You can hardly blame someone for resigning when their leader does something which has never been previously mentioned, and runs counter to the parties ethos. As much as Bliar was a Conservative running the Liebour party, Cameron is a leftie running what was once a right of centre party.
This is a man who signed the UAFs original founding articles! hardly what one would expect of a Tory party leader!
There is a problem with the gay marriage bill and it isn’t in the content, it’s in the way it was done, and that unfortunately leaves a real bad taste in some peoples mouths. Cameron should have been upfront and open about his intentions and not sprung this as an ambush – it didn’t even go through the usual consultations.
God, you’d think that not one potential Tory would touch the same constituency seat for the same reason then. But there you go. You’re obviously wrong, aren’t you.
In fairness to Cameron I think he was fairly upfront. The whole equal marriage thing was dragged out sufficiently that everyone must have had a heads up about it.
In relation to the story itself, it seems a bit tenuous to say the least to link everything together in the way it has been.
Non-story …. I think so
Totally agree with that. He was more than upfront at the party conference in October 2011. What more do these naysayers want? They just don’t like the idea of gay people having the same rights under the same name. Separate is always equal to them because they’ve never faced discrimination and take their rights for granted. None of them had to fight for theirs, nobody should in a just society.
Issues don’t necessarily have to be in a manifesto. Ambush? During the run-up to the 2010 general election the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said that a Conservative government would be happy to “consider the case” for ending the ban on same-sex marriage. On 4th of May 2010 the party published a “Contract for Equalities” which said it would ‘consider’ recognising civil partnerships as marriage if elected. As for consulting the public, what do you think public consultations are about? The public responded for and against and thankfully, it received more support from thoise in favour to introduce it. Voters have contacted their MPs, there has been ample coverage for and against in the media. Cameron announced his support for equal marriage at the party conference in 2011. It is now going through committee scrutiny to improve the contents of the bill. What more do you want?
Er you, and your moanies might keep bleating on about this but the fact is David Cameron was Very much upfront about this Before the last general election. He is doing what he said he would and going further.
If you can’t handle that, or handle change the problem lies entirely with you, nobody else.
“You can hardly blame someone for resigning when their leader does something which has never been previously mentioned”. What, like selling off the NHS? I don’t see ANY MP in the Coalition resigning over that! The whole fuss with Equal Marriage has been used as a smokescreen to cover the REAL damage being done by the Tories and their Non-Dem Bitches!
Quite right Liam, and importantly, selling off the NHS wasn’t even in the manifesto either. No consultation needed either. Nobody has brought that to the attention of the opposition every time they raise the manifesto nonsense in regard to equal marriage. About time someone did.
Same old Nasty Party!
Ivan is Sexy!
Gets me when those who have been in the Tory party for decades say the David Cameron has lost touch. It just couldn’t be them could it.
They can’t see that their whinging is because they themselves have lost touch with the public, with a modern society. Family value are for all not a selected few. They are hypocrites.
I am not surprise Mr Massow lost out. Sadly the Tories in certain area just don’t want to accept change and I know these particular areas are probably the worst on how they treat the LGBT community.
True, but those in opposition in the Tory party will spin this as a result of its support for equal marriage having learned nothing from the huge republican defeat in the American election last November which resulted in three more states introducing it and more on the way. It’s one of the reasons Sarkozy lost to Hollande.
No it really is not a reason Sarko lost to Hollande.
Ivan is Sexy
I’d like to modify that, Kim, to:
Ivan LOOKS sexy.
“As a husband and father I understand the demands and pressures that families are going through. . . . I know what it is to have struggled.”
I look forward to the not-too-distant day when a gay parliamentary candidate will be able to say the same thing while he campaigns for a seat.
Similarly, I look forward to the day when a lesbian will be able to say:
“As a wife and mother I understand the demands and pressures that families are going through. . . . I know what it is to have struggled. “
Quite right. What is more significant is that nobody knows struggle more than gay people who have to deal with discrimination the moment they discover who they are as they grow up. In fact, no other group has had to put up with what we’ve had to all our lives. No straight white person, single or married has had to fight for any civil right since women were granted the right to vote. Families don’t need to have children to be called a family either. A lot of heterosexuals lose sight of that because they’ve not been affected in the way that we have. They get up every day, go about their lives and business without ever having to think about the possibility of marriage. It’s their birth right, among others. We’ve never had that luxury which they have always taken for granted.
I also look forward to the day when marrying and having children (both, in our society, a matter of choice) won’t automatically be seen as some sort of hallmark of self-sacrifice that gives unique insight into economic struggle.
I think it does a bit. When it’s just two people in a partnership, the choices one makes affects two adults. With a child, you suddenly realise the necessity of self-sacrifice and you appreciate with greater concern the problems of the future.
I thought Ivan had switched to Labour some years ago. I guess he has switched back again.
That’s correct,he defected to Labour in 2000 saying he cared cared about helping the marginalised.Somebody who switches alliegances back and forth can’t have many principles.
While homophobia no doubt played a part, the fact that Ivan flip flops between whatever party is in power and is generally regarded by even gay Tories as a deluded publicity seeker was probably a much bigger deciding factor.
I doubt that homophobia had anything to do with Ivan Massow not being selected.
I also think that Pink News is being a little disingenuous by linking the Chairman’s resignation to IM not being selected.
This article from the Telegraph suggests that IM is more interested in him than anyone else. That’s why he wasn’t selected.
I would say, however, it seems odd that the Association didn’t interview one of their own residents, that I would have thought would be a normal starting point.
Sounds to me as if the local party selected someone highly representative of local conservatives.
As indeed they should.
Ivan has always been good looking and never lost his looks….but to be a TORY…how could you…..
Ivan is one of those power gays who did little for anyone other than promote themselves and feather their own nests.
What, like Elton John, you mean?
*puts on fireproof Boxers….”