Gordon Brown has got a nerve. In the Daily Mail today he is putting himself up as some sort of gay rights activist and supporter. But if you actually look at his voting record on gay rights issues he has carefully absented himself on each occasion the issue has been debated. More than a coincidence, I would say. Matt Wardman has helpfully provided a list of the fourteen votes Brown has missed, such is his total commitment to an equality agenda.
22 Jun 1998
Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] — Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful
absent
1 Mar 1999
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
absent
10 Feb 2000
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
absent
5 Jul 2000
Local Government Bill [Lords] - Prohibition on promotion of homosexuality: bullying
absent
24 Oct 2001
Relationships (Civil Registration)
absent
29 Oct 2001
Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) — Consideration and Third Reading
absent
16 May 2002
Adoption and Children Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — Applications for adoption
absent
20 May 2002
Adoption and Children Bill — [3rd Allotted Day] — Clause 131 — General interpretation, etc.
absent
4 Nov 2002
Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters
absent
10 March 2003
Local Government Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — New Clause 11 — Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986
absent
10 Mar 2003
Local Government Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — New Clause 11 — Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986
absent
12 Oct 2004
Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]
absent
9 Nov 2004
Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples
absent
9 Nov 2004
Civil Partnerships Bill [Lords] — Schedule 28 — Consequential amendments: Scotland
absent
Matt did manage to find one vote where Gordon voted in favour, and that was the Sexual Orientation Regulations on March 19 2007. So that's alright then.
Data quoted from They Work for You.
106 comments:
Gordon Brown a hypocrite? Surely not?
Either that or something more important has kept him from the house.
I assume someone will ask him a direct question about his voting record?
Iain... what is your point exactly.
Would you like the voting records of the 200+ Tory MPS on these very same common bills.
Of course as a gay man, Iain is much happier in the Tory party, where Caroline Spelman is Chair. Er.... BUT do look at the Pink News website where the Mail article came from, and see Gordon's own, unsatisfactory, answer to this very question...
I would have thought my 'point' was bleedin' obvious if you had actually read the post.
What about the Sayeeda Warsi (Dave's new Equality Shadow Minister) leaflet at the last general election:
"Labour has scrapped section 28 which was introduced by the Conservatives to stop schools promoting alternative sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality to children as young as seven years old... now schools are allowed and do promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyles to your children"
Hm, not a very impressive performance by Brown.
But Iain, just for the sake of clarity, could you confirm that had you been an MP, you would have voted in favour of all these Labour measures which your own party by and large opposed?
Err - I know you're a long way away from any real political action these days Iain but I'd thought that even you would have realised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s role is quite a busy one. A tad busier, for example, than that of an opposition blogger...
As always, actions speak louder than words.
Labour says one thing and does another.
ans as Brown said
'I will listen to the people'
(and take no notice of them)
hahahaha!
"say one thing and do another?"
labour introduced all these measures - most tory MPs voted against them!
iain - did you support section 28?
Check out your own dear leaders record...
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1932&dmp=826
So is DC a bigot or a hypocrite?
Here's what the independent theyworkforyou.com website has to say about each of the three leaders. Bravo, Ming.
Gordon Brown:
"Has never voted on equal gay rights"
David Cameron:
"Voted a mixture of for and against equal gay rights"
Sir Menzies Campbell:
"Voted very strongly for equal gay rights"
Nice to see the Labour trolls out in force this morning. I rather thought this might rouse them from their slumbers.
Boris at 10.29 I most certainly would have supported the equalisation of the age of consent, gay adoption and civil partnerships.
So what's wrong with not being for So called Gay rights?
So lets put this together
Early announcement of Brownite populist policies (immigration etc.)
Dropping of Regional government (whatever we say there goes one of our election commitments)
Lead in polls
Now an attack on Cameron over homosexuality, perfectly judged to get the Party in an uproar so that ill judged comments are made on both sides, offending both the Gay community and the traditional Conservative supporter.
This man is no slouch - Autumn election anybody?
This is just to easy.
'Homosexuality — Equal rights' David Cameron MP, Witney
Commons 24 Oct 2001 Relationships (Civil Registration) - absent
Commons 29 Oct 2001 Adoption and Children Bill - absent
Commons 16 May 2002 Adoption and Children Bill - disagree
Commons 4 Nov 2002 Adoption and Children Bill - absent
Commons 10 Mar 2003 Local Government Bill - disagree
Commons 10 Mar 2003 Local Government Bill - absent
Commons 9 Nov 2004 Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples- absent
I think the interesting thing about the Labour Party is the wide divergence between their image and progressive apex and their support. Its the same on gay rights as it is race. This is why the BNP does so well in Labour areas. You will find other Labour figures codedly saying the reverse in the appropriate places ,as they have on race and immigration. Gordon would not have attended in part so as to remain close the union and socially conservative grass roots support. It is also entirely possible that privately he is not sympathetic and also aware of the non conformist support he would alienate especially in Scotland and Wales
Did you know that during the Blair Brown struggle (which Blair lost), the Blair camp was responsible for suggestions that Gordon was a gay Gordon. lovely people eh ?
I thought the imposition on adoption agencies of a duty to equally consider gay couples was a bit much myself in the context of the rest of the prejudices they are allowed to observe .Additionally I `m not sure why gay men should have preferential treatment under inheritance tax because of their particular hobbies.
The truth is though , like most people , I really don’t care a lot . I think in the context of the focus on the family David Cameron is adopting his championing of gay rights as well strikes the good balance . That is exactly where the modern Conservative should be.
The only thing that gets on my nerves about Gays is the way they always seem to have to tell you all about it . That at least does not apply to Iain , well either that or he has no sex life , not unlikely with those ties and that haircut ...
You're right Iain, Gordon should probably have taken the time to be honest and vote against some of these. The Mail article does point out though that his voting record in this area is completely lax.
Don't you just hate phrases like 'proud to have changed the tax system to support homosexual couples'? Utterly cringeworthy - and I'd wager complete balderdash.
Iain, I think you are correct to investigate whether 'words' are matched with 'actions'.
If Gordon goes out of his way to make claims then it is quite reasonable to check up on his actions.
oh Iain for crying out loud. He was a member of a Government which supports equality for gay people.
take a look on theyworkforyou and see how the Tories voted on equal rights!
Being absent for a vote (presumably because of his holding high office) is one thing, fundamentally opposing and actively voting against such equality is quite another.
you sure you're in the right party Iain?
'I'm a troll, fol de rol, I'm a troll, fol de rol, I'm a troll, fol de rol and I'll eat you for supper.’
Except of course I’m not because 'troll' means someting to do with fishing or ”a supernatural being in Scandinavian legends depicted as either a dwarf or giant and living in caves or under bridges”. and only very little children or Billy-goat gruff enthusiasts are scared of them...
Brown being 'busy' has always been his choice, particulary where there's the potential for his own personal embarrassment.
McCavity etc...
Nice to see him stoking up a pointless row with the Russians after the Metronet fiasco. Such a pity the plonker didn't take such a visibly keen interest in foreign affairs before - like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc.
it's not trolling, it's pointing out that iain dale's party opposed these measures introduced by the labour government.
iain - did you support the introduction of clause 28?
I have a feeling I know the answer.
Of Course the Daily Mail is a bastion for the protection of Human and equal rights
'troll' has an internet meaning too, silly (see def 1). Or was that just trolling too?
Brown will have been absent for most votes, along with Blair, you could find any cause and say they weren't there to vote on it. This is just politicking by Iain, doesn't mean a thing. I am sure the gay lobby feel though that Brown is a good target as a son of the manse and a fairly obvious reactionary despite being in the Labour Party.
Thank God I didn't buy the Mail today. Exactly as I had predicted, Paul Dacre was lauding the Bogeyman yesterday as a strong world-class statesman.
This follows the artificial rows with America and Russia, cooked up to tell the punters: "I'm no poodle". I'll say this for Brown: he can teach Blair a thing or two about spin.
Spot the cheapo "reverse Daily Mail" point. Is this really the best you can do Iain? What about the ludicrous Boris Johnson running for Mayor of London, or are you too embarassed to get into that?
Right, so Cameron (in Opposition) over a period of 3 years, during most of which he was NOT Leader, missed 7 votes on Gay Rights.
Over the course of 8 yrs, Brown (in Government, arguably 2nd most important Minister) missed at least 14 votes on a subject of WHICH HE NOW CLAIMS TO BE A CHAMPION.
Remember Blair (onetime PM) saying he was 'not much of a House of Commons man'? Pretty much the same could be said of Brown. And yes thank you, I am aware that the Chancellorship is a big busy post to hold, lots of business, lots of committees, lots of Smith Institute meetings to attend, election campaigns to plan ...
Iain Dale said...
Nice to see the Labour trolls out in force this morning. I rather thought this might rouse them from their slumbers.
Oh come on Iain stop being so silly. This is a good political Diary/Blogg website. Not everyone who disagrees with what you write can automatically be Labour Troll. In fWe could be Lib Green UKIP or even Tories who disagree with Cameron. It’s a good to have opposing opinions and views, Im sure you agree.
Anyway I also look at Labour and Lib sites and guess what there are Tory Trolls on them too. These include yourself Iain, you are a regular on Tom Watson blog after all, doing a bit of trolling.
Frankly this is just irrelevant rubbish..
Far more important is this..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6903902.stm
which is related to surveillance and Civil Rights...
What GB doe/does not vote for is irrelevant.. it's what The GOVERNMENT as a whole does...
As other posters have pointed out, Cameron's record is just as bad as Brown's on this issue.
Of course Goebbels does not care to mention that fact and certainly will not tell you that Ming Campbell has a much better voting record than either on gay rights.
You really can't have it both ways on this. You hold the past decade up to the light and slam Gordon for perceived failures by the government of which he was a member. In the same breath, you then challenge his support for the successes of this government - which has done more for sexuality equality than any other in the history of this country.
Would a Tory government have repealed s28 or banned discrimination on the grounds of sexuality? Not a bit of it. If Cameron has come round to the right way of thinking, then that's great, but his party has fought against equality legislation wherever possible.
Jimbo- The trolls are not "People" They are Labour Party sycophant serfs seeking to divert and control the free media .
The are the refined essence of evil and frequently lick their eyebrows with their long black pointy tongues.
JUDITH is more the sort of balanced view that should be encouraged. More JUDITH and less TROLL and the world, would be a better and sunnier place
You really can't have it both ways
Oho there goes Browns continutity chnage agenda
What's Cameron's voting record on gay rights btw?
iain still hasn't said whether he supported clause 28 at the time.
i think i know remember the answer.
Voting records:
Cameron
Ming
Cameron voted for the CPB, which is more than can be said for Brown.
King Cnut said...
As other posters have pointed out, Cameron's record is just as bad as Brown's on this issue.
Actually it's worse.In 2000, Mr Cameron said that the Blair government was obsessed with a "fringe agenda... including deeply 'unpopular' moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools".
Two years later, he told a Guardian fringe meeting at a Tory conference that he backed the repeal of the legislation - only to vote for the Conservative motion a year later.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/story/0,,1887209,00.html
Clause 28 is irrelevant anyway. Given the massive deficit in literacy and numeracy of today's under-21s, there are much more important things to be teaching in our school than the A-Z of sexual 'lifestyles'.
I see whats happening here.The Conservative Party has in the past been socially conservative and cautious in the area of gay rights . It has changed .The Labour Party on the other hand remains as commited to high taxes and burdensome bureaucracy ,multiculturalism( where the Conservatives were right ). Unreformed Welfare , anti family Policy and the export of our sovereignty to Brussels.
The question for voters is this . Do you think Bronw can win an election and not honoutr the promisess he has made implicitly and explicitly to the left wing support that elevated him above Blair.
Not bloody likely
I just wish he had been asked in the interview
"Prime minister have you ever smoked the one eyed owl?"
I could care less if has had a few Portillo moments but unlike Newmania I am very interested in what goes on in the bedrooms of our elected representatives , I would go further and suggest that they are compelled to install cctv cameras about their persons so that we can observe them 24 hours a day.
Oh Dear
Brown's stutter is back again..Under pressure at PMQ's
I like it Iain,
"i would have supported it if i was an MP"
Yeah whatever, you would have followed the whip with all the others and voted against what labour have brought in. You supported the tory party throughout their opposition to these.
If the opposition was stronger (not just the homophobe tories) then he would have voted for all of them. The Crime and disorder bill had a majority of 207
sexual offences 199
Prohibition of promotion of homophobic bullying 172
Registration civil relationships 120
Adoption and Children bill 227
Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986 - 292
None of the votes had a majority of less than 100. I dont think it was necessary to have a 3 line whip, as long as we got them through and ended the years of inequality under the tories (You probably still supported the party through these years i bet, fundraising, campainging and voting).
Cameron voted against them and now back tracks in an attempt to soften up. Your so desperate for any kind of attack. Labour is clearly for equal rights and the tories were against it, the voting record shows that. Tories should stop pretending they care, they're just doing it for image. Actions do speak louder than words - Labour brought in Civil Partnerships, Equalised age of consent, banned discrimination through goods and services, repealed section 28 and the only opposition was your party.
Just face up to it you support a party that has prevented the equality of gay people. I remember why i hate tories so much now, the sheer cheek of them......
Gordon getting a kicking at PMQs..
Anonymous (11:58) - Cameron has now learnt his lesson, evidently. What's popular or unpopular with the public doesn't matter any more - the London media's view is the only one that counts if you want any chance of favourable exposure. There are votes in saying 'anything goes', so Brown and Cameron are saying it regardless of their true convictions or voting record.
a little off topic but good news anyhow
The first Ken vs Boris poll is out in the Standard - Livingston 32%, Johnson 23%
Gordon getting a kicking at PMQs..
you mean like Hague used to give Blair a kicking? Worked didn't it?
Anon 12:34.
So for Hague read Cameron, and for Blair read Brown?
That confirms that Brown and Blair are indeed the same.
Why is Brown bothering to try to look different if even his own supporters regard him as one and the same animal? He's obviously lost that battle already. Like so many others.
Great Clunking Fister.
So for Hague read Cameron, and for Blair read Brown?
That confirms that Brown and Blair are indeed the same."
I thought it confirmed the importance of PMQs to the electorate.As in not important at all....Still, if it keeps the Tory band playing as the Cameroon titantic goes belly up all well and good...
Gordon did well at PMQ's, the Tories got a whipping :)
anyways, back to topic..
this did make me laugh on the mail article;
"But Mr Brown said it 'isn't true' that Mr Cameron is more gayfriendly than him."
Well he consistent. Consistently absent!!
anon 12:11
oooooooo get you dear , calm down you're having an attack of the vapours love.
I would guess that there are more poofs in the Conservative party now and in the past then there ever have been in the Labour party.
And that has always been the case, Toryism has always been about responsible libertarianism whereas socialism is just facsism.
When Iain puts the word "Gay" in a post, you can guarantee a torrent of mostly frenzied contributions. It's a bit of a "wind up and see them go" post if you ask me. Personally I have long ceased to foam at the mouth over the issue. As long as gays get a fair deal, but then shut up about it, I am not bothered.
I think, however, that Iain has highlighted yet again the depressing tendency of Gordon Brown to absent himself when things get controversial, and that is perfectly valid.
Jimbo has helpfully pointed out that Dangerous Dave has a similar voting record.
It just shows what pusilanimous puffballs they both are.
The only thing in their favour, and it is a bit tenuous, this, is that the issue is just not worth falling on your sword for. Better to keep your powder dry until something big like Iraq comes along and then nail your colours firmly to the fence.
Come on Iain, where's the post about parliamentary security passes?!
And in an above post someone implied unions are socially conservative. Maybe used to be the case but just not true now. They're some of the most socially liberal people around.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2093917.ece
Where is Justin Hinchcliffe when you need him ?
I think its fair to say that the Labour Party elite ( not support) have been more tied to the elitist urban anti national anti English and anti heterosexual agenda than the Conservatives in the past.The Conservatives have caught up on gay rights but remain the Party you can trust on immigration the Constitution , the family and so on.
Gordon brown personally, however is a different matter. He has given the whole issue a wide berth . Personally , then, he is not a new Politician he is an old Socialist Bruiser and this latest attempt to spray perfume on a floater will work as well as the smile .Oddly in that people like him at all, they seem to prefer him to be as charmless bullying and creepy as he really is . Its a Blair is gone thing ...won’t last
I think to be honest Iain this collection of divisions sadly makes you and your friends look just a bit silly doesn't it?
The PM and the Chancellor and even dare I say it their shadows often do not make the time to attend every parliamentary division.
They are frequently involved in other matters. As you well know. And as it should be.
If the PM and the Chancellor of the day are tied to the chamber for all divisions then it would be rather more difficult to do their jobs than it otherwise is.
I don't know what Gordon's "unsatisfactory" answer to this was in Pink News but if it anything like the above it makes sense to me.
Blair was on just a few percent of divisions attended, and while one might well argue that tying him down to the chamber would have been quite a good thing, that is often the way with Senior members of the government and their shadows. Isn't that right?
He didn't want to be seen as too eager, being as he is of course a BROWN hatter.
You've let yourself down on this one Iain. Brown has always been supportive and made it clear how he would vote, but as Chancellor having him sit in that ghastly chamber and voting would not be a good use of his time.
I think you should be concentrating on sorting out the Conservative's abysmal record on LGBT issues. The majority of Conservative members believe that gays shouldn't have rights and probably agree with the sentiments of Section 28 still.
Then again - lets look at the voting record of most of the Tory front bench. They have voted against nearly every progressive movement on gay rights over the last decade.
On the topic of Blair/Brown Hague/Cameron at PMQ, please don't forget that PMQ's had always been TWO days a week, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Until Blair came in and was so terrified of fifteen minutes of questions twice a week, changed to to 30 minutes once a week.
What would Camoron do about that ? Does he even have a view on it ? Would he change it back (he is actually excellent at the despatch box)?
Of course it should be twice a week, things occur at a rapid pace in today's media-aware world. The Russian situation at the moment is a classic for questions TWICE a week as it is developing so fast.The House is entitled to know twice a week what the PM is doing about it (and how he is taking advantage of it to gain political capital).
Sir, Letter Before Action
Your assertion that I have quote "carefully abented" myself from these debates and divisions is absolutely untrue and without foundation.
If you do not remove this post and issue a full retraction you will face the full might of the law.
And, just ask that Grant Shapps MP, even pretending to take an opponent to law can be very costly for the Conservative Party.
Gordon Brown
As various people have pointed out, the role of Chancellor is a busy one.
Given that you worked for David Davis, I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't come across the concepts of 'pairing' and a 'pairing whip'.
abented? ha ha ha, sounds a bit rude that
anon 1.36
Then again - lets look at the voting record of most of the Tory front bench. They have voted against nearly every progressive movement on gay rights over the last decade.
Let's look at the voting record of the current shadow cabinet on the most progressive legislation in this area - that of civil partnerships.
Ainsworth AYE
Cameron AYE
Davis ABSENT
Duncan AYE
Fox ABSENT
Gillan AYE
Gove NOT AN MP
Grayling ABSENT
Hague ABSENT
Hammond ABSENT
Herbert NOT AN MP
Hunt ABSENT
Lansley AYE
Letwin AYE
Lidington ABSENT
Maude AYE
May AYE
McLoughlin NO
Mitchell AYE
Mundell ABSENT
Osborne AYE
Paterson NO
Pickles ABSENT
Shapps NOT AN MP
Spelman ABSENT
Villiers NOT AN MP
Willetts ABSENT
Not quite the point you were trying to make is it?
I see that the "Great Clunking Fist" is becoming the "Great Limp Wrist." Even the geriatric Ming managed to land a killer blow on Gordon at PMQs today.
The Daily Mail publishing an article on Gordon's voting on gay rights? Hmm. I'm not so sure that Gordon has got Dacre on-side. It could be that Dacre is building Gordon up in order to bring him down.
O/T There is a vomit-inducing article in today's Daily Mail by Alastair Campbell's partner Fiona Millar on the tremendous strain his work put on them. She even received hate mail after the death of Dr. Kelly. I'm sure she was completely unused to foul-mouthed abuse.
Can we expect a similar message of support from Sayeeda Warsi?
"The majority of Conservative members believe that gays shouldn't have rights and probably agree with the sentiments of Section 28 still."
Is that members of parliament or members of the party? In either case I suspect that's a load of cobblers.
As others have noted, S28 is an irrelevance. But as for thinking 'gays shouldn't have rights'... that's a spurious assertion if ever there was one. If someone believes gays shouldn't be able to adopt a child, or get married, does that mean they would endorse 'straight only' pubs or 'gay bashing'? You are deliberately confusing legally-conferred 'rights', which in Britain are supposed to be unnecessary anyway, with human rights, which we all agree are just that - the fundamental rights of an(y) individual. And since when was having a child (for example) a 'right'?
Stop trying to make Conservatives sound like Nazis, it's utterly ridiculous.
"The Conservatives have caught up on gay rights but remain the Party you can trust on immigration the Constitution , the family and so on."
which probably explains their three clunking election defeats, right?
More voted Conservative in England than Labour at the last election . Scotland are leaving.
Yesterday is not tommorow ugly Troll.
Tommorow Belongs to Me (oops )
I see that Metronet went into administration during PMQ's.
Just thought I'd throw in a few salient facts for people to chew over.
The Tory's highest pro gay rights vote is 39 votes in favour of the CPB (Scotland) amendments - on the same vote, 43 Tories voted against and 84 made themselves scarce.
On the full CPB, the figures were 38 for, 66 against and 62 no shows.
Cameron failed to record a pro gay rights vote prior to Howard becoming Tory leader, although Osborne did manage one by voting against Edward Leigh efforts to reinstate section 28 in 2003.
Oh, and of the four most senior Tories in Parliament (Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Davis) the one with the worst voting record on gay rights is...
David Davis - 5 votes against bills/clauses extending gay rights, 6 no shows and four votes in favour of clauses restricting gay rights including one in favour of the reintroduction of section 28.
"More voted Conservative in England than Labour at the last election"
oh, so you actually won the 2005 general election then?Cheers for that. They always say denial is the best way to cope with continued failure.Of course, a four figure Tory majority in Ealing will prove that Cameron really is on the way to number 10 :-)
Iain:
More than a coincidence, I would say.
Then you're a simpleton who hasn't noticed that Brown has hardly voted on anything since 1997. Neither did Blair. You haven't even bothered to look at the votes, have you? Not one of them was even close.
Now, there's an important and interesting story in this. Do MPs who serve in government neglect their legislative duties? Is Britain's model still serving us well, or would we be better off seperating the Executive from the Legislature?
But because you are so hysterically partisan, and in particular so desperate to score just one point against Labour after all your recent own goals (most of which seem to have involved failed attempts to get some sort of rise out of Tom Watson), that you miss that and try to frame Brown as a homophobe. (This whilst one of your fellow overly-excited, reality-avoiding Tory bloggers keep telling us he's actually a closet case. Talk about Cameron having his cake and eating it.)
Iain, there's a reason you're no longer taken seriously, as a blogger or as anything else. There's a reason virtually everything you post these days results in your getting a public spanking from all manner of people. Read your posts back to yourself, and have a little think, and I'm sure you'll understand what that reason is.
"Hitch"
And that has always been the case, Toryism has always been about responsible libertarianism whereas socialism is just facsism.
How can anyone be so ignorant of history, politics - hell, so ignorant of what words actually mean - all at the same time? Do you drill holes in your head, by any chance, Hitch?
MPs have every right NOT to vote on issues that bore the pants off them. Even if they like that sort of thing.
What PMs should not do is claim to be some kind of icon for the gay community when they could not even bother to vote on the legislation.
Also; is being in high office, firmly in the closet and married these days, politically correct. Or has someone moved the goal posts yet again?
Perhaps you could ask Peter Tatchell next time you see him. His answer would be very interesting, whatever it is.
Brown seems to want his cake and eat it with a few finger nails and boggies thrown in for good measure. But then, he has got away with it for 20 years, so why not another 10 at least?
Scottish music interlude -
The Gay Gordon
The Dashing Pink Sergeant
The Camerons Are Coming Ho Ro, Ho Ro
(song borrowed from Liberal Democrats and modified for Tories)
Sexual politics is not really my bag. Can we get back to some byelection scandals or more Ton Watson bating or something?
Well hell Greggy Hitch got the Tory part right and if you want to be called a bossy pain in the arse instead of a fascist well Hell, be my guest.
You sound like you1ll fit right in with the " national" Socialism Brown seems to be inventing . Hell.
gregg
I think that you will find that it is "socialists" that tend to send pooves to death camps
Mao , Stalin, Hitler
We "Tories" being lovers of life and all the pleasures it has to offer tend to be tolerant of others tastes , they may not be to our taste but we dont care what others get up to as long as they dont cause harm or make it compulsory .
Yes, Sayeeda Warsi has previously expressed support for Section 28, a now-repealed piece of meaningless legislation pursuant to which no one was ever prosecuted, because it banned something that was in any case impossible.
However, what was always this dead letter acquired totemic significance because a few activists who happened to work with children refused to deal with one particular form of bullying, as it was always perfectly within their power to do, in order to blame that refusal on this pointless little law.
Those activists also have it within their power to define “the centre ground”, and in this case they are perfectly willing to use their power to its fullest extent.
So Warsi could never have been made Shadow Minister if she had come from an English-speaking Christian community, whether White British, or Irish, or Afro-Caribbean, or Saint Helenian, or whatever. But she is a Muslim of Kashmiri origin; so that’s all right, then.
In the same vein, imagine what would happen if a separate political party made up of White Britons, or Irishmen, or Afro-Caribbeans, or Saint Helenians, or whoever, demanded that the Labour Party select a by-election candidate who was not merely a Christian, but the right sort of Christian as that party defined the term; or else face a more acceptable candidate at the ballot box.
Yet the Labour Party in Ealing Southall has been subjected to just this pressure by the Sikh Federation, which campaigns, not only for the official recognition of Punjabi, but for the legalisation of a specific, named organisation currently proscribed as terrorist, a demand such as not even Sinn Fein ever made in quite so many words.
Incidentally while we are on the subject of Brown`s certainly peculiar sexuality I happened to be reading Boris` stuff from years ago today. He mentioned that the Blairites were the ones who were spreading the rumours that Gay Gordy was just that.( Not that it matters etc etc.)
Still I suppose now he`s "happily married" the rumours are put to rest.A woman as as searingly lovely as Mrs. Brown would clearly have had many better options than a fake marriage .?
"The Hitch" - "make it compulsory"
My God! Have you heard something? Is Alan Duncan about to introduce a bill?
I cannot be doing with that sort of thing - I am already getting through large quantities of moist bathroom stationery as it is and there is no way I am going to wear loud neckwear and listen to meatloaf.
Newmania, what is "peculiar" about Brown's sexuality? He didn't get married until he was 49, but my late father didn't until was 54. He then sired four children, and Brown has managed three (including one deceased) to date. Somtimes life just turns out like that.
Before his marriage, Brown had well-documented relationships with a Romanian princess, with a lady newsreader, and with various other women.
Civil Servant: 'Prime Minister, I have to report that a minister has been found with a guardsman in Hyde Park last night.'
Churchill: 'Last night? The coldest night of the year? Makes you proud to be British.'
Iain, I may have missed your comment on The Times today re your parliamentary pass
Newmania: "He mentioned that the Blairites were the ones who were spreading the rumours that Gay Gordy was just that.( Not that it matters etc etc.)"
If it doesn't matter then don't be complicit in this viscious and biggoted attempt at a slur by repeating it.
Did your mother never teach you about the danger of spreading rumours?
And Iain: where's the post on the Parliamentary security passes?!! How can a political blogger be mentioned in a national newspaper article and not post about it? Maybe your just saving it up, I hope so.
You seem very happy to post about your own articles when they appear in a national.
If Brown were gay, then, with this record, Peter Tatchell would be having his greatest field day ever. That he isn't proves that Brown isn't.
Gordon Brown has been as absent on gay equality as he has whenever anything of any substance or controversy has arisen. Just as with the fallout from Iraq, he has been AWL. David Cameron has, by comparison, been on the record in word and deed, supporting civil partnerships and other measures which bring gays into the mainstream by law.
It's worth pointing out that some gays have 'issues' with gay adoption / Church being banned from running adoption agencies etc in the same way some Black people have an issue with certaina spects of race law and well intended positive discrimination. So let's not be throwing accusations around because some don't agree with all that is said by one side or the other.
Brown's problem is he has never been strong enough in his own beliefs to vote for or against equality. That is what makes him look decidedly dodgy.
Yes, I have a parliamentary pass - it's been discussed on here before. I help Keith Simpson with research work, as I am sure he will be happy to confirm. It's all perfectly open and declared and quite why it should feature in The Times is anybody's guess. I suppose it pads out a story.
I think someone having a research pass while working for a lobby group is rather different to someone who is actually doing some proper bona fide research for an MP. When I was a lobbyist I made a point of never having a pass even though I did voluntary work for several MPs. None of my current activities involve lobbying of any kind and all my work outside Parliament is declared in the register of interests.
The article mentioned Sam Coates from Con Home and Jonathan Sheppard from Tory Radio. I know for a fact that they both do research for the MPs they have passes from. Jonathan Sheppard worked for Andrew Turner before he even thought of Tory Radio.
a very thorough and prompt reply, you must have been waiting for someone to ask you that question! You'd expect better research from The Times...
Pity you didn't find time to respond to Gregg(3.13) Were his observations too close for comfort?
Charlotte Corday said...
...
O/T There is a vomit-inducing article in today's Daily Mail by Alastair Campbell's partner Fiona Millar on the tremendous strain his work put on them. She even received hate mail after the death of Dr. Kelly. I'm sure she was completely unused to foul-mouthed abuse.
July 18, 2007 2:15 PM
Quite right, too. Anyone care to kidnap them and their their two spawns of Satan and crucify the lot?
wrinkled weasel has made the best post on this point by a cuntry mile.
Iain must check his 'sitemeter' and on detecting a downward blip will choose from a list of 'hot button' words to massage the clitoris of his readership.
1/ Gay
2/ Nadine Dorries
3/ Boris Johnson
4/ Something off topic about West Ham
5/ A random article from that day's 'Daily Mail'
6/ An ad hominem attack on Piers Moron / Tom Watson / Lembit Opik or whoever incurred the wrath of the Torygraph set that morning
7/ An op-ed piece on how the youth of today 'ain't wot they used to be guv..'
Still, why change a winning formula..
Thank you anon 8.31..(no. it's not me)
Certainly Nadine Dorries, whose blog I would liken to having an irritating bit of marshmallow stuck to the roof of your mouth.
WW is a traitor who having left the country finds it amusing to help the left. What will you selll out next WW ?
Going back to the original story, Conservatives believe in freedom from interference not statutory rights. That is why Conservative MPs are usually loath to support such statist activities as "gay rights".
Live and let live.
Newmania.lol! If only.
Gordon Brown - closet hetro-sexual.
The main thing about Gordon Brown is that he would be improved - nay, we would all be improved - were he to spend more time in the closet, a big oak one, locked away in the back bedroom, proof against all desire to regulate, legislate, interfere and muck up our lives. It would be even better if we could arrange to have Paul Dacre inserted with him. Steady matron. Imagine a life with no Daily Mail, no Gordon Brown, and no Mr and Mrs Alistair Cameron. It's like a mini-summer holiday just thinking about it innit.
Gay rights aren't the only "difficult" issue our courage fixated PM has avoided. Anyone remember his very notable absences during the assorted security crises of the Blair era?
I realise that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he had few duties in this area, but as PM-presumptive surely it would have been prudent to demonstrate an interest in such matters.
Gay rights are a political issue where making a booboo can be merely embarassing. Security is a national issue and the booboos potentially disasterous.
PS On the substantive issue ... I believe some gay Tory once wrote quite interestingly on the subject ... anyway, the thing is, Tories tend to take each 'gay' isshoo as it comes and vote according to their conscience. I may not always like what their conscience says, but for the most part it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with them. And the Conservatives' centre of gravity on the whole concept has moved admirably towards normality under David Cameron. Socialists, on the other hand, treat homosexuals as bought-up vote-fodder, to be bought off through special interest group legislation. You try opening the door with your same-sex partner to a Labour canvasser and telling him/her you're a happy Tory member. They get hysterical with rage, and I think their rage is driven by their sense of betrayal ... "but! ... but!," they splutter, "we bought your vote already". Look at the sneering of the Labour commenters on this site towards Iain -- an openly gay man and braver than any of them -- because he dares be a happy gay Tory who treats Brown's brown-nosing with the contempt it deserves.
iain still hasn't said whether he supported clause 28 at the time.
i think he did.
the question is, why?
It is possible to simultaneously abhor S28 and all that it stood for - as I do - and recognise one of its unintended consequences was the subsequent positive politicisation of a generation of gay people, for whom it was a landmark event in their personal political development. I came out over S28 and I think many of my generation/background/political makeup would never have bothered without such a stimulus. Integrity, or its lack, became a political test (ask Simon Hughes about this). But another reason the clause had traction is that councils were mis-spending ratepayers' money. The two issues became confounded (issue 1: what should councils spend tax money on? issue 2: what signals does a decent society send to its minorities?) and you can still hear comments from some (usually Christian) Tories who genuinely don't understand what all the fuss was about, or why it still gets brought up (I am not one of them. Well. I'm one of them, but not one of them, if you see what I mean.)
oh well, thank goodness for S28 then! hurrah for maggie!
iain still silent on the matter.
Oh FFS. I would have voted to overturn Section 28. I would have thought that went without saying.
I would have respected Brown more if he had voted against homosexual "rights". He seems to be sitting on the fence, which is well-known to cause a pain in the backside. Now why is Dale so obsessed with his pathetic little sexual habits?
Clothilde Simon
Post a Comment