Reader comments · Party Whips accused of threatening an MP’s career over equal marriage opposition · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Party Whips accused of threatening an MP’s career over equal marriage opposition

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. They deserve to be whipped; horse-whipped.

  2. So basically signed by MPs who had opposed the bill anyway, so no bias there then.

  3. Sister Mary Clarence 29 May 2013, 6:47pm

    “It then claims that “most of” the constituents of the included MPs”


    They know this how?

    Public support is in favour of equal marriage. Its about time they started to be a little bit more representative of the majority rather then allowing religious indoctrination to control them.

  4. This is a curious thing.

    “Careers threatened”, yet most of those signing this letter could perhaps be sensitively described as either “nearing the twilight of their political careers” or “unlikely ever to join ministerial ranks”.

    I’ve posted before that the Lords would be in a constitutionally difficult place if they rejected a Bill with such widespread cross-party support on a free vote.

    The only tactic therefore left to these nobodies is to appeal to the dinosaurs in the Lords by undermining the perception of cross-party consensus with unfounded allegations. That looks pretty desperate to me.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 May 2013, 7:20pm

      Indeed desperate just as they were in the Commons’ vote in the second and third readings. It was a blessing that a whipped vote never came to fruition which might have guaranteed defeat in the Lords. They would be woefully foolish to derail it knowing the Parliament Act could well be invoked.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 29 May 2013, 8:00pm

      Indeed. Let’s hope more in support turn up and outnumber them in the vote. A free conscience vote with two vast majorities in support in the Commons’ vote is a serious warning to them. What do they possibly have to gain by rejecting it knowing the Parliament Act might well be used? So we end up with a one year delay. Makes no sense with such a large majority voting for the bill last week.

  5. Robert (Kettering) 29 May 2013, 7:41pm

    These homophobes and bigots just don’t know when they are beaten and give up do they?

    They remind me of kids screaming and having a tantrum trying to get their own way in a supermarket after being told, NO, by their parents!

    Shame on the lot of them I say.

    1. I would agree with this.

      I can see a little kid not getting his own way with his mom, so he goes and asks his dad instead.

  6. I’ll be honest, I watched the whole debate on tv (mainly to shout at the homophobes which was really therapeutic, actually) and I was a little uncomfortable with how the speaking time for each amendment kept getting reduced.

    I don’t know if this is common in Parliamentary debates or not as I was a virgin before this one, but I would’ve preferred it if everyone had got a chance to speak fully.

    On the other hand – if they’d been given this extra time there probably would’ve been accusations of wasting Parliamentary time, so you can’t win either way.

    Ultimately I don’t agree with their other points but they have a right to protest; and I’d rather they did it this way than copy the Parisian model.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 May 2013, 10:00pm

      For what it’s worth Gareth, to me there has been more debate and time spent on this bill than in any other country where it’s been legislated. We had a very public consultation more than a year ago and an ongoing exchange between MPs and constituents. For these MPs in opposition to say that it hasn’t is disingenuous. Many of them in opposition were given more than ample time and freedom to express their dissention earlier in the third reading, in fact more than those who were in support. This wasn’t the only matter to be debated, there were several others coming after the bill, so time was essentially of the essence. I don’t accept their complaint. It’s a case of sour grapes. They were wasting time anyway with their repetitive, specious rants and unfounded claims even though I respected their right to express them.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 29 May 2013, 10:02pm

      I also noted that the limitation to 4 minutes occurred during the last hour of the debate applicable to both opposition and supporters. The Speaker couldn’t accommodate everybody, an impossibility. They had sufficient time in a debate which lasted beyond five long grueling hours. Bercow handled it admirably.

      1. Yes Bercow did well, I was impressed. Although some of the language used was cutting a bit close to the bone at times.

        Don’t get wrong I am not at all advocating on their behalf, it was more that this was one of my concerns while I was watching. I was worried that for the bill to succeed the process it had to be airtight, unassailable – to occupy a position so far beyond the reach that its detractors could never make a complaint like this.

        The upside of this development is that if they’re now only arguing on technicalities (I accept that it is a sleaze tactic ), so it seems that the alleged ‘moral’ debate has been lost and set aside… Until the Lords go at it.

        I’m still optimistic though. Having seen how the majority of Parliament spoke, seeing the validation of the campaigners whove worked tirelessly for this, and from hearing and sharing views with people on this board…

        It gives me hope for society.

        1. I accept your points though Robert, thank you.

      2. They are lucky to get 4 minutes. In New Zealand when they debated same sex marriage, they only get two minutes to get their point across, at the end of which a bell rings and they have to end their speech, regardless of whether they have made all their points.

        Bercow did incredibly well.

        1. Have to disagree re the length of the New Zealand speeches. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings allow for 10 minute speeches. Some MP’s split their call to have 5 minutes each.

  7. Don Harrison 30 May 2013, 1:31am

    My f?????g MP was the first to sign.
    In a letter to me he told me that is was not homophopic.

    1. Write to him! Now I want to know how he’s going to justify that little duplicity.

  8. Don Harrison 30 May 2013, 1:36am

    It was not in the Tory Manifesto to rob the sick and disabled of their benifits either

  9. It was orchestrated campaigns from the holy ones and homo hysterics that threatened MPs careers.

    Is the public supposed to be completely daft?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2013, 3:16pm

      Quite right Ray. The link below illustrates that quite clearly. Some of Lord Dear’s comments have parroted everything Sharon James has been saying. They’re all reading from the same delusional religious loons’ script verbatim. We heard it in the Commons and we’ll hear it again on Monday and Tuesday.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2013, 11:51am

    This evil ugly harridan is the ringleader. She and her C4M/CI bunch of hate-mongers have led an endless email and letter writing campaign aimed at the Lords over the past few weeks. Just listen to what she says then you can deduce where Lord Dear et al get their mendacious information from.

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.