hardly said a word and in fact, said shortly after the announcement by Maria Miller that they were comfortable with it. It received assurances that it would not be barred from recognising and performing our marriages so why the false concern by this idiot?
I hope some of his constituents in support of equal marriage remind him of his adultery and hypocrisy to even waiver on equal marriage. This is a purely civil issue. He should learn to discern the difference between religious and civil and separate his personal beliefs and vote yes. I don’t think he’d like his marriage(s) to be relegated to a civil partnership now would he? Someone should ask him that.
Oh, I can’t go on reading all of these. David Blunket’s personal record – in the heterosexual marriage quarters – as well as his published homophobia is notorious! He also makes the same error as David Cameron – unlike the Church OF England, the Church IN Wales is disestablished (1921, I think), so for Cameron to rule on it is as incongruous as him legislating for the Episcopal Church in Scotland – or the Anglican Church in Nigeria!
>Given the Churches exactly what they asked for.
>Ignoring C4M types.
How is that a dogs dinner? He’s ignoring the opposition and written the religious out of the equation.
I wish labour would come out with some actual plans and policies other than “we disagree”.
…said the philandering cretin.
It’s about bloody time MPs in support spoke up and countered these hypocrites, in this case an adulterer. Who does he think he is? Equal marriage doesn’t affect any heterosexual, single, those living in ‘sin’ with their significant other or even married. The only ones it will affect our gay people. Which part of that don’t they understand? Is it going to stop heterosexual from marrying in the future? NO! Is it going to stop some from procreating? NO! Get over your own bigotry and hypocrisy, Blunkett and vote yes, you coward.
…are gay people.
Blunkett’s record on Gay issues is disgraceful. He has proved himself a homophobe and is doing so again with his arguments about upsetting other homophobes and the church. Can’t he see the damage he is doing?
Blunkett was the most anti-gay cabinet member in the last Labour government…
How not to answer a really simple question.
One of my mum’s friends used to work in an office block overlooking Blunkett’s office in Sheffield. They would gather on the balcony each lunchtime to watch him shagging different women in his office! A hypocritical adulterer like him can hardly make pronouncements on marriage.
No doubt he’s had a few of his own dog’s dinners over the years (accidentally of course)
Probably this issue is not corrupt enough for dear Mr. crumpty to be involved with..really nothing in it for him…speaking of dog’s dinner..then he should stop looking in the mirror…
Blunkett’s voting record on gay rights has always been patchy at best.
Outrage once gave showered him in white feathers for voting against an equal age of consent in 1994
As a US American, I’ve never heard the term “a dog’s dinner” but I get that it not meant well…. scraps of meat.
Thanks for this article and your reporting. What you do is appreciated.
I posted it to my LGBT Group on LinkedIn with over 17,000 global members to spur members to read your article and to make comment. I also scooped it at Scoop.It on my LGBT Times news mashup.
Link to group >> http://www.linkedin.com/groups/LGBT-Gay-GLBT-Professional-Network-63687/about.
All LGBT+ and community allies…. please come join me and 17,000+ of your soon to be great connections on LinkedIn. The member base represents 80% of the world’s countries.
It’s core value is – Visibility can lead to awareness which can lead to equality. Come stand with us and increase our visibility on the globe’s largest professional networking site. Be a professional who just happens to be LGBT – or a welcomed community ally.
In fact Blunkett doesn’t use the expression correctly in terms of popular British usage. He actually means ‘a dog’s breakfast,’ ie, ‘a terrible disorganised mess’. The received use of ‘a dog’s dinner’ is in ‘dressed up like a dog’s dinner’, meaning ‘very well dressed’ or even ‘overdressed’.
“My views will be informed by rational debate and discussion, but at the moment I fear the government is not clear what it is that it really wants to do.”
That’s rich coming from a man who cannot answer a simple question: does he support same-sex marriage or not?
At last somebody willing to call a dog’s dinner by its true name.
We need gay marriage proposals, but we need them from people who think before opening their mouths.
Mr Blunkett is well known for being as reactionary as he is hypocritical. He’s a silly man who did little good when Home Secretary and demonstrated his moral vacuousness. Fortunately he’s no longer of any real significance but he is in the wrong party.
Seems like Mr Blunkett has great difficulty forming his own opinion and is leaving it up to his “constituents” – how convenient.
Oh please asking Blunkett for a view on a decency issues and the church, jeez like throwing some one in with a group of sharks when their bleeding, oh and lets not forget he was a strong supportor of war criminal Blair and many other new labourites
. . . what a tosser . . .
If Labour and Stonewall had gotten it ‘right’ the first time then we wouldn’t be in this mess . . .
Thank goodness for the Liberal Democrats in a Coalition Government . . .