Reader comments · Top Conservative donors threaten to quit party over equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Top Conservative donors threaten to quit party over equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So these people think that financial blackmail is more important than the will of the people?

    1. Or equality and justice? Bet they are in favour of freedom when it comes to removing employee rights.

      1. nixiotemba 26 May 2013, 4:03pm

        but they are ‘the Overlords’ don’t you know, surely not the timelords anyway

        what time is love?

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 2:53pm

    Just let them try it. Let them leave, at least that will be fewer bigots in the Tory party to deal with. Get money out of politics altogether and there would be better government. Wealthy people buying politicians is not a good recipe for good governance.

    Cameron must stand his ground and resist the bigots. I wouldn’t mind betting Loughton, Burrowes, Bone, Leigh, Gale and others of their ilk are behind it.

    1. Why is everybody who is not wholly for same sex marriage a bigot?

      These donors may not be bigots at all. Maybe, just maybe, they’re pissed off with Cameron wasting time on an issue that affects 0.1 % of the country and other things should take priority. How many gay people really want to marry? I’m guessing that few do and are as indifferent to same sex marriage as the tory donors.

      Apart from a few rich white men, nobody gives a stuff about same sex marriage at all; indeed given that 1/2 marriages between heterosexuals end in divorce and half children born outside wedlock, I’d say that marriage full stop is a defunct institution. Never understood the logic that because something is crap for group A it must be extended to group B.

      ‘Yeah marriage is worthless now but let’s extend it to another group so it can be worthless for them, too’


      1. Your post, paraphrased:

        I’m not a bigot, but the government can only do one thing at once and LGBT people are really unimportant. Also, there are hardly any of them and most of them don’t want to be allowed to get married anyway, according to figures I just made up. And obviously the ones who do are all rich white men because reasons, and we shouldn’t listen to rich white men. Except for rich white male Tory donors – their views are of supreme importance and we ignore them at our peril. Marriage is stupid and pointless, so it’s really, really important that we make sure opposite-sex couples can continue to get married but that same-sex couples can’t.

        1. No we continue with opposite-sex couples being able to get married because it’s law already and it’s easier to let it be and die a natural death by itself-which it is doing- what we don’t do is introduce it to another group for whom-no doubt- it will prove to be equally as pointless.

          In any case, abolishing legal marriage and providing special privileges for those that have children (of if gay adopt them) seems a better way forward.

          Why should what a childless couple do in their personal life (who gives a fig if they one another-big deal) should be of no business of the state.

          It is as ludicrous to offer special privileges for childless couples of all persuasions.

          1. I don’t see why a couple’s love life should be worthy of any elevated status from single people’s lives if there are no kids involved.

            I’m not being homophobic here as I believe that those in a same sex relationship with children should have the same rights as straight couples with kids.

      2. Sister Mary Clarence 27 May 2013, 3:40pm

        Couple of point matey:

        1) I’m black, and nowhere near as rich as I’d like to be, and I am in favour of equal marriage. My mother who is also black and nowhere near as rich as I would like her to be, is also in favour. So the white rich thing is a bit off mark.

        2) You are correct that half of (heterosexual) marriages currently end in divorce, however in 5 years the dissolution of civil partnerships is about 0.5%. I appreciate that civil partnerships have been around a lot less time than marriage, but statistically a marriage is most likely to fail in its first 5 years.

        Perhaps we should actually do away with straight people marrying (as you point out yourself, it seems worthless) and just have marriage for gay people who seemingly take life long commitment that bit more seriously.

  3. People don’t vote for the donors. But if the Conservative party do listen to the donors, it reveals how the donors have power over policy rather than people, which would show how corrupt political parties are.

    1. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 3:53pm

      Surely even the most news-adverse person in the country knows that donors and lobbyists get listened to more than the electorate do. Not just by the Tories either. All the parties put finances before principle when it comes down to it.

      Interesting that “oh so different” UKIP behave exactly the same way though, isn’t it?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 4:58pm

      It’s the Americanisation of British politics, lobbying groups, millionaires and billionaires buying elections. Corrupt! The major corporations control governments, not the voters unfortunately. These corporations are an oligarchy unto themselves. They have government by the short and curly. Look at all the financial dealings with the last government under Brown.

  4. It’s time to boycott pc world.and currys ( if not the owner he has a lot of shares there) why should we and our friend buy goods from people like that.

    1. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 3:54pm

      LOL. I’ve been boycotting them for years already, due to their ridiculously high prices and exceptionally poor customer service (IMO of course) :-D

  5. These ‘donors’ knew all along about Equal Marriage going before the Lower House so what is their problem? Stick to your guns David Cameron because you will win in the end and you are doing the right thing for the good of people all over the world and other governments that will follow suit.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 5:00pm

      I agree. He will be resolute and not give in to the back bencher bullies and bigots.

  6. If these idiots want to spread the reactionary vote more thinly across more parties then I’m fine with that.

  7. Yet Cameron still went ahead with legalising same sex marriage despite ALL the trouble it is causing him. Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party is fast becoming a LGBT saviour! So proud of him!

  8. Cameron regularly polls ahead of his own party in terms of public approval.
    If the UKIP backbenchers think their election chances would somehow be improved by removing him, they are so very, very mistaken.

  9. Minority government is political suicide.

    Surely no one could be that stupid

  10. In the medium to long term, this pruning will probably good news for the Conservative party.

    They haven’t won an election for over 20 years, so obviously their Nasty Party baggage.doesn’t work.

    Losing a few bigoted donors, and having a few bigoted MPs and local chairmen defecting to UKIP can only be a good thing. The deadwood will be replaced by people more in tune with the times.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 12:20pm

      Totally agree. The up and coming generation wouldn’t find the current Tory party that appealing. The deadwood is slowly being removed but not fast enough. Those backbenchers are an albatross around the neck of the party. They should reflect on the 2010 election. hardly a landslide but a hung parliament resulting in a unwanted coalition. Perhaps this is part of Cameron’s strategy, to stick to his guns and force some to get out altogether. I don’t think he’s that concerned about wealthy donors, some others will take their place. I’m glad too that Cameron and Clegg are not going to part ways until 2015 and that they won’t be intimidated by the treacherous bullies and bigots on the back benches.

  11. Colin (London) 27 May 2013, 7:12am

    Mr Cameron this country understands SSM and equality. We are a truly great country. A few people will always shout but no serious person who loves this country will follow Farage.
    To a small group of us and all our friends this is a women’s vote moment.

  12. Christopher Coleman 27 May 2013, 4:08pm

    I am not sure I believe that wealthy donors will really turn away from the party whose policies contributed most to the acquisition of their wealth. They may hate gays and the idea of SSM, but their love money is surely greater than their love of God and country combined. They’ll never do anything to stop the flow of that money into their bank accounts.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.