Matthew Parris

This election has made me understand how it felt to be a lefty under Thatcher

I love the British people. And I believe they are about to make a stupid and unfathomable mistake

2 May 2015

9:00 AM

2 May 2015

9:00 AM

On the weekend of 25 April 2015 I started to believe that the party I supported might not win an impending general election. I’m used to that. But I started to believe, too, that my fellow citizens might be about to make a stupid and unfathomable mistake.

I’m not used to that at all. It has come as an awful shock.

For the first time in my life I have understood how it must have felt to be a convinced socialist in Britain these past 36 years since 1979: to live in and love a country whose people had got it completely wrong. ‘Well, diddums,’ I can hear left-wing friends reply: ‘Welcome to our world.’

In the general election of 1979, as a parliamentary candidate, I knew the voters would return me and believed they would return a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher. Obviously, because the country was in a mess and it was Labour governments’ fault. The common sense of the British people (I thought) would prevail.

And it did. It did again in 1983, and in 1987, though by then I sensed that Mrs T. was going a bit off the rails and could understand why not everyone (including some of our own party) felt fully on board. Then came John Major, whom I trusted and admired, so in 1992 when it looked like we were losing I did wonder about the wisdom of the British crowd. But given the last Thatcher years, the poll tax and all that, I would not have blamed my countrymen for taking a gamble with Labour. They didn’t. I felt proud.

The years of embarrassment that followed, as the party I supported humiliated a brave and well-judged Prime Minister, shook my confidence not in the electorate but in my own party. I wasn’t at all surprised when a thoroughly plausible right-of-centre Tony Blair won the country over in 1997. I personally thought he was a charlatan but could see his appeal; and during the economic boom which followed I could see why Britain returned him again at the next election, and the next. I was not convinced by William Hague’s or Iain Duncan-Smith’s leaderships and, though voting Tory without hesitation myself, could see why others hesitated.


All through the pomp of the New Labour hegemony I exonerated my countrymen for their belief in Mr Blair. The explanation was simple: he had charmed and hoodwinked them. It happens. One forgave the voters and blamed Blair.

Then came Gordon Brown and the 2010 general election. It being inconceivable to me that the British could want him to carry on, one felt a slight sense of disappointment that we did not offer a Conservative prime minister the thumping majority he deserved, but never mind: we got a Conservative-led government. And a remarkably good government it has proved, achieving most of the important things it promised and more.

So as 2015 approached, and as May approached this year, I have felt confident, almost relaxed, about the decision we’d make this time. It’s been tough economically for millions — I know that well — so one could hardly expect a Tory landslide; and there has been something rather unlikeable, rather rude, rather mean-spirited, about the impression the party has given from the top downward over the past couple of years.

But the fundamentals of prudent government have stayed sound; David Cameron seems a steady and basically sane sort of chap; our Chancellor is quietly an enlightened politician; and a cautious endorsement by the electorate seemed the likely as well as (to me) the deserved result. I have even hoped for an overall majority this time, and thought it perfectly possible.

More so because of the quality of the opposition. I’ve never shared the contemptuous attitude towards Ed Miliband that most of the media, almost all the Conservative party and a good many of Mr Miliband’s own party have adopted towards him. As Labour leaders go, he has seemed to me perfectly serviceable. Miliband hasn’t been the problem: the problem has been the philosophical mess where there ought to be an opposition’s national idea. I don’t believe the British electorate gets any sense of a Labour vision for Britain. The electorate does, however, sense Labour would spend more, borrow more and interfere more. And the electorate did (I supposed) know that more public spending was not the answer, borrowing nearly sunk us within recent memory, and meddling rarely does any good.

Yet here we go, looking (as I write) as though we may be about to elect a weak, minority Labour government. What possesses us? I’m used to disagreeing with the general public, but rarely have I felt so baffled by their disposition. I’m so very sure they would regret this and just don’t know why they look like doing it. Have I — have we Conservatives — completely misread our countrymen?

But you know (perhaps?) how it feels to be saying something and, even while saying it, even while believing it, hear others snorting? I do know the response — ‘Bad loser!’ — and feel its justice too.

My dear Uncle Ray was a convinced and quietly intense socialist all his life. Ray just kept on believing, kept on loving his country, and kept on being sad that his country didn’t see it his way. He even declined to learn to drive because he believed in public transport and the railways. Politics, philosophy and history were very important to him — part of his core, I think — so to see his world going in completely the wrong direction, so contrary to the future in which he’d believed, must have dismayed this passionate soul profoundly.

As a student and then as a younger man I didn’t see, didn’t think about, how our Britain, our democracy, history itself, were all — as it were — letting Uncle Ray down. Now, as an election approaches which may do the same to me, I do see. Maybe it serves me and my certitudes right.

el

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • davidshort10

    Good observations as always from Mr Parris but I’m not sure he should be writing ‘my party’ when if memory serves me well he was never a member of the Conservative Party even when he sat as a Conservative Member of Parliament.

  • Will Douglas-Mann

    Don’t worry Matthew. Ed is to frightened of the press to even think about imposing your Uncle Ray’s dream. The two Ed’s might know the economy has been a disaster under this government but the electorate have been so successfully brain washed into believing that the deficit is the number one priority that they have to pretend to believe it as well.
    Nothing much is going to change.

    • Des Demona

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • RJ O’Callaghan

    I sympathise, Matthew, and, as a Tory, I’ve had my “wobbles” during this campaign. But the polls are now going in our direction and with 1 in 5 voters still undecided, my hunch is most of them will vote for us. Add that to the fact that our vote share has held up and you’ve got a Tory “victory”. The Blessed Margaret once said that the facts of life “do invariably turn out to be Tory”. That’s why in the past your countrymen haven’t disappointed you and why I don’t think they’ll disappoint you this time. Steady the buffs!

  • A leader has to command respect and Major palpably failed to do that. I had great sympathy for him at the time too, and I voted for him in ’97, but his legacy has been disastrous for the Tory party and the right. I wonder how many times Portillo has lain awake and pondered his reluctance to strike the blow when he had the chance.

    It’s also strange that Howard’s excellent platform in 2005 has been omitted here. He actually won the popular vote in England. This is perhaps a reflection on the kind of Tory that Mr Parris is.

    With regard to the gist of the piece, you need to factor in the constituency boundary scandal and the effect on our politics that mass immigration has had. Labour has assiduously courted the ethnic vote, while increasing it’s numbers. The irony is that this has not been accompanied by a collapse in it’s support among it’s traditional vote in England (yet) but in Scotland

    • amicus

      its, its and its

    • Ivor MacAdam

      A leader has to EARN respect, not command it.

    • vieuxceps2

      It’s not it’s, it’s its………Sorry, already corected by friend Amicus.

  • whs1954

    Mr Parris, you and I both live in Tower Hamlets, which has been rather prominent in recent days. In the last week Tower Hamlets has had its Mayor removed for corrupt practices, has had Eric Pickles move in to take control of the council, and in the last 24 hours the Electoral Commission have removed ‘Tower Hamlets First’, the controlling party of the borough, from the list of parties on the basis it was corrupt beyond belief.

    The judge who tried Lutfur Rahman made it clear how Rahman had played the racist card at every turn, shouted ‘Islamophobia!’ at every criticism, and by these means had whipped up the Tower Hamlets Bangladeshi community into a froth of fear – fear, utterly unfounded, that they were on the verge of becoming victims of a new pogrom or Holocaust – and a froth of anger – anger that was vented against non-Bangladeshis, and anger that was turned into voting power at the polling stations. The judge even predicted his judgment would be called racist, and he was proven true, with Oliur Rahman, the acting Mayor of the borough following Lutfur Rahman’s vacancy, labelling the judgment ‘institutional racism’ and so on.

    http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/oliur-raham-cries-wolf.html?m=1

    In this context it is worth noting the ‘Tower Hamlets First’ party did not stand for the General Election in the two Tower Hamlets constituencies, but instead backed Labour. In the seat Mr Parris lives in, the same Oliur Rahman mentioned, thoroughly backed the Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick for re-election.

    http://trialbyjeory.com/2015/04/07/tower-hamlets-updates-lutfurs-party-will-not-contest-jim-fitzpatrick-and-unlikely-to-fight-rushanara-ali/

    In short response to your article Mr Parris, it must then be said – you say “Have I — have we Conservatives — completely misread our countrymen?” – but maybe the mass of your fellow countrymen are not so dumb to vote for Miliband – but it’s not just your countrymen who get to vote next Thursday.

    • smspf

      There is nothing wrong with tackling injustice and corruption and to object to it. That however is no valid reason for making random and stupid people famous in return.

    • tjamesjones

      this is pointlessly off topic.

      • The last paragraph has the point.

  • Des Demona

    I recall, Mr Parris, way back in the eighties or was it early nineties, one of the number of Tory recessions anyway, when you took part in a TV programme where you attempted to live on dole money for a week or so.
    As I recall, the programme ended with you sitting in the dark unable to feed the electric meter and having nothing to eat all day but a tin of sardines or such like. It seemed to have quite a profound effect on you.

    At the time, we used to see Thatcher’s minions such as Portillo sneering at us from the TV screens on a regular basis – (very much a changed man now, but no wonder he lost his seat, his arrogance and lack of empathy were plain to see as was the same for many in the cabinet at the time including ”something of the night about him” Michael Howard) – so your attempt to see what life was really like for the poor came as a relief and surprise.
    However, with even some of your party referring to those days as them being the ‘nasty party’ do you really look back with such rose tinted glasses?

    Indeed, given your comment here

    ”there has been something rather unlikeable, rather rude, rather mean-spirited, about the impression the party has given from the top downward over the past couple of years.”

    Has much really changed?

    • tjamesjones

      1 million more people in work since 2010, even with big cuts in the number of bureaucrats. not on the dole.

      • Alex

        But they still aren’t getting any money.

        • tjamesjones

          what’s your evidence?

      • Leftyliesrefuted

        But apart from that, what have the Tories ever done for the jobless?

        😉

        • Matthew Walsh

          A 50% increase in homelessness over 5 years.
          600,000 people on unsure 0 hours contracts.
          900,000 people using food banks.

          • Many of those zero hours are what the person wants (youth in education, pensioners, etc); others are happy with the flexibility. Labour seem happy to use them but then hypocrisy goes with the territory.

            Food bank used increased many fold under Labour; it increased much more under the Coalition because they immediately (2010) made the Job centres part of the solution: i.e. getting the food vouchers given exactly where they were needed. The act that you haven’t even bothered to find this out speaks volumes.

      • 2 million actually, same again in apprenticeships.

        • nancledra

          A zero-hours contract on six quid an hour is not a job. And being taught how to answer a phone is not an apprenticeship.

  • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

    The UKIP, a mistake.
    The SNP, a mistake.
    Labour winning most seats, a mistake.
    The LibDems reduced to insignificance, a mistake.
    The Greens not in Parliament, a mistake.

    Reality, it’s too shocking to take in.

    • redsquirrel

      the greens becoming more about socialism than environment, a mistake

  • James

    Britain needs to evolve from the two-party system. The Punch & Judy Show has run its course.

  • The wisdom of crowds is rarely off the mark – thankfully

    • Precambrian

      That depends greatly on the crowd.

      • I believe in the British, look at the debate last night. The standard of questioning was far above that of PMQs.

  • john p reid

    The 1992 labour view, we deserved to win, was something I heard the Tories say in 2010, as of course the Toeies didn’t win in 2010′
    But now, yes I voted labour, but Ed miliband in office would be according to Philip Collins at the times, so bad, it would out labour out of power for a generation.

    • berosos_bubos

      The world doesn’t work like that. One reason we have been getting conservative-lite is that the party was hollowed out to a certain extent between 1997-2010, in terms of senior figures developing strategy. Being in power will allow the Labour party to further strengthen the ‘blob’ so they remain in power even when they are not. It doesn’t matter how bad things are the core Labour vote will still vote Labour because they base their vote on a narrow set of interests.

      • john p reid

        I didnt dispute that,but it understanding what the electorate want, or persuading them, not the 35% strategy, based on a split right vote with Ukip, getting back libdems coz of the colaition, and what real policies do labour have apart from the NHS that the public really want.. Labour twice got 41% of the vote, a dodgy 35% on low turnouts is nothing

  • Precambrian

    Foolishness is part and parcel of an election today, give that universal suffrage means the parties have to chase the majority vote….and the majority in the UK are:
    * poorly educated,
    * largely distracted by an assortment of celebrity non-entities on the television and internet,
    * kept in a state of perpetual confusion by a society that accelerates more and more each year (leaving less time for consideration and patience).

    But no one dare speak of this, because like the funding of the armed forces (“our boys” as the tabloids put it) or the NHS, its a sacred cow that is never to be questioned.

    • Chris

      Elitist twaddle. Majority vote means true democracy.

  • liversedge

    Matthew, You need help (or different drugs), you seem to have left reality behind somewhere in about 1975.

  • Lady Magdalene

    You didn’t misread your countrymen.

    You completely misread the people who supported and voted for a CONSERVATIVE Party. They didn’t want Blair lite. They didn’t want BluLabour. They wanted Conservative Polices.

    Instead, Cameron set out to pull the party to the left and pandered to the Guardianistas and liberal intelligentsia,

    He deliberately and systematically smeared and insulted his own core right-wing, patriotic party members as well as those of us who had already decamped to UKIP following the betrayal of the Maastricht Treaty – enacted by your beloved Major with NO MANDATE.

    He lied over the Lisbon Treaty; he then grandly announced there would be no EU Referendum because HE, Cameron, didn’t want one. He’s been forced by us to back down.

    And then people like you regularly and deliberately sneered down your arrogant noses at working class Tories who live outside your elitist circle: remember the Clacton article? Well there are a great deal of us out here who won’t forget it.

    You and your arrogant pals need to learn: you serve US. And just like any service provider – if you insult your customers, they won’t come back.

    • tjamesjones

      oh I get it because Cameron set out to pull his party to the left we’re going to punish him by putting in power a party far further to the left. That’ll learn him!

      • john p reid

        It happened in February 74

        • …and look how that ended up.

      • PetaJ

        “Learn us” more like!

      • vieuxceps2

        “We” won’t put a further left party in power, “they” will do that because Cam et al are not right enough in any sense of the word. Lady Magdalene is correct.Call yourself conservative? Then act conservative.Why do you think UKIP has flourished?

        • ButcombeMan

          What Parris and his ilk, fail to understand (and this article proves it) is that Cameron has led his party to a place where too many long serving Conservative supporters detest him.

          We did not leave him, he left us.

          I have left after 50 years.

          I cannot stand what Cameron or Parris for that matter, have become. A soft leftist metropolitan elite, removed totally from the real hopes, fears and aspirations of ordinary folk

          If the price, for forcing a realignment of center right politics and a rethink, is a minority Labour government, so be it.

          I want my country back, whatever the price.

          I am digging in for a long fight. I am not going back to Cameron’s breed of tories

      • diqi

        Except by not voting for Cameron how else do you suggest people impress on his party their view, to the point that the party actually takes any notice, that the party has moved too far away from their beliefs?

        • Conor Rynne

          By getting into contact with your local Conservative MP or councillor candidate.

          I’m running as a local Tory councillor candidate myself. Trust me when I say we listen to the concerns of the public. It is our job. If we don’t we have almost NOTHING to go on to do our jobs.

          • diqi

            My MP definitely listens to his constituents, it’s the party taking notice bit that is sadly and demonstrably lacking

          • Conor Rynne

            That depends on whether they can come up with a solution to that which doesn’t involve unduly hurting or angering a lot of people. You probably aren’t the only person affected by your problem, but more often than not one action usually has an opposite reaction, and unlike physics, that reaction may or may not be equal.

            It could be that, and I’m not pretending to know your complaint or situation, the solution that would make people with complaints like yours happy might do harm to 5 times as many people. If your complaint is serious and the harm done might cause a small grumble to the people affected by the solution, the party is probably going to consider it, because it might be a worthy trade-off.

            But like I say, I don’t know your situation, so what I’ve just said is kind of a general rule rather than anything specific. We as a party want to do right by you, but we also want to do right by the rest of the populace too.

          • diqi

            Read Lady Magdalene’s comment again.

            You are espousing the politics of an independent. However, if you stand as a Conservative then conservative voters expect certain policies and views of you. If you reject those expectations after getting into office then you have no support and you would be a fraud.

            Cameron and his group do not listen to anyone outside their favoured clique, they are not worth my vote.

          • Conor Rynne

            I am aware that there are party policies that cannot be ignored and philosophies that need to be followed as a party member. I am sorry that you hold the view that we as a party do not listen to your concerns.

          • Lady Magdalene

            My local Conservative MP is a piece of lobby-fodder who isn’t interested in the views of his Constituents.

            The Conservative Party betrayed its core voters when Cameron and the LibCons turned it into a Tribute Band to Blair.

            I didn’t vote for the original. Why on earth would I vote for his Heir?

      • Fried Ch’i

        Bang on. This is why the Tories must work with labour in Thanet and end NF’s career which will in turn kill off Ukip – then those voters will return. It’s the only way.

        • Wessex Man

          Wow ha ha said the silly clown.

        • Alexsandr

          if farage goes there will be a new leader or a new party to fill the right of centre vacuum left by the tories. the pretend tories have had their day.

          • Fried Ch’i

            When Farage loses Thanet then the kipper dream’s over.
            The implosion would be so huge even Kilroy Silk would turn in his political grave. All back to mommy – the 22 are already preparing for kipper reunification.

          • Alexsandr

            the right of centre little c conservative mindset has been awoken and will nit be put down as easily again.

          • Fried Ch’i

            Stop twisting and turning, the 22 will welcome you with open arms.

          • ManOfKent

            22 is the percentage vote share the Tories will get in 2020 after they split over Europe again and the rest of the Eurosceptic grouping finally leave the party. They can pretend for a few months that they are not a broken divided dysfunctional party but once the election is over the internecine warfare will start all over again!

          • ManOfKent

            Oh so you are a troll. I hadn’t realised……

        • Dogsnob

          Yep, I see your line of thinking there: a joint monopoly that flies in the face of the democratic process. Neat.

        • ManOfKent

          I’d have thought Labour would have learnt their lesson about collaborating with the Tories after their vote collapsed in Scotland because of their collaboration over the independence vote but if I might point out a significant lump of their current vote is former Libdems who left the Libdems because they fornicated with the Tories too. Do you see a trend here? Collaborating with the Tories loses votes and Miliband has just made a battle cry to Scottish Labour that he will fight the Tories till he dies.

          The idea that Labour will cooperate with Tories anywhere under such circumstances and potentially undermine their own bid for Downing Street is laughable. Farage is far more of a thorn in the Tories side than it is in Labour’s right now and Farage winning means one less Tory vote in Parliament. Not only that Tories have banged on and on that if you vote UKIP you get Labour. What Labour voter in their right mind is not going to take that as a second best option behind voting Labour?

          As ever the dim-witted Tories are the authors of their own demise. They really are crap at this politics lark!

        • Lady Magdalene

          NOTHING will make me vote Conservative – unless and until the Party adopts a policy of leaving the EU and finds itself a credible Better Off Out Leader.

          Ball’s in your court.

          • Fried Ch’i

            You have nowhere to go when UKIP implodes.
            You will come begging on your knees.
            The 22 will welcome you with open arms, ten years would have gone by you going round in circles as the clueless right would have achieved nothing in real terms and talking only yourselves into prolonged retirement.

            Ball’s always in your court actually doing something, anything.

      • ManOfKent

        No but it may teach voters who still do not understand the threat that so called urban liberal centreist (aka centralist) views hold for this country and teach them not to vote for those who endanger us and in doing so it gets rid of Tory urban liberals like Cameron which is a blessing this country should not refuse!

      • Dogsnob

        Both parties are now so leftist that the degree of difference is hardly worth the mention. Didn’t have to be like this.

    • john p reid

      But the Tories didn’t win last time,we have a coalition,, Blairites poliies were Tory policies, apart from the big society, which is blue Labour, blue labour was based in community, the church, and the fact labour use to be socially conservative
      If the public wanted a right wing Tory party they’d have voted for it in 2001, 2005

      • Mr B J Mann

        Eh?!?!?!?

        Traditional Labour, as opposed to “Old” Labour were Methodists, anti 24 hour pub opening, anti gambling, pro educational elitism, and saw the Welfare State as safety net/believed that sponging off the state and being a shirker not a worker was a cardinal sin.

        And if the public had wanted a LEFT wing Tory party they’d have voted for it in 2001, 2005.

        Instead of abstaining in droves!

        And who, exactly, voted for gay weddings!?!!!!?

        • afhtown

          “And who, exactly, voted for gay weddings!?!!!!?”
          All of the people who are about 20 years younger than you, at a guess…

          “8 per cent of 18 to 34 year-olds think gays and lesbians should be able to marry… Overall almost seven in 10 Britons – 69 per cent – believe that homosexual couples should be able to marry while just over a quarter – 28 per cent – disagree.”

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10782135/Majority-of-Conservative-and-Ukip-voters-back-gay-marriage-poll.html

          • Mr B J Mann

            I take it you’re about 6, rather than a 6th form politician.
            Ignoring the ridiculous assertion about polled figures (that’s not a vote, it’s an admitted opinion, it’s a well researched and well established fact. or empirically observed truth, if you prefer, people tend to give the “PC”, or socially acceptable if you prefer, answer, especially in matters such as the environment, or other areas, which “show” how much they “care”, for example, if people actually bought as much fiar trade and organic produce as they claimed in surveys the supermarkets would be selling nothing else!):
            As same sex marriage wasn’t in the Conservatives manifesto, and not even discussed as a proposal:
            N_O____ O_N_E____*V_O_T_E_D* FOR GAY WEDDINGS.
            Which bit of that are your teachers forgetting to indoctrinate you with.
            Instead of PC rubbish?!?!?!
            By the way, have you read my post (I’ve used it twice in answer to Mr Child’s attempts to rubbish my contributions (in between his ad hominem attacks and straw men, in fact, he’s not really got round to trying to rubbish them, so I’ll withdraw that allegation) on what gay activists have actually said about why they are trying to get gay marriage legalised??!?!
            PS I wonder how many of those surveys started with an explanation of what the activists, not necessarily even gay, many gays don’t actually believe in gay marriage (or using it as a Trojan Horse for political ends) actually want to achieve?
            And went on to explain the “unintended” consequences of such a law before asking if people would support it?
            And how many put them on a guilt trip and ensured they “voted with their heart, rather than their brain, when they answered the survey?!

          • so3paperclips

            Mr Mann,
            I take it you are over 60? The reason I say this is because for almost everyone under 50, prohibiting gay people from getting married is unfathomable. I am about as right wing as people my age get and it is blindingly obvious that all the “reasons” for prohibiting gay marriage are fig leaves for prejudice. It has nothing to do with me (or you for that matter) whether two consenting adults wish to get married.
            Political parties depend on widespread support. If you are going to limit the Conservatives to drawing on the support of aged bigots, then you will watch them decay into irrelevance.
            The public does want centirst government. They repeatedly voted for Blair and then for Cameron/Clegg/Brown, who are all cheeks of the same arse. They don’t want hang-the-queers Tories and they don’t want red-in-tooth-and-claw Socialist as the voters tell us – every time.

          • Mr B J Mann

            so3paperclips I take it you are under 55 as that’s when the rot seems to have really set in.

            As I take it you didn’t pay me the courtesy of even reading the post you are supposedly “replying” to with your ad hominem attacks, never mind any of the other ones I’ve posted on this sub-topic

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS According to you it’s also no business of yours if I want to marry a horse or shoot a fox.

            So your point is?!?!?!

          • Jon Olsen

            Its no business of yours what two CONSENTING people want to do . If you can prove the horse wishes to marry you then i have no issue with it marrying you.

            Your fox shooting comparison is ludicrous.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “People”?!

            Does that mean you are one of those “progressive” “liberal” types who think that “young people” have a uman rite to explore their sexuality?!

            Does that also mean that it’s none of my business if a “young person” oppressed and discriminated against by divisive and unequal age restrictions wants to marry a consenting old codger?!?!

            And so if a terrier keeps following a consenting adult around and rubbing itself against their leg you would give their marriage your blessing?!

            As for the shooting:

            Thanks for confirming you can’t counter the point!!!

          • Dave smith

            Excuse me I am 60 and I don’t care what people get up to. It is not Gay people we need to worry about it is child molesters and people who harm others including child beaters – where does any party really get to grips with those problems.

    • john p reid

      Rest of your comment is good though

    • greggf

      I was going to tell Matthew Parris Lady,to read an article by Armando Iannucci and perhaps begin to realize what drives the voter currently, which isn’t more party politics, but your final sentence seems to invoke similar sentiments so I appended it thus.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/general-election-2015-the-idea-that-one-party-can-represent-all-that-we-believe-in-just-doesnt-apply-any-more-10193013.html

    • Wessex Man

      My lady if you were leading a party, I would fight to my last breath to get you elected.

      You sum up the mood of the country exactly, the fact that you’ve had to reply to the person who represents all that is wrong with politics today and for the last twenty five years says it all about the depths to which The Spectator has fallen.

    • Holly

      You and your ‘arrogant’ pals need to remember that your vote does not only affect you.

      Cameron has infuriated, disappointed, and many times downright depressed me, but this election is not simply, ‘just about Cameron’, or ‘just about me’. It is about us, where we are heading, and where we want to be in five years time…
      Or, more importantly, where we DO NOT want to be.

      It is really a case of how much are we are willing to make the country bear, just because we don’t like Cameron?

      Folk can call me, and several will, but after changing my mind several times, and vowing not to vote conservative this time, I will.
      NOT because I am a Cameron fan, because I AM NOT! but because the country does NOT need, nor does it deserve another Labour government.

      …And just think how much you will be able to moan at Cameron for not getting a majority when Miliband’s Labour party drag us deeper and deeper into Europe, because of all his infantile spending plans, that will, within a few years, get us going cap in hand for an EU bailout.
      Save your anger for after you vote….
      You will have plenty of chances, and FIVE YEARS to stomach what’s coming…
      Balls in the Treasury.
      Burnham in health.
      Coop at the Home Office
      Chuck as the business minister.
      Reeves, Leslie…the list of the unsuitable, is just too long for even me to ‘dig my heels in’, and stick stubbornly to my decision to vote UKIP.

      Now is not the time for us to be stubborn.
      Now It is really, make your mind up time.

      • Wessex Man

        It’s 800 years this year since the first bloom and struggle for democracy that we now hold, it’s the peoples right to vote in any party they wish and as a member of UKip who is democratically minded I will accept our country’s fate.

      • Paddy

        Well said Holly!

      • diqi

        I don’t believe your first sentence and premis is a valid assertion. A person’s vote is that person’s vote, in a democracy it is their chance to express their opinion and preferences. What is clear is that it is a person’s only chance as once elected the parties ignore the voters for 5 years.

        I do not trust Cameron’s words or pledges and I do not agree with many of the decisions and actions he has taken. I will not vote for him.

        I don’t agree with not voting so I must now decide whether to vote for a different group or spoil my vote.

      • stevieg4ever

        I cannot believe I have had to scroll down over fifty odd comments to get to this opinion, well put Holly. Some people are just not living in the real world, is 1997-2010 really so long ago for some Spectator readers?

      • Raddiy

        I have read on sites like ConHome over the last 5 years from people like you, how glad you all were when we left, the party was well rid of us…blah.blah.blah. It will apparently never get elected as long as the ‘swivel eyed loons’ are in the party, so let’s drive them out, liberal Conservatives are the only group you wanted to break bread with, apart of course from your partners in the shrinking centre ground, the LIb Dems.

        You didn’ t want us. you didn’t listen to us, but throughout all the insults and smear you arrogantly assumed that we would all be subject to Stockholm Syndrome and come running to vote for you at the GE. And now at 1 minute to midnight, the penny has impacted on the collective Conservative Party single brain cell, and realisation has dawned.

        We owe you nothing, you have lost any right to our support, and even now in the darkness before the dawn, you arrogantly try to blame us for your self inflicted condition. Tomorrow your party will get it’s just deserts, and it will have brought every single defeat on itself,.

    • jim_joystique

      How many voters would the Tories lose if they went full retard to the right?

      Quite a few I suspect.

      • ManOfKent

        Putting aside the contemptible sneering arrogance of your post firstly do explain what you mean by ‘full retard’ (clearly you are not politically sensitive enough to consider the feelings of the mentally disabled and are sufficiently bigoted to use them as an insult) to the right.

        And secondly then perhaps you would like to name a party that actually proposes to go ‘full retard’ because I suspect your version of the right is a deranged fantasy of your sole making.

    • Brian J.

      This is exactly the line of thought issued by Real, True Conservatives when Major lost in 1997, and Hague in 2001, and Howard in 2005. It will be just as successful now.

      Margaret Thatcher is dead, and so is the world where “there is no such thing as society.”

      • Mr B J Mann

        Clearly you haven’t got a clue as to what “there is no such thing as society” meant.

        Can I suggest you do some research before proving, yet again, how politically naïve you are!

        • Brian J.

          I know perfectly well what she meant, but Real, True Conservatives are the ones who are responsible for claiming that it means “you’re on your own,” which is a message that the British public has repeatedly rejected.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So why did you bring her, and the out of context quote, into it?!?!?

            Or do you not know what she meant despite your claim!!!!

    • Ian Miles

      What a resounding load of piffle. What people are annoyed about is this idea, as proffered by the Conservatives that and I quote “we are all in this together” when clearly “we” are not. The idea that the Conservatives are as if by divine right and in a smilar manner to Republicans, the right party to govern all others, is very long past its sell by date when the Empire was laid to rest. The Tories increasingly tell everyone else what is good for them, whilst be completely isolated from the effects their policies can have. Education and the NHS are prime examples where Private Healthcare and Education remain completely untouched by Tory policy and thus no impact is felt by many Tory voters and as importantly by Tory Ministers and MPs’. I am no great supporter of Labour because I think they have no further big ideas. However the idea that it was Labour that brought the UK to its knees in 2008 have never been real or a realistic portrait of what happened. It was largely Conservative voting professionals, the term used very loosely, that through sheer incompetence and greed did the deed. However there has been almost no recognition or justice following those events. The 5 years of fallout has not had any impact on most Tories. It is about time the UK’s political system, Politicians and electorate grew up and matured into one which is much more interested in what is best for most people, solving issues pragmatically and with a sense of society rather then by applying Political dogma relevant 50 years ago.

      • Mr B J Mann

        ” It was largely Conservative voting professionals, the term used very loosely, that through sheer incompetence and greed did the deed.”

        Loosely?!

        You can say that again.

        How loosely do you have to use the term to cover Gordy derestricting credit controls (not Thatcher’s derestriction on the artistos control of share sales to their mates).

        And his encouragement and fostering of a house price inflation fuelled consumer credit funded feelgood pseudo boom to mask his PFI rip offs and his forcing kids off the dole and into the bank to not just pay for their own living costs for three years, but to fund a boom in the higher education sector while they are at it?!?!?!

  • Damaris Tighe

    The reason why Labour may lead a minority government is not because they have something to offer but because your party, Matthew, has little to offer. Being good managers isn’t enough. Faux passion isn’t enough.

    • Muttley

      Faux passion isn’t just not enough, it’s transparent and repulsive.

    • Except they aren’t even good managers are they? Good managers are loved and trusted by the people they manage.

  • John Carins

    You and the Tories have been out manoeuvred by Labour. The Tories had their chance to bury socialism but blew it. Labour have by putting party first ensured support through migration and by the Tories’ inability to make the necessary boundary changes. Ironically, the best hope for the Tories is the SNP.

  • goodsoldier

    Well, many of us are hoping for your moral comeuppance.

    • john p reid

      It could be argued labour felt they deserved to win in 1959′ so when Heath felt he deserved to win in Fb 1974′ and labour won, by fluke in February, then by Wilson spending 10 years of money over the next 6 months so he could win in Oct 74′ ,

      then having bankrupted the country ,it put labour out of power for a generation, and it took Thatcher 10 years of hard slog,to get the country financially back together, before the recession of 89′ saw all the hard work down the drain.

      • took thatcher 10 years to mess country up so another goverment could put it back/giving poor help/thatcher was hag/worst prime minster i have known? ho david has over took by margine

        • Mr B J Mann

          You can’t spell and you obviously can’t count either.

          When Brown repeatedly boasted about how he was responsible for x consecutive months of boom, it shouldn’t need a genius to count back and work out that the boom started at the beginning of the Major government.

          And so it shouldn’t have been rocket science to figure out that the boom was kick started by the Thatcher government

  • lakelander

    If a Labour minority government is elected it will be due to around 2/3rds of a 10%+ UKIP vote having been subtracted from the Conservative vote.

    Blame who you will, but that’s the problem.

    • Molly NooNar

      UKIP weren’t around in 2010 and Cameron couldn’t win a majority. He even had the advantage of facing a doomed Labour administration blamed for a financial crisis and that was universally unpopular.

      Cameron isn’t winning a majority, especially not after the way he has treated the poor and the North in the last 5 years.

      • molly your right hes actually out but tory supporters cant see that

      • Mr B J Mann

        Weren’t you even born in 2010 then?!?!?!

        They were founded in 1993!!!!!!!

        Nursery school socialists and “greens”:

        Dontcha just luv em!

    • labour is returning i am so sure i bet my last pound ha ha everyone is under estimated british public//had enough of torys bleeding poor? they finished give david nail clippers

      • Tim Reed

        , . : ;

        I just thought I’d lend you some punctuation.

      • lakelander

        You should have spent your last pounds on an English course.

        • you should learn to keep gob shut

          • lakelander

            Erudite, aren’t you.

  • Mode4

    Parris is one of those Tories that doesn’t face reality. The Tory party has changed beyond recognition. Doubling our National debt, supporting mass immigration are hardly conservative core values. It is the lack of conservative principal that is causing the Tories so much pain. There is one other important fact. You cannot believe a word Dave says and so nobody trusts him. He is a compulsive liar.

    • vieuxceps2

      Moreover,Mr Parrish ,not everyone is infavour of the same -sex “marriage” law,a totally unnecessary piece of legislation given the existence of civil partnerships.Pandering to a vociferous minority, whether religious or sexual or political does not enthuse the ranks of the many,it just makes ’em disgruntled.i understand your sadness, but not your surprise.

      • David Child

        Not voting Tory on the basis that they passed a piece of legislation that affected no one other than those whom it enabled to marry seems odd.

        • vieuxceps2

          Same-sex”marriage” affects all of us in that it is a mockery of a natural union formulated to give approval by the society in which it thrives, with the aim of ensuring the continuation of that society. Labour’s Civil Union gave homosexuals the same rights with no need for gay “marriage”. If such were needed ,there is nothing to stop a couple of LGBT acronyms from attending any holy grove or lake or hilltop where they could invoke a supernatural benison upon their handfasting rite.Hence “unnecessary “legislation by the Cons.

          • nancledra

            Marriage, whether same-sex or otherwise, is a contract and it doesn’t affect “us” in any way at all. Stop obsessing about other peoples’ sex lives.

          • vieuxceps2

            It affects “us”in that it demeans and diminishes the custom of the majority.It makes natural marriage meaningless. I have no problem with anyone’s sex-life ,what troubles me is legislation enacted for just that purpose.What has sexual behaviour to do with the law?

          • afhtown

            “It makes natural marriage meaningless. ”
            How, exactly?
            Also “natural” – it doesn’t really work as a description here. Marriage is a legal concept, it doesn’t grow on trees or appear ex nihilo with a little ribbon on it saying “this one’s for my straight pals”.

          • vieuxceps2

            Natural marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of law or religion. It has existed as long as we have,although both state and church have each meddled with it.
            There is no point in quibbling about words and using Latin to demonstrate your nous until you reach reductio ad absurdum, although parti pris well describes your debate. you KNOW that marriage is natural and that the pathetic attempt of your group to join is meaningless.
            I have no wish to deny you the comfort and safetyof a loving union,but you can never be married (unless you become straight I suppose).You have your civil unions,not available to me of course, giving equality with married couples,so what’s the problem?If you need a supernatural blessing ,why not invent your own church? We did.

          • afhtown

            You’re making the classic schoolboy error of conflating “traditional” with “natural”. Traditional would be right. Natural is an overstatement, and basically a bit meaningless. Nature is everything that comes before mankind decides to legislate. We have civilisation in spite of the natural world, not because of it. You just don’t like gay people having the same status for some presumably deep rooted psychological reason…?

          • vieuxceps2

            What no foreign this time? Do you not think that mankind enjoyed a shag before laws were thought of? That’s natural enough for me. Civilisation is mankind’s progress to live with nature as his environment ,sometimes well ,sometimes ill.Gays do have the same status ,it’s called civil partnership.
            “Deep rooted psychological reason”-You gays always propose that. Sorry to disappoint you, but thanks all the same.

          • afhtown

            You seem terribly confused… So to summarise your argument:
            1. Straight marriage is “natural”
            2. Because heterosexual caveman sexytimes was a good thing.
            3. All reasonably old things that were for nice straight people equals good.
            4. Therefore anybody else getting married = bad.
            Is that it? Not exactly undergraduate logic I have to say.

            I’m not gay as it happens (nicely assumed there), just bemused by the lazy thinking of the right. I’m only arguing for equality.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So the question is:

            Do your views come from the lazy thinking of a straight lefty-“Liberal” fellow-travelling useful idiot?

            Or are you actually actively trying to undermine the foundation blocks on which Western civilisation is founded, and so destroy it?!

            Here’s what the people who want to bring in same sex marriage actually admit their aims are:

            Masha Gessen, l3sbian journalist, author, activist for LGBT rights and Pink Triangle Campaign founder:

            “g-y marriage is a l!e.”

            “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for g-y marriage generally involves ly!ng about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we l!e that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a l!e. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

            “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

            Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International g-y & L3sbian Human rights Commission:

            “Being qu33r means pushing the parameters of s3x, s3xuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

            “Radical” writer Judith Levine:

            “In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the s3x or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of l3gal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of s3x or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abus3 of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

            H0m0s3xual activist Michelangelo Signorile:

            “A middle ground might be to fight for same-s3x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s m0ral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

            And:

            “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

            H0m0s3xual activist and Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne:

            Told a protest rally for h0m0s3xual marriage in Melbourne that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-s3x couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it.

            So, are you trying to destroy marriage in particular and society in general?

            Or are you just a lazy-thinking useful idiot?!

          • afhtown

            so marriage is one of the “foundation blocks on which Western civilisation is founded”? Not 100% sure that’s true. I would have said the rights of man, respect for persons, freedom of conscience, free speech (engaged in just now so points there). I don’t remember us vanquishing the Mongol hoards so that we could maintain a 1950s vision of marriage? Maybe I missed that week at school.

            The fact is you clearly don’t know any gay people. They mostly don’t grandstand about marriage’s value in some social battle of wills, but they like to be treated equally. Being given some training wheels version of marriage and told “there that’s for you lot”, isn’t really going to cut it. It’s really no more complicated than that.

            I’m betting that society is going to do just fine, however much you cling to some lost straight-edged paradise!

          • vieuxceps2

            “Mongol hoards”-? The old Alma Mater’s slip is showing .State education, I expect.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “so marriage is one of the “foundation blocks on which Western civilisation is founded”? Not 100% sure that’s true.”

            Would you prefer “Western Societies”?!?!

            “I would have said the rights of man,”

            Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!

            Nor WOman, then?!?!?!? SHAME!

            “respect for persons,”

            Shaming anyone who disagrees with the PC viewpoint?

            “freedom of conscience,”

            Banning religious organisations (who placed a far greater proportion of children, especially problem ones) from acting as adoption agencies unless they agreed to take gay people onto their books?

            Bankrupting religious guest house (ie the guest house was religious) owners for treating unmarried gays in exactly the same way as they treated unmarried straights?

            “free speech (engaged in just now so points there).”

            People have been charged with suggesting we might be too full to take in immigrants, asking a mounted cop if he knew his horse was gay, and even for “revving a (temperamental, dying) sports car engine in a ‘racist’ manner?

            And had visits from the (thought) police for querying whether two gay males were the best foster parents for a child and leaving out leaflets recording the fact that the bible says men shouldn’t lie down with men.
            And people have lost their jobs or been demoted for praying for people?!?!?!?!?

            “I don’t remember us vanquishing the Mongol hoards so that we could maintain a 1950s vision of marriage? Maybe I missed that week at school.”
            Eh?
            Are you allowed to say Mongol?!
            And what’s that got to do with the price of fish?!?!?!?

            “The fact is you clearly don’t know any gay people.”
            Actually, I’ve got gay relatives, had gay clients in another life, and when I lived darn sarf I did most of my socialising with gays in gay bars.
            But even if I hadn’t, even if I didn’t know any, there is no clearly about it, and even if there was, what odds?
            Are only people whose best mates are gay allowed to have a point of view in your version of a rights of (wo/)man, respect, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech “society”.
            And you are trying to “argue” that society hasn’t been undermined by PC activists?!?!?!
            No surprises there then!
            “They mostly don’t grandstand about marriage’s value in some social battle of wills, but they like to be treated equally.”
            They were treated equally.
            Anyone, gay or straight, could always marry someone of the opposite sex, form a family unit, and raise kids.
            And I never said gay people were trying to undermine society, or even marriage, or even that gay people wanted same sex marriage.
            I was clearly referring to gay, and other, activists (see also my other posts if you’re still confused).
            “Being given some training wheels version of marriage and told “there that’s for you lot”, isn’t really going to cut it. It’s really no more complicated than that.”
            What are you on
            about?!?!?!

            “I’m betting that society is going to do just fine, however much you cling to some lost straight-edged paradise!”
            No doubt you think society is just doing just fine, unfortunately it’s the rest of us that are going to have to make good your gambling debts.

          • vieuxceps2

            Not gay,you little poseur? I don’t mind your pretence to be educated, but ,damme,it’s a bit of a sod when you importune me and then turn out to be straight! Have you no shame?

          • afhtown

            Ah, so it’s being a “poseur” to point out when those on the right engage in sloppy use of language/logic to prop up their anti-equality ranting? I must be a state-educated poseur – the worst kind!

          • vieuxceps2

            Yes,you must be.Farvel.

          • vieuxceps2

            “I’m only arguing for equality”- Whilst you’re fighting for the gays, put in a plea for heteros who want to enter into a civil partnership,will you? Or does equality need you to have four legs? Or be a homo?

          • Mr B J Mann

            So, as a non-schoolboy expert:

            How many aboriginal human or close cousin apes and other primates societies have “natural” same sex “marriages”?

          • blandings

            “Stop obsessing about other peoples’ sex lives.”

            Take your own advice

          • Paul

            Gay people want equality in every form. My should my rights depend on what you think, do I tell you who you should be allowed to marry? This legislation was necessary for my dignity and the dignity of many other people. And it’s not a minority supporting this legislation, but a majority.

          • vieuxceps2

            Gay people,along with all minorities ,want not equality but special treatment.Did you know that heterosexual (aka normal people) cannot have Civil Union?
            Whom you “marry” Paul is a matter of indifference to me , as is the question of your dignity (I don’t suppose my dignity bothers you either). As I have written elsewhere,go to quiet and “holy” places(grove, hillside, lake,cave) and seek the blessing of the Genius Loci (that’s Latin) on your union.Why do you need a law for that?
            A supporting majority you say? But a minority using the law.As I say, special treatment for minorities.

          • afhtown

            “Gay people,along with all minorities ,want not equality but special treatment.” So what you’re saying is – equality is not possible, is not desirable. Only the majority will have what it wants, everyone else, get back in your box?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ehhhhh?!?!?!

            Where did he say that??!?!?!?!

            Where did he say: equality is not possible?

            Where did he say: equality is not desirable?!

            Where did he say: Only the majority will have what it wants?!?!

            And where did he say: everyone else, get back in your box?!?!?!?!?

          • David Child

            Marriage is not a natural union, it’s a man made concept. Sex is a natural union, and if someone is born gay then that’s nature at work. Marriage is lovely though and I see no reason to deny it to anyone. The marriage of any gay couple has precisely zero effect on my own marriage.

          • vieuxceps2

            Nobody wants to deny anyone a partnership with another person.When a man and a woman decide on this it’s called mariage and approved and certified bysociety.Should two persons of the same sex desire such an union then there was a civil partnership available embodying all the legal rights enjoyed by married people.
            Following the now-usual path of minority lobbying, especially strong amongst homosexuals,therehas come the risindignity of a man having a male “wife” (at least on some days,perhapd they share the duties on a rota basis

          • P_S_W

            “When a man and a woman decide on this it’s called marriage and approved and certified by society.”

            Well now, when a man and a man decide on this it’s called marriage and approved and certified by society.

            Times change, move along…

          • vieuxceps2

            Times do change, but truth does not and neither does reality.There can be no marriage of same-sex people.Have your unions and partnerships,but marriage is for a man and a woman.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, and as a (gay?) actor pointed out, once you allow gays to marry, what’s to stop brothers and sisters demanding the “right” to marry if they love each other??!

            Which was ridiculed on that 10 o’clock Channel 4(?) comedy(?) because “the clue is in the name, it’s “incest”, it’s illegal” or words to that effect.

            Errrmmmmmmm, that was the (gay?) actors point:

            Yesterday gay marriage was illegal, but people insisted it be legalised because gay people loved each other.

            So what’s the argument about making yesterday’s illegal incestuous marriage legal tomorrow if they love each other?!?!?!

            And paedoph!l!lic marriage the day after?!?!

            And inter-species marriage the day after that!!!!!!

            “Times change, move along…”

            As they say!

          • Michele Keighley

            Maybe – but it is always going to be sterile union. Times will only change when that changes. So why did civil union not meet all their requirements? Why did it have to be marriage – the union of a man and women for the procreation of children – that had to be the goal?

          • Dogsnob

            Marriage is man’s way of producing the stable environment that a man and woman need, for the 15 to 20 years of producing and bringing up the next generation.
            It is in the interest of those who would bring down the future of our society, to wreck that stability. They are faring very well and will use anyone or anything they can to finish the job.

          • David Child

            So – any marriage into without the express purpose of bringing up children is somehow invalid? And for those people that cannot have children for medical reasons – they should not be allowed to marry? This is the logical conclusion to your argument.

            I would postulate that gay marriage in fact helps bring stability to society by not making people “outcast” within the society they are bought up in. I like marriage, I think it is a wonderful thing and I think it is the building block of modern society. I wish more people entered in to it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh, Purleeeeeze!

            Stop projecting!!!!!!!

            Marriage was for the purpose of childrearing (matrimony is from the same root as mater/mother – the man is taking the woman to be the mother of his children).

            ANYONE can play:

            There is nothing, has never been anything, to stop a gay person marrying a straight person, or two gay people marrying.

            They just have to be of the opposite sex.

            No one checked up on their sexual preferences.

            And it wasn’t possible, and it’s still impossible, to be certain an opposite sex couple can’t conceive.

            And it’s the exception that proves the rule.

            OK, so some couples couldn’t conceive, but marriage is so inclusive an institution that no one bullied them for it, although the partnership could be undone if it didn’t bear fruit (or it couldn’t or wouldn’t be consummated).

            But that is no reason to go extending it to groupings that clearly can’t be for the purposes of producing a family.

            Just because I love my sister, daughter, dog, favourite chair:

            Doesn’t give me the “right” to show my love for them by marrying them.

            And society isn’t discriminating against me by not recognising the relationship through marriage.

            Just like it didn’t discriminate against gays when it recognised their marriage to someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex:

            It always treated straights in EXACTLY the same way.

          • David Child

            So. I agree that the purpose of marriage when originally conceived almost certainly around providing stability for child rearing, continuation of the next generation and do forth. The root of the word is largely irrelevant as such concepts have existed before the creation of the languages that English is rooted in.

            However you accept that marriage is an inclusive institution where marriages that are not based on the concept of child rearing are also valid. Ok, that’s nice. You argument seems to be that if we were to extend that out to allow gay couples to marry it would lead to other people marrying dogs and chairs (what happened to the camels?)

            So I would contend that the concept of marriage is wholly reliant upon two self aware creatures that understand they are making a commitment well above and beyond that of a mere sexual union and that both parties have to be able to understand that and agree to it. This excludes dogs, and chairs.

            So. What is your logical and reasoned concern? Where is the damage that gay marriage causes?

          • Mr B J Mann

            What is my logical and reasoned concern? Where is the damage that gay marriage causes?

            I keep telling you.

            But you keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la-la-la-I’m not listening”!

            In case you missed it elsewhere, see what gay activists themselves say on the subject:

            Masha Gessen, l3sbian journalist, author, activist for LGBT rights and Pink Triangle Campaign founder:

            “g-y marriage is a l!e.”

            “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for g-y marriage generally involves ly!ng about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we l!e that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a l!e. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

            “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

            Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International g-y & L3sbian Human rights Commission:

            “Being qu33r means pushing the parameters of s3x, s3xuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

            “Radical” writer Judith Levine:

            “In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the s3x or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of l3gal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of s3x or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abus3 of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

            H0m0s3xual activist Michelangelo Signorile:

            “A middle ground might be to fight for same-s3x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s m0ral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

            And:

            “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

            H0m0s3xual activist and Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne:

            Told a protest rally for h0m0s3xual marriage in Melbourne that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-s3x couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it.

            So, are you trying to destroy marriage in particular and society in general?

            Or are you just a useful idiot?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “I would postulate that gay marriage in fact helps bring stability to society by not making people “outcast” within the society they are bought up in. I like marriage, I think it is a wonderful thing and I think it is the building block of modern society. I wish more people entered in to it.”

            The only thing that makes groups into “outcasts” is the activists insistence of turning them into “victim” groups and them insisting they get preferential treatment.

            And that anyone refusing or complaining shouldn’t only be ostracised and shamed, but should feel the full force of the law.

            Isn’t it strange that the Cultural Marxists, having recognised that the downtrodden workers were never going to rise up and overthrow the evil white Western Christian capitalist oppressors, decided that they had to dump the workers and march through the capitalists institutions, undermining them by getting (non working class) women, and other “oppressed minorities” to revolt instead, while undermining their society by promoting divorce, same sex relationships, promiscuity, and “equality” in everything (eg educayshun, egerkashern, egermakation….).

            Of course, there never was, and still isn’t, any kind of concerted conspiracy to achieve this.

            And if there ever was, or is, you, obviously aren’t part of it.

            Are you?

            Nope, just one of the useful idiots!

          • David Child

            One thing that makes people feel outcast (and there are a multitude of things that can do this, some I have sympathy with and some not) is being in a society where your sexuality has historically been oppressed and to feel that as a result of this you do not have a stake within that society. Some people feel it more keenly than others, some with more reason than others. However none of that deals with the question, what is damaging to you if a gay couple get married?

            As for the rest of the rant “Isn’t it strange that….” I can only answer “No”. It’s not strange because it’s not real. It is a rather simplistic and silly attempt to describe the developments of western society since the works of Marx were published as some grand overarching conspiracy. It wasn’t, it was far more complicated than that. And that’s not important as you’re trying to establish a logical reason as to why gay marriage is damaging and so far you’ve established that it’s because your dictionaries will need revising and you’re now claiming it’ll lead to men marrying chairs, which is very silly.

            I’m a useful idiot? That’s just playground abuse, rather disappointing really.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “One thing that makes people feel outcast (and there are a multitude of things that can do this, some I have sympathy with and some not) is being in a society where your sexuality has historically been oppressed and to feel that as a result of this you do not have a stake within that society.”

            So you support the activists using that as an excuse to undermine and destroy society?!

            “Some people feel it more keenly than others, some with more reason than others. However none of that deals with the question, what is damaging to you if a gay couple get married?”

            I’ve repeatedly told you.

            And you repeatedly ignore it and pretend I haven’t.

            I’ve now posted in reply to two of your supposed “replies” a selection of statements from pro same s-x marriage g-y activists.

            No doubt you’ll ignore those too!

            “As for the rest of the rant”

            So, you’ve failed to engage.

            And now you fall back on the ad hominems!

            “‘Isn’t it strange that….’ I can only answer ‘No’. It’s not strange because it’s not real. It is a rather simplistic and silly attempt to describe the developments of western society since the works of Marx were published as some grand overarching conspiracy. It wasn’t, it was far more complicated than that. And that’s not important as you’re trying to establish a logical reason as to why gay marriage is damaging and so far you’ve established that it’s because your dictionaries will need revising and you’re now claiming it’ll lead to men marrying chairs, which is very silly.”

            And the straw men, or is it straw chairs this time.

            Clearly from my quotes elsewhere g-y rights activists are self-confessedly trying to undermine marriage in particular and through it society in general.

            It may, or may not, be part of a grand conspiracy.

            They may all be acting completely independently.

            It may be pure coincidence that they are all fighting towards the same end, using the same means.

            But that doesn’t alter the cause.

            Or the effect.

            “I’m a useful idiot? That’s just playground abuse, rather disappointing really.”

            But that still doesn’t answer the question of whether you are part of the “cause”.

            Or just a naïve part of it’s effect.

            Perhaps when you’ve finally left the playground and matured a little you’ll be able to decide for yourself.

            In the meantime we’ll just have to wonder.

          • Dogsnob

            It is dreadfully sad when a man and woman find they cannot have children. They are left to find solace in each other, or perhaps in adopting a child. Those who marry with the express intention of staying childless, are an unfortunate product of our current societal death-wish.

            A union between two of the same sex is not in any way ‘invalid’, but ‘marriage’ is a word exclusive to that of a man and woman.

            The theatrical aping of heterosexual ceremony demeans the very basis of homosexual ‘difference’. Or is it your contention that there is no difference?

          • David Child

            Of course there is a difference but the “aping” the theatrics of the ceremony isn’t demeaning, unless you feel it is. Some people find the concept of a traditional white wedding where the bride is “given away” demeaning, others don’t. I don’t really care either way. When it comes to the theatre that is marriage ceremony then people are free to do whatever works for them.

            “They are left to find solace in each other” – which sort of suggests that child free couples should wander about looking at each other and being sad at their pointless life whilst grabbing any little joy they can from whatever life brings. Sort of negative and condescending.

            How about older generations getting married? Long past the ability to rear a child but seeking happiness. They may have had children already and, at the age of 60 or even 70, feel they don’t want more. Are they an expression of a societal death wish? Or are they, like the gay couple, merely getting married to show a commitment towards one another and an ongoing joy in each other for the future?

          • Dogsnob

            I feel that the parodying of marriage, as carried out by same-sex couples, is demeaning of the institution.

            A childless couple is undeniably, a negative, for they will never experience the greatest joy that this life has to offer. It’s not a matter of condescension, it’s just a fact that cannot be appreciated right up until the instant one’s first child is born.

            Twilight marriages: who could knock that? Grab what happiness you can, before the stroke/tumour/cardiac failure puts the lights out. Same-sex couples are of the same finite stuff and so it’s only natural they will need a constant one. It’s just not marriage that’s all.

          • David Child

            Ok. You feel that it’s demeaning. I’ve no argument with how you feel, otherwise I’d be the thought police.

            I can’t agree that a childless couple is undeniably a negative. It frequently is, but there are exceptions even within a younger marriage. There are some people, and thus some couples that are simply not cut out for parenthood and for whom having a child would be a disaster. It’s not that common but you do see it.

            As for grabbing happiness in those twilight years. Yes, well put.

          • afhtown

            How does extending it to people who aren’t having children “wreck” it exactly? Or are you just a teensy bit anti-gay?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmmmmmm

            See my post a few higher up in this thread that quotes what gay/activists are actually trying to achieve by getting same sex marriage legalised:

            Not just wrecking marriage, but the family, and through that overturning society as we know it

          • Dogsnob

            Not, ‘people who aren’t having children’, but same-sex couples.

            Marriage has always been a ceremony to join a man and a woman. It is the foundation of societies across the world. Only in the western nations is this foundation parodied in the form of same-sex ‘marriages’. This is an attempt to undermine the concept, by means of the appropriation of the word and the aping of its ritual.

            I’ve had a good think about your question and, no is the answer.
            I am not ‘anti-gay’. I do disagree though, with the project of the overbearing adulation of ‘gayness’ which seems to insist that no part of mainstream, straight living should be left to its own in peace.

            I believe the whole pursuit of a traditionally heterosexual contract, by homosexual couples, is inappropriate and unecessary. It is a cynical gesture, the aim of which is to belittle a mainstream institution which is worth keeping.

          • afhtown

            All of these philosophically illiterate attempts to shore up your prejudice! Amazing. Oh well, I’ll give it a final go:

            1. Love is the same for everyone. Straight love isn’t more special or more traditional.
            2. People who get married today are making a commitment to each other in the eyes of society, friends, family (you’ll notice I don’t bother to add “God” in, so pencil that in yourself if you feel the need).
            3. Marriage is a gesture between two people, which doesn’t in and of itself seem “naturally” limited to straight people.
            4. People who are not you get married everyday. Lots of them probably shouldn’t because it’s not going to work, or they’re hopelessly naive, – it doesn’t really affect your marriage does it?

            Therefore, there’s no reason to bar gay people from marriage.

            Your claim that marriage has traditionally been only for straight people is true of course, because until recently we didn’t give gay people ANY rights, it was in fact CRIMINAL to act as a gay person.

            Think about voting. Voting used be just for the gentlemen. Does it offend you that we’ve had a rethink and decided the ladies should be able to vote too? Was there something sacred about all those years the ladies weren’t allowed to vote, that we’ve somehow lost? No. Thought not.
            Your argument is as paper thin as that I’m afraid!
            It’s not a cynical gesture, it’s a desire to be accorded the same normality of status. Something you seem unlikely to enjoy giving.

          • Dogsnob

            I can’t see much evidence of the need or the presence here from either of us, of any especially elevated philosophy.

            ‘Marriage’ as a word and a concept, describes the union between a man and a woman. That same-sex couples have the need for union is perfectly understandable and is rightly recognised in law through civil partnerships.
            I have read all of your argument and it shifts mine not one bit.

          • ButcombeMan

            Tell your first line to a couple of Swans.

            A fixed partnership of support between a man and a woman in order to support the raising of children, has been a core component of the human condition, in most human society since forever.

            It is embedded not just in the Judao Christian ethos of the UK but in that of the recent immigrant groups that Cameron also offended.

          • Holly

            There is a really odd thing that happens in cases like this, those who regard themselves as being on the right of the political scale inadvertently end up very much on the left…

          • Mr B J Mann

            YES, it DOES!

            Gay couples cannot produce natural offspring.

            So your producing natural heirs is divisive and inequitable.

            So, as in trend-setting “liberal” Canada, you will have to adopt your own children, or you would if the authorities here hadn’t been laying the groundwork by changing all legal documentation to refer to partner a and partner b, parent 1 and parent 2, or whatever it is.

            However, as gays cannot commit adultery, your wife can cheat on you and it can’t be allowed to breach the union in an “equitable” society.

            Although as they have effectively eliminated fault in marriage and your wife can do whatever she likes and still get the house, kids, maintenance and pension, I suppose that’s irrelevant now too?!

          • Dogsnob

            Precisely. The gay marriage project cares more about tearing down our society than it does about gay people.

          • Labour would have done it if the Conservatives didn’t. You can’t stand in the middle of the road and expect the traffic to stop: it will just mow you down. And to refuse the best party option (whatever that is) because you don’t approve of its entire performance is to hand the reins of power to a party you disapprove of even more. Which is irrational and could be disastrous

          • vieuxceps2

            Agreed. So why did Cameron do it?

          • afhtown

            When someone invokes “natural” about something civic/social you know they’ve just lost the argument…

        • vieuxceps2

          Who is “not voting Tory”?

          • David Child

            Your suggestion was that the Tories have lost votes because of this issue. I suspect you’re right looking at the honest but astonishing opinions expressed here from those who believe it is part of some nefarious plot to bring down society. Which it won’t, and can’t. It’s a relatively minor measure with no impact on anyone that isn’t gay, and the impact on the gay community is simply that they can indulge in something that is a very pleasant thing to be – married. That is all.

          • vieuxceps2

            I fear not,Mr. Child.What you term “marriage”diminishes and demeans the true concept of marriage as between a man and a woman.I sincerely wish you joy of your union,but you can never truly be married .

          • David Child

            How is it diminished? Why does a gay wedding diminish my own truly joyous and wonderful marriage. The actions of another person whether I like them or not neither demeans nor diminishes my wedded state. How can it?

          • vieuxceps2

            Try to be less ego-centric.Your own marriage is irrelevant in this case.It is the concept of marriage which is made worthless by calling same-sex unions “marriage”.
            Would you apply the term to a union between two camels or two koala bears? A man marries a woman or vice versa if you like. Enjoy your lives together.Call it whatever you wish…..except marriage.

          • David Child

            But by your own definition my marriage is a marriage, I’m a man and my wife is a woman. I know, I’ve checked many many times. The fact I, as a heterosexual, support gay marriage somehow invalidates my own marriage? What an incredible conceit that is. And the animal argument, come on, is that really where you have to go? When you run out of logic and reason you hit silly? This is the reason why you are losing the debate, there is no intellectual reason to oppose gay marriage.

          • vieuxceps2

            Hetero or homo,your marriage (or mine) is irrelevant.The intellectual argument against “gay” mar riage is plain.A union between two men or between two women is no more a marriage than a union between two camels, donkeys or koala bears.If our “gay ” pals want to “marry”in their own terms,they can do so by means of a civil partnership which confers on them the same rights as we and our wives enjoy.If the “gays” desire a supernatural blessing upon their coupling, let them go to a holy grove, lake or cave and seek a benison from the Genius Loci.It’ll do them as much good as going to a church.
            Leave marriage alone,society needs it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Your wife is your partner.

            How do we know that your partner, that of a man, is a woman?

            Now, she could be a he!

            And before long, how will we know she ISN’T a camel (male of female)?

            If two creatures love each other (clearly show affection, bond s-xually, of their own free will) why can’t they have the “right” to marry, regardless of gender, or species??!?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            See my earlier replies.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmmm, it was almost immediately realised that it fcuk’d “normal” marriage because gays can’t commit adultery, and so it threw the divorce laws into disarray.

            And in Canada, hailed as the shining example of gay marriage, they have had to force straight parents to adopt their own children because gays can’t produce their own.

            So it would be inequitable and unfair to allow all the other “traditional” family relationships to be recognised in law!!!!!!

            That’s apart from “minor” impacts like no one knowing that a person’s partner is of the opposite sex.

            Or all dictionaries becoming obsolete overnight at the stroke of a pen, rather than reflecting a long established and accepted change in usage.

        • Mr B J Mann

          A piece of legislation that affected no one?!!!

          I read a letter in a newspaper from a presumably gay person who insisted that an Oxford dictionary definition of marriage didn’t specify that it was between a man and a woman.

          I checked the half a dozen versions of Oxford dictionaries around the house and all but one said that it was between a man and a woman.

          The other one also said it was between a man and a woman, but then went on to further define it with reference to “they”, or some such non gender specific term.

          Clearly referring back to the previous paragraph.

          So, trivially, the change in the law has rendered all the dictionaries in the house obsolete.

          Now, you could argue that language changes, and it does, over decades and centuries, and dictionaries traditionally reflect those changes long after they have occurred.

          But this legislation has rendered them all obsolete PRIOR to a change in usage!

          But there’s more.

          Until the day the law changed, if I read of a wedding, or a marriage partner, I’d know it was between a man and a woman, and the partner of one sex would be the other:

          Now, when see a reference to “marriage”, or marriage “partner”, I have to check the date of the reference to understand its meaning.

          Still trivial you might claim.

          You might also argue that they brought in same sex marriage in Canada, and there were no problems there.

          Well, actually, like here, it throws the concept of adultery into disarray as homosexuals can’t commit it.

          So as well as people no longer knowing that my partner is woman, she can cheat on me without.t committing adultery.

          But, there’s more:

          Homosexual couples can’t produce offspring.

          So all the laws concerning parenthood and inheritance are thrown into disarray.

          In Canada children are no longer their parent’s children because that would be divisive and ineqitable.

          Now, natural parents of their own children have to effectively adopt their own children so as not to discriminate against gays!!!!?!?!?!?!?

          Not to worry though:

          We probably won’t have that problem over here, as during the previous other Labour governments (as opposed to this one) they were busy changing all legal references to husband and wife and mother and father to partner a and partner b, and parent 1 and parent 2.

          So, when you say “they passed a piece of legislation that affected no one other than those whom it enabled to marry” you are only utterly, totally and completely wrong!
          By the way, the “liberals” like to claim that gays should be allowed to marry because a Roman Emperor married his male slave.
          And legalising gay marriage just because they demand it won’t open the floodgates to any “abnormal” grouping demanding “equal” treatment.
          But while one sngle Roman Emperor married his male slave:
          TWO Roman Emperors married their horses!!!
          And I see that the Greens are already talking about legalising polyandrous marriage.
          How long before legalise incestuous, paedoph!l!c and inter-species marriage?
          As a uman rite!

          • David Child

            That’s a very long rant which you could have shortened to “I’m a bit of a homophobe and change scares me, also I have a slightly odd dictionary fetish.”

          • Mr B J Mann

            And that’s a very short retort that proves you can’t counter a single point I raised.

            And were so upset by the fact you had to subject me to an ad hominem attack.

            What”s the medical term for fearing people who tell “progressive” obsessives the truth?!

          • David Child

            It proves nothing of the sort, go to the dictionary you’re obviously very attached to and look up the word “proof”.

            Anyway – to deal with your various points from this post and others….

            Dictionary. That’s not really an argument against something. The use of words, and indeed the way language is used constantly changes. It’s linguistic evolution and it happens constantly. Your logic would imply that we should no longer invent new things and new items because whatever name we give them would not appear in one of your dictionaries causing you to rage about the house in massive fit of pique yelling “it can’t exist because it’s not in my dictionary.” I would suggest this is a poor reason not to do something and does concentrate an awful lot of power in your hands. I would still contend that this doesn’t really inconvenience you because I suspect (although I am beginning to doubt) you have sufficient intellect to cope with the concept of word definition subtly shifting with time..

            Which then moves us on to the point you made about “I don’t know the gender of the partner of the person I am talking with.” Well, I hate to break this to you – you never did. The term “Partner” has been in common use for heterosexual and homosexual relationships for a very long time, this is nothing new. But here’s a clue, when a person refers to a “wife” they are generally referring to a female, hence if you are talking to a male you are talking to a person in a heterosexual relationship. Ok – there is an attempt even within the heterosexual community to break away from gender specific nouns for partners, although I personally don’t see the need, I still don’t think it’s awfully complicated. Also, why does that matter, we all make assumptions based of various things including appearance and language and sometimes – we’ll be wrong. It happened before gay marriage..

            The laws around parenthood and inheritance aren’t thrown into disarray, that’s rubbish. And what has the fact that homosexuals can’t produce children got to do with that statement? Lots of heterosexual couples can’t either. Even those that can sometimes choose not to. The right of your wife and/or children to inherit from you remain unaffected by this law.

            Canada – I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing referencing it that I could find, although I didn’t spend long because we are talking about the change of law in the UK. When you have a child in the UK as a heterosexual couple you register the birth in the same way you did before gay marriage was legalised, you are unaffected.

            The argument that “liberals” claim gay marriage should be allowed because a Roman emperor married a slave just proves there is stupid on both sides of the argument, however I refute the inherent suggestion in your statement that this is widely held view in those of us that support gay marriage. Even if it is (and it isn’t) it still doesn’t affect you. I have never used the argument “Caligula did this and therefore it must be right”, although it’s a myth that he married his horse. Perhaps there were a couple of others that did, I’m not claiming expertise on these matters

            Your point about adultery, yep, legally speaking this is correct. Although I don’t see how this affects you personally. Unless you were planning to embark on a homosexual relationship outside of your marriage (and to be fair, I have no idea if you are married) and you are now concerned that the law may change the definition of adultery to include homosexual sex and that angers you because you’ll now be an adulterer and previously you weren’t – then I suggest it’s a non issue. It won’t affect you. If it does affect you because you were planning to do something like the above then I think you’ll probably have other worries outside of whether the legal definition of adultery changes or not.

            The we come on to your disparaging of “abnormal” groups demanding equal rights. If we take the definition of “abnormal” in purely the sense that it means “someone who is outside any bell curve of normal distribution” then you appear to be against rights for the physically disabled, those with learning difficulties, any ethnic group that doesn’t hit a critical mass numerically speaking and so on and so forth. That’s just nasty.

            And then – marrying animals. Stop being silly. You demean yourself and even the entire species which is supposed to be able to think by making such a ridiculous statement. If you want to be taken seriously then it’s probably a good idea to try and understand the intellectual gulf between a human and a camel. Also, it would be a good idea to understand that marriage is about a lot more than sex and procreation.

            You still have no intellectual argument against gay marriage. There is no reason not to allow it. You may not like it, and I can understand that, you are entitled to that view.

            Lastly you ask “What”s the medical term for fearing people who tell “progressive” obsessives the truth?!”. You know, I don’t think there is one, I would suggest we invent one but I fear the damage it would do to your dictionary collection.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Anyway – to deal with your various points from this post and others….”

            “Dictionary. That’s not really an argument against something.”

            Do TRY to pay attention. Someone pro gay marriage TRIED to use a dictionary to “prove” there was nothing wrong with it.

            And as I’ve also pointed out:

            “The use of words, and indeed the way language is used constantly changes. It’s linguistic evolution and it happens constantly…….”

            But dictionaries are supposed to reflect accepted common usage.

            You can’t just redefine them by trying to rewrite the law!

            YOUR “logic would imply that we should”!

            That’s 1984!!!!

            As for:

            “causing you to rage about the house in massive fit of pique yelling”

            Is that what the left like to label “projection” on your part?

            And to reiterate, it was the pro-gay marriage lobby that:

            “rage(d) about the house in massive fit of pique yelling “it CAN exist because it’s” in my misreading of a selective quote “in my dictionary.”

            “I would suggest this is a poor” attempt at a straw man argument!

            Quickly followed up with an ad hominem attack:

            “I suspect (although I am beginning to doubt) you have sufficient intellect”

            Then another straw man:

            “I don’t know the gender of the partner of the person I am talking with.” Well, I hate to break this to you – you never did. The term “Partner” has been in common use for heterosexual and homosexual relationships for a very long time”

            “here’s a clue” I was referring to MARRIAGE PARTNERS!

            So, “when a person refers to a” partner in a MARRIAGE, from time immemorial it refered to a person of the opposite sex!

            As for:

            “I still don’t think it’s awfully complicated”.

            I did admit it was a trivial point, but that doesn’t alter the fact it DOES affect people (and dictionaries, and general comprehension which now depends on knowing of something was written in the millennia before the act, or the few years after).

          • Mr B J Mann

            Continued……:

            “The laws around parenthood and inheritance aren’t thrown into disarray, that’s rubbish.”

            Then why did Canada’s gay marriage law included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law?

            “And what has the fact that homosexuals can’t produce children got to do with that statement?”

            You tell me!

            “we are talking about the change of law in the UK. When you have a child in the UK as a heterosexual couple you register the birth in the same way you did before gay marriage was legalised, you are unaffected.”

            But if your parents are a mother and her “female partner” what some would argue is your your human right to a mum and dad is removed by the law!
            And it’s early days yet.

            “The argument that “liberals” claim gay marriage should be allowed because a Roman emperor married a slave just proves there is stupid on both sides of the argument, however I refute the inherent suggestion in your statement that this is widely held view in those of us that support gay marriage. Even if it is (and it isn’t) it still doesn’t affect you.”

            Why do I keep seeing it then?

            And it affects society by promoting the breakdown of the traditional family and so affects everyone within society.

            “Your point about adultery, yep, legally speaking this is correct. Although I don’t see how this affects you personally. Unless….”

            I’ve already explained, it’s recognised that this leads to inequality, so, just like they “had” to bring in marriage for gays in the interests of equality, they will have to remove the concept of adultery in the interests of equality, which, again, affects everyone.

            “Then we come on to your disparaging of “abnormal” groups demanding equal rights. If we take the definition of “abnormal” in purely the sense that it means “someone who is outside any bell curve of normal distribution” then you appear to be against rights for the physically disabled, those with learning difficulties, any ethnic group that doesn’t hit a critical mass numerically speaking and so on and so forth. That’s just nasty.”

            A straw man sandwich between a couple of ad hominems.

            I didn’t disparage anyone.

            I merely pointed out that you can’t go around rewriting the rules of society to keep activists (who might not even be members of the “abnormal” group – note my reference to the gay actor – who was disaparaged by the activists!) happy.

            “And then – marrying animals. Stop being silly……”

            Feel free to come back with your reasoned rebuttals just as soon as you’ve finished formulating them.

          • David Child

            Ok – not a straw man, merely a bit of fun, with I do admit a touch of sarcasm thrown in. The meat and bones is, as yet you have not provided a single logical argument against gay marriage, except for the dictionary issue which you start by claiming was the argument of someone else but you clearly lay claim to later on. If you have coped with people saying “partner” without knowing which gender for many years when why is “marriage partner” an issue, especially as in general conversation I’ve never known anyone refer to someone else as their “marriage partner” – there are almost countless other forms in daily usage of which many are not gender specific.

            Dictionaries are not supposed to reflect common usage only, they are supposed to define what a word means and in that the common usage of a phrase has to be accounted for but they will also give definitions of a word that are are considered correct or have specific legal and or technical meanings when used in certain contexts. The legalisation of gay marriage has not rendered your dictionaries obsolete, merely slightly inaccurate in defining a single word.

            The law frequently does change the exact definition of a word, in a legal sense. It’s not 1984, it’s life in a country with a legislative process. 1984 would be the thought police, the arresting of people for homosexual thoughts, or even vice-versa – the arresting of people for anti gay marriage thoughts. I would advocate neither.

            I’m merely looking for a rational, reasoned thought process leading to a logical conclusion that proves that gay marriage is by definition a bad thing. That you have not provided. It is clear you don’t like it, and that’s ok. But be honest and just admit you don’t like it because there is something within you that just finds it wrong at some instinctive level – because that’s ok too. We all have these inbuilt biases for and against things and they are not always rational.

            I’m for gay marriage because first and foremost I see no reason to be against it and thus I don’t see why gay people should be deprived of it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmmm:

            “Ok – not a straw man”

            OK – several straw men.

            “merely a bit of fun, with I do admit a touch of sarcasm thrown in.”

            Is that what you call ad hominems?

            So your argument is straw men and ad hominems/

            “The meat and bones is, as yet you have not provided a single logical argument against gay marriage, except for the dictionary issue…….”

            I’ve provided several examples of how it undermines marriage in particular and society in general.

            Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

            “I’m merely looking for a rational, reasoned thought process leading to a logical conclusion that proves that gay marriage is by definition a bad thing. That you have not provided.”

            Wrong, you’ve just ignored every point and come back with straw men and ad hominems.

            Such as:

            “It is clear you don’t like it, and that’s ok. But be honest and just admit you don’t like it because there is something within you that just finds it wrong at some instinctive level – because that’s ok too. We all have these inbuilt biases for and against things and they are not always rational.”

          • Mr B J Mann

            “I’m for gay marriage because first and foremost I see no reason to be against it and thus I don’t see why gay people should be deprived of it.”

            As you won’t listen to me, perhaps you’ll listen to what pro same s3x marriage g-y activists have to say about it.

            Masha Gessen, l3sbian journalist, author, activist for LGBT rights and Pink Triangle Campaign founder:

            “g-y marriage is a l!e.”

            “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for g-y marriage generally involves ly!ng about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we l!e that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a l!e. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

            “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

            Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International g-y & L3sbian Human rights Commission:

            “Being qu33r means pushing the parameters of s3x, s3xuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

            “Radical” writer Judith Levine:

            “In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the s3x or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of l3gal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of s3x or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abus3 of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

            H0m0s3xual activist Michelangelo Signorile:

            “A middle ground might be to fight for same-s3x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s m0ral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

            And:

            “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

            H0m0s3xual activist and Radical Women spokeswoman
            Alison Thorne:

            Told a protest rally for h0m0s3xual marriage in Melbourne that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-s3x couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it.

            So which is it?

            Idiot or insurrectionist?!

          • David Child

            No. Your points, such as they are, haven’t been ignored. They’ve been responded to and shown to be diversions and factually inaccurate, What you haven’t proved, or even tackled, is the basic question if “what is the negative impact of gay marriage”. I see the others you are quoting but those quotes suffer from the problem you’ve already demonstrated. None of them actually show that there is any practical draw back in allowing gay marriage. Much of them wander off in to territory not related to gay marriage at all, but throw in the usual straw men of polygamy and so forth. We’re not discussing them.

            There are from those from the gay world that have worries about it – but when you read the quotes provided none of them give a solid practical reason against gay marriage. It’s full of their own perceptions of what marriage should be, but not of any practical issue. They’re full of statements about undermining the institution without demonstrating how that undermining will show in any real sense. For those of that are “married” to an old fashioned concept of marriage (and to be fair that is not a settled state, different people have different interpretations of exactly what that means) there is nothing in the legislation that changes the state of traditional marriages, there is nothing in the legislation that alters the state of your family union, there is nothing in the legislation that alters anything for you.

            How does it undermine society? When a gay couple walk out of the registry what has changed in the street around them? What is different about the area they live? What has changed which makes the society in which they live fundamentally worse? Are the police force unable to operate because they got married – no? Is the district council unable to operate unable to operate because they got married – no? Is the man owning the local newsagent going to go out of business because they got married – no? Did the threat of gay marriage the cause of the financial crash – no?

            I haven’t ignored your examples where you claim to have shown it undermines marriage and society, the problem is that you have not. What you have done is tell me how it changes the way you feel about things. You haven’t provided a single example as to how a gay marriage then leads to a practical outcome that undermines society. Nothing in the legislation prevents marriage continuing the more traditional format (whatever that may be, for some it is a modern partnership of equals – for others a state of union of male dominance) and thus the rearing of children.

            “So, are you trying to destroy marriage in particular and society in general?Or are you just a useful idiot?” – Oh please…schoolboy stuff.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Strange how you’ve made those assertions in reply to this post.

            But not to this one where people can read what you assert you are replying to:

            What is my logical and reasoned concern? Where is the damage that gay marriage causes?

            I keep telling you.

            But you keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la-la-la-I’m not listening”!

            In case you missed it elsewhere, see what gay activists themselves say on the subject:

            Masha Gessen, l3sbian journalist, author, activist for LGBT rights and Pink Triangle Campaign founder:

            “g-y marriage is a l!e.”

            “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for g-y marriage generally involves ly!ng about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we l!e that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a l!e. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

            “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

            Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International g-y & L3sbian Human rights Commission:

            “Being qu33r means pushing the parameters of s3x, s3xuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

            “Radical” writer Judith Levine:

            “In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the s3x or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of l3gal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of s3x or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abus3 of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

            H0m0s3xual activist Michelangelo Signorile:

            “A middle ground might be to fight for same-s3x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s m0ral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

            And:

            “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

            H0m0s3xual activist and Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne:

            Told a protest rally for h0m0s3xual marriage in Melbourne that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-s3x couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it.

            So, are you trying to destroy marriage in particular and society in general?

            Or are you just a useful idiot?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            If the people who are going to all the trouble to bring in gay marriage claim:

            “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for g-y marriage generally involves ly!ng about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we l!e that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a l!e. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

            “I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

            “Being qu33r means pushing the parameters of s3x, s3xuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society….

            demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the s3x or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of l3gal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of s3x or numbers.’ ….polygamy ….Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

            “A middle ground might be to fight for same-s3x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s m0ral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

            wholly transform the definition of family

            So, those trying to impose gay marriage are doing it to at least transform, at most destroy, the institutions of marriage and family.
            And you argue that, no, they are wrong, it won’t even affect anyone else except for gays wanting to get married.

            How big a useful idiot, or how fanatical an activist, does one have to be to continue regurgitating their support for gay marriage in the face of these facts??!?

          • David Child

            Ok – Where I posted this wasn’t interesting in the slightest, I read 3 different comments that came from you and appeared in my e-mail, I just hit reply on one of them and replied to all in one go. I think you can cope, and I very much doubt anyone is really paying enough attention to this that it really matters that some of this is non sequential. If they really cared (and they don’t) they’ll work it out. Try to avoid reading more into things than actually exist. You are merely a chap writing in a comments section on the internet of which there are millions, don’t begin to think you have influence. This is just between you and I and perhaps an especially bored spectator reader or two..

            Now – the fact that some from the gay community are not struck with this idea is hardly a surprise, but it doesn’t count as qualitative evidence of damage to society from this. There are those from the that community that no doubt make comments around “bringing down the institution from the inside”, but you’ll always get that and those type of people will be the more vociferous. However all you have to do when someone says that is ask “how’s that going to work then?” and you’ll probably only get the sort of vague discontented ramblings of unsubstantiated comment in a similar vein to the sort of comments you’re making.

            The point is, you don’t like it – obviously. Fine. You feel it undermines marriage and society. Fine. But as yet you have not pointed out in any substantial way HOW the effect will be demonstrated. How will society be damaged? What is the outcome that causes this societal damage that you predict? In what way will that be demonstrated?You have not answered those questions, you have made assertions, and you have quoted other people making assertions – all very well – but those assertions are non specific, vague and unsubstantiated. Will it cause rioting on the streets? Will it cause a collapse in the health service? Will people stop giving to charity? Will drivers start to ignore the laws of the road? Will it make it easier for terrorists to blow up planes? What is the effect that is so negative – be specific.

            You have made other claims, of which the fact that you have dictionary issues post this change is the only one that stands up to scrutiny. It does not lead to men marrying chairs, it has not changed the way in which parents register their children, it has not altered the way in which heterosexual couples can get married. You have asserted that is is part of an overarching conspiracy that has existed since the days of Marx which suggests you tend to fit facts to your preconceptions as opposed to looking at evidence and working forwards from there, not an uncommon error.

            And then once again the “idiot”, you demean yourself each time you do that, not me.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “There are those from the that community that no doubt make comments around “bringing down the institution from the inside”, but you’ll always get that and those type of people will be the more vociferous. However all you have to do when someone says that is ask “how’s that going to work then?” and you’ll probably only get”:

            First we’ll demand that pubs provide non-smoking areas.

            Then we’ll demand pubs provide £Billions in state of the art extraction equipment.

            Then we’ll demand pubs provide limited smoking areas instead.

            Then we’ll demand that smoking is banned in most pubs.

            And then all of them, ooops, the politicians were so keep to keep us happy and keep us quiet they jumped the gun on that!

            .

            Or perhaps you’ll get:

            First we’ll demand that we have women priests.

            Then we’ll demand women bishops.

            Then cardinals?

            And then the Pope?!?!?!

            .

            Or perhaps just:

            First we’ll demand civil partnerships for gays.

            Then when we get that we’ll insist it’s inequitable and insulting and insist we have same sex marriage (as well).
            .
            That’s the way these activists work.

          • Mr B J Mann

            * Interesting footnote to the smoking ban saga:

            The pro ban campaigners had argued that a ban wouldn’t harm pubs, in fact it would benefit them, because all the pro ban people who hated smoke in pubs would start flocking to the new, clean, healthy smoke-free pubs and spend more money than any dinosaur smokers who refused to frequent smoke free pubs.

            When the English ban came in, a year after the Scottish one, one of the people who campaigned for it was asked on radio 4 how come, despite the fact that they had argued A smoking ban would boost pub trade, trade in Scotland had fallen after it’s ban.

            The answer?

            Landlords couldn’t and shouldn’t expect non smokers to start using pubs just because they were smoke free.

            If pub landlords wanted non smokers to start using their new, clean, healthy smoke-free pubs they would have to work at attracting them in?!?!?!

            In other words, the people who wanted to ban smoking in pubs, because they supposedly were stopped from using pubs by the smoke, were supposedly deprived of their “right” to frequent pubs:

            DIDN’T ACTUALLY WANT TO USE PUBS AT ALL:

            THEY JUST WANTED TO STOP *OTHER* PEOPLE USING THEM AS WELL!!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            As you seem to not understand how the agit-prop community work, here’s a memo from a coalition of greeny-environmentalist anti-car lobby groups to their supporters in the run up to a traffic reduction bill going through parliament:

            “Four Years Hard Work: Now We Spring The Trap

            “Enclosed is Traffic Reduction File No 10. It springs the trap that you have all worked so hard for over the last four years. All your letters; your phone calls; all your lobbying have set this trap. Every response you sent us we filed; every shift you achieved we noted; every promise, every commitment we recorded. TRF10 is the result.

            “But a trap is most effective when properly sprung. In the run-up to the Second Reading of the Bill on 30th January we must snap this trap shut as hard as possible. We have this opportunity now to make all this work really bite, and bite hard.”

            .

            Another example is what used to be called green lanes – unsealed, though often surfaced, cross-country ROADS on which motor vehicles were permitted – a whopping 5% of the total footpaths, bridlepaths and other suchlike tracks.

            The ramblers and riders (some reckon only about a hundred hard-core activists) have managed to get that percentage more than halved in recent years.

            95% wasn’t enough for them: they had to get 97%, 98%, now they’re going for 100%!

          • David Child

            Ok. I can tell they’re a couple of subjects you feel passionate about however. But despite your informative post above I feel you miss the point. I know how agitation and subversion work. However the question remains unanswered, the law has been passed allowing gay people to marry and this has not alerted in any way shape nor form your marriage or my marriage, it has not altered the way in which you or I register the birth of our children, it has not changed the way divorce law or inheritance law operates for you or I so what effect had this law had that has such a profound effect on society? What is the material effect that burns you so much? Where is the damage? Even the quotes from the gay activists that are against this law do not answer that. Material damage to society, where is it and how will it manifest?

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Ok. I can tell they’re a couple of subjects you feel passionate about.”

            No, just one:

            People who want to destroy my home trying to destroy my home.

            Well, ok, granted, I’m not to keen on people who support them either.

            “However the question remains unanswered, the law has been passed allowing gay people to marry and this has not alerted in any way shape nor form your marriage or my marriage….”

            Just like the law that had been passed allowing non-smoking people to have non-smoking areas in pubs and that has not alerted in any way shape nor form your pub going or my pub going.

            But (and I’m a non smoker who hated smoke and rarely goes to pubs) it has altered the freedom-loving, tolerant, democratic, fair and equitable country I live in.

            And while that might not affect, or even concern, you:

            It DOES me!

            And as I have already pointed out, it might even have been days, if not hours, after full same-s-x marriage was legalised, that people were flagging up the legal problems it was going to cause with the concept of adultery.

            Which might not directly affect my marriage or yours:

            But it does affect MY society, even if YOU want it consigned to the dustbin of history!

          • David Child

            But the smoking ban did effect people, it prevented them from doing something that was previously legal. It altered the way in which friends interacted with one another and so on…And as a non smoker it has affected my pub going, I have to go outside to keep the conversation going if I’m there with a friend who smokes.

            Gay people marrying hasn’t altered anything for anyone that doesn’t want it to. The law around adultery hasn’t changed and if it does I don’t see what effect it hs unless you unless you embark on a homosexual affair. In fact regardless of gay marriage it would seem like you ought to be allowed to divorce on the grounds of adultery if you are in a heterosexual marriage and your partner does have a gay affair.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Are you just turning a blind eye to everything I’ve written, or have you not noticed that you can click on “see more” to, ermmm, “see more”?!?!?

            Having no smoking zones didn’t affect people.

            Except for those effectively “banned” from pubs/discriminated against/unfairly treated because they hated/couldn’t stand, perhaps for medical reasons, smoky pubs.

            But, slowly, salami slice by salami slice, the activists (who, as I’ve shown earlier, didn’t even want to go into pubs, even smoke free ones) whittled away at the social institution of the smoky, boozy public house, and not just removed everyone’s right to frequent one if they wanted (or a smoke free one if they wanted to CHOSE), but effectively destroyed the institution in general, and wiped out many individual pubs in particular, removing the livelihoods of many landlords, and depriving many communities of their hearts and souls.

            *** CLICK ON “SEE MORE” TO SEE MORE ***

            I’ve also shown previously that the same-s-x marriage activists aim is to destroy not just marriage, but the family, as we know them.

            It makes no difference if no other change has been achieved to date:

            They have achieved yet another step on their journey to achieving their ends.

            But as I’ve already pointed out previously:

            Almost immediately the law had changed:

            Legal experts were pointing out that there would have to be a change in the law reflecting adultery.

            And why do you keep projecting your fantasies of a homoerotic affair onto me:

            The problem is that, as I keep pointing out, homosexuals can’t commit adultery.

            Therefore having a law that affects straights, and not gays (like the pre civil partnership situation, remember, and also like the post civil partnership situation, as straights are discriminated against, but that, apparently, is of no consequence for some reason) can’t be allowed to persist.

            Therefore adultery has to be erased from the dictionary (remember them?!?!).

            Therefore, if my wife commits adultery: she’s done nothing wrong.

            I suppose you will argue that that benefits me then!!!!!!

            Are you really just trolling??!?!?!?!?!

    • Frank

      Agree, I also wonder whether going out of your way not to prosecute fraud by bankers, or sexual abuse by members of the establishment is a known facet of conservative values?
      What was so vexatious about modestly reforming the House of Lords, or would that have made it difficult to carry on selling honours for cash?
      Finally, did it help the Conservative brand to defend conservative MPs found to be selling access/influence for cash, or fiddling the expenses system?

    • Hegelman

      Parris grew up in Rhodesia. Don’t expect him to dislike dark people. He’s a civilized man.

  • Spock Puppet

    Well, the imposition of same-sex “marriage” has turned off many loyal Conservative voters.

    • PetaJ

      That is true. However, what got up my nose even more was the lack of equality for heterosexual couples in that they are not allowed to enter into civil partnerships while same-sex couples are. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

      • vieuxceps2

        Yes,blatant discrimination against heteros.Which,in lefty terms is ipso facto impossible. Eppur si muove….

        • Matthew Walsh

          Heterosexuals are not, and never have been ‘discriminated’ against. It’s an insult to suggest otherwise.

          • Kat Jordan

            It’s definitely on parr with “why is there no Straight Pride?”

          • Matthew Walsh

            It’s dangerous, I naively assumed there weren’t people intelligent enough to use a computer who held there harmful opinions.

          • morbidfascination

            You manage.

          • vieuxceps2

            Eppur si muove……

          • Paul

            Does it make you feel more intelligent to paste from the latin phrasebook? We get it you hate what you see as political correctness. I am repulsed by you, and the fact that people like you vote Conservative is one the reasons I won’t. And as a newly British citizen I now can.

          • vieuxceps2

            I understand your objection to my using foreign phrases but I find it amusing that you confuse Italian with Latin..You cannot be repulsed by me,that is what armies do to each other. Repelled perhaps? Sorry to hear my politics guides your vote, you should not be so easily swayed.British citizenship brings with it responsibilites and you need to vote after mature considerstion,not in any off-hand manner.

      • Kat Jordan

        Are you serious right now? Civil Partnerships were set up as a way to deter from the fact homosexuals couldn’t marry. You are saying you’re discriminated against because the government hasn’t set up a substitute to counteract initial discrimination! Absolute muppet.

        • PetaJ

          Seemy reply to Matthew Walsh above and try not to be so insulting. Ditto for him, by the way.

        • blandings

          “Absolute muppet”
          How is PetaJ .a “muppet?”
          Just because you cannot expound an argument doesn’t make Petaj a muppet. Does it?

          • Kat Jordan

            I believe I did expand with why PetaJ is such a muppet, actually. Bitching that heterosexual people don’t have something in place to appease them of discrimination that doesn’t exist is VERY muppet like. Being denied the right to marry is discrimination. Civil Partnerships were set up to try and stop people being angry about that denial of rights. So be thankful you don’t NEED a substitute. Then again, I suppose until you’ve actually experienced discrimination based on your sexuality, you wouldn’t understand how frustrating it is, would you?

          • blandings

            You argue like a child

      • Matthew Walsh

        Are you serious? How can you compare the lack of gay marriage ,to the lack of hetero civil partnerships? Very stupid comment.

        • PetaJ

          I am not comparing. I am saying that everyone should have a choice between marriage and a civil partnership, not just same-sex couples.

    • Captain Concerned

      I just don’t agree with your comment Mr Puppet. It was unnecessary – I don’t need or want the ‘right’ to be married, you can keep your moralistic norms, and I do think it a total distraction from the core policies of this centre right Conservative (led coalition) government, but it’s such a sideshow to the big act of getting the economy working and people back to work, that if it’s upset a few of the ‘blue rinse’ brigade, tough! Gay rights won’t win Dave Cameron many friends (or votes) but it should – I think he showed conviction against popularism, especially in his own party, and I admire him for that, as well as holding a tough line to turn the country around. He has shown far more conviction than we have seen in decades from the media maliable Tony B and his supplicants.

      • diqi

        But he showed no conviction or ability to follow a tough line on issues that mattered more, such as electoral boundaries, getting a more advantageous result in the EU or equitable treatment for England. Instead he wasted time on a “sideshow” which I don’t doubt was important to a few people but at the cost of dealing with issues for the majority and was not originally promised anyway. The problem for me is that Cameron appears to only be interested in sideshows.

      • blandings

        Captain blowhard

    • nancledra

      Same-sex marriage hasn’t been imposed. It’s just been allowed.

  • Muttley

    For God’s sake, Parris, you are a lefty.

  • jeffersonian

    ‘I love the British people’

    Ok, this is where Matthew Parris lost me.

    Based on previous contributions from Mr Parris, the only Brits he seems to love are the liberal-lefty metropolitan set.

    • Muttley

      He loves them as long as they’re London metrosexuals or ethnics. That’s what he thinks are the “British people.”

      • vieuxceps2

        Don’t be so unkind, Matthew loves the LGBT people as well or possibly more than normal people.

        • Paul

          “Normal” people? You’re an idiot.

          • vieuxceps2

            “Normal” people? You’re an idiot”- Normal people don’t think so.

  • A new poster

    We won’t forget your article on Clacton. The problem for you is that a significant number of natural Tories do not like Bright Blue and the Tory “modernisation” agenda. They see it as a move towards Blairism at the expense of traditional Tory values.

  • A new poster

    We’ve imported 3 million people since 2010, many of whom are low skilled. We’ve lost about 1.5 million people, may of whom will be highly skilled and relatively wealthy. We are inevitably going to move leftwards as a society with fewer and fewer taxpayers burdened with paying the costs of more and more dependants. That is until the country inevitably bankrupts itself.

    • Paul

      We imported young and healthy people from Eastern Europe who fix the demographic problems of ageing population in this country. Many of whom are qualified and ambitious, and assimilate well. We opened labour market in time of economic boom and labour shortage. No one seems to remember that. We couldn’t have dreamt of better immigration. We exported old pensioners in need of healthcare.

      • blandings

        “We imported young and healthy people from Eastern Europe”
        We exported old pensioners in need of healthcare”

        Kinda selfish of you Paul.

        • Simon Fay

          There’s the open-neck-shirt-press-preview-sofa gestalt for you – radiating righteous entitlement about what is good for one’s self and one’s frequent-tweeting bum-chums, whilst collecting the commission. A country treated as an economic zone, its population effectively its zero-hours “staff”.

      • Mr B J Mann

        And will all those young and healthy people be deported back to Eastern Europe when they become old and unhealthy?

        Or will we continue to import more and more young and healthy people from Eastern Europe to fix the bigger and bigger demographic problems of an ever growing imported ageing population in this country?!

        Especially as the greens (small g) reckon the sustainable population of the country is 24 million max.

        Maybe as low as 17 million.

        That’s SEVENTEEN, *NOT* SEVENTY!!!!!!

  • Ivor MacAdam

    The Conservative party is not conservative any more. If you want Conservatives, go vote UKIP.

  • The Uncle Ray comparison isn’t quite right: what he wanted wasn’t in any way or form best for the country.

  • Damaris Tighe

    We get the elections we deserve. We’ve voted for government micromanagement of our lives from the cradle to the grave. The result is election campaigns that focus on bribing us with handouts or promises not to cut handouts, & debates on areas of our lives we should be managing ourselves.

    Government should be about national security, justice & safety-net social security. It shouldn’t involve itself with the minutiae of education & heath provision. But as long as it does elections won’t be about the big issues such as border control, immigration & defence. The Tories are as corrupted by this game as every other party.

  • Roger James Michael Sutherland

    Could Herr Parris be more annoying?

  • wendyl

    What a dreadfully ignorant and condescending article, the typical kind of nonsense that has generally blighted Parris’ career and demonstrative of how out of touch with real life he actually is. Certainly the troubles all the major parties are experiencing from the electorate these days would be better phrased as ‘chickens coming home to roost’ with most people, left and right wing, being sick to death of lies and disgusting behaviour from all sides. Calling the decisions of the electorate ‘stupid’ will almost certainly lose the tories any hope whatsoever…it really is time stopped being rude, petty and vicious and started listening to the will of the people!

    • Airey Belvoir

      Parris can be very disingenuous – as when he claimed, after a well-deserved rubbishing of his sneering Clacton article – that he was in touch with ordinary lives beacause he split his time ‘between Tower Hamlets and rural Derbyshire.’
      ‘Tower Hamlets’ = a swanky Banker-style Thames-side pad. ‘Rural Derbyshire’ = an agreeable estate in the Dales National Park, where he breeds Llamas. So much for mingling with the hoi-polloi!

  • “I’ve never shared the contemptuous attitude towards Ed Miliband that most of the media, almost all the Conservative party and a good many of Mr Miliband’s own party have adopted towards him. As Labour leaders go, he has seemed to me perfectly serviceable.”
    There, in a nutshell, is the reason I no longer take Mr. Parris seriously or respect his analyses.

  • Matthew Walsh

    So poorly written, took me a few reads to understand it fully.

  • Kat Jordan

    The “Unfathomable mistake” would be another five years of austerity and punishing ordinary people for the Bankers’ mistakes.

    • tykegirl

      Right. And I suppose millions of those “ordinary people” didn’t understand that taking out huge loans and mortgages which they could barely manage to pay off didn’t make any mistakes? I suppose there’s no such thing as irresponsible borrowing is there? Or do you think they were just too stupid/ill-educated to know any better?
      It is always dangerous to start talking about “ordinary people” when, by implication,you are suggesting that they are naive and clueless – how very patronizing of you. Nobody had a gun pressed to their head, but then, I suppose that personal accountabiity is a notion that belongs entirely to the past. We are, after all, just hapless victims of “society”, the “government”, the nastyevilwickedprobablytory bankers and, well anybody else we can dream up really, aren’t we?

      • Alexsandr

        and bashing bankers will just make banking more expensive. companies dont pay tax

      • Kat Jordan

        When the top 1%’s wealth has doubled and the average working family is 25% poorer than in 2010 due to poor wages then yes, I’m inclined to blame the Tories.

        • tykegirl

          And where exactly are you pulling those statistics from?

  • seb

    It’s strange how the conservatives claim they know the most about the economy when cutting government spending in a time of low interest rates and low economic growth is completely counter-intuitive. The reason labour wants to spend money is because our economy has not been growing like it should have been post recession to the extent that if Osbourne had carried on with the cuts he made in the first two years we would be in the depth of a double dip recession by now. If spending had carried on at the rate of the last labour government, the economy would have picked up again and we could have started to tackle the deficit once we had the income of a post-growth economy.

    In most countries, the word austerity is now an antique; it is only Britain where the conservative press have used scaremongering about the deficit to win votes as it was the most attackable part of a labour government that had the bad luck of being in office at the time of a world-wide recession. It is clear now that austerity has had its day- the GDP growth figures are far too low to justify the sacrifices the working and middle classes have needed to make under this administration. The deficit has continued to rise and will continue as savings made by cutting front line services will be counter-balanced by increasing benefits payments for those who lose their jobs as a consequence.

    In conclusion, the conservatives have got so little right this government it is very difficult to trust them again. I keep hearing the buzzwords ‘long term economic plan’ and ‘keep Britain on track’, as if there has been any cohesion about their economic policy so far. There hasn’t been; two years in Osbourne realised he got it wrong and has been covering his tracks ever since.

    • soysauce1

      You forgot to mention that in the real world not ‘seb world’ our economy is leading the world in recovery, so much for tory policies not working…you need to get out more.

  • Darius Amini

    At least one economist has highlighted recently how dangerously dependent on the service economy we are – and shopping! – and the fact we’re no closer to re-establishing manufacturing as a serious part of our recovery. So, Tory success is very debatable, hence I don’t have much time for people who are so rigid in their support for Tories or indeed any party. Apart from that, I feel this article really lacks substance and really exposes the writer’s prejudices, as do a lot of the comments. So much looking down collective noses at people and an “I’m better than you” attitude. And as I’ve had work done on my flat done so well, as have my neighbours, not by “migrants” but PEOPLE or HUMANS who have come here to work hard and conscientiously, I haven’t got a clue what immigration naysayers are talking about.

    • soysauce1

      You forgot to mention that our manufacturing business is the sixth biggest in the world and we lead everywhere in advanced technology…so much for failure…

    • ButcombeMan

      Most people are surprised by what our exports are:

      http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/26248-top-10-uk-exports

  • Oddsbods

    Have I — have we Conservatives — completely misread our countrymen?

    No, just completely ignored their needs and wishes, the same as Labour and the LibDems have.

  • I suppose it’s one of those great unsolved mysteries of our time, like why so many people in the media take Russell Brand – an obvious lunatic – seriously. And why telling the voters of Clacton that they were a bunch of old fashioned working class racist oiks for voting UKIP instead of Tory didn’t inspire them to vote Tory…

  • Tom Yelland

    “the problem has been the philosophical mess where there ought to be an opposition’s national idea.”
    The same could have been said of Cameron prior to the 2010 election, and if we are being honest it applies not just to most stripes of opposition party, but to the Government itself. Beyond some notion of small government and free markets they seem to be flying blind, with little idea how to acheive there vague aim without making themselves entirely unelectable.

  • David Child

    I havr

  • The right-wing mind-set is such a straightjacket.

    You just don’t get it do you?

    Next Friday is going to be so much fun, especially as you all hate losing so much.

    • Simon Fay

      I presume you’ll have to get an irresponsible adult to purchase some booze for you to have ready for the party, being too young to get it yourself.

  • Margaret Thatcher went off the rails? She was exasperated because her own party refused to see the perils of the EU as she saw them. Like Enoch, she has turned out to be right and you do nothing for the soul of a once-great party by abandoning principles and grasping at any passing straw to get elected. Better in opposition with principles (tell that to little Ed) than in power with none.

  • Ah, I see. Please do not tease the Tories, or your post will be deleted.

    Well, talk amongst yourselves, righties.

    That way you’ll never be in danger of having any kind of insight at all.

  • Helen Carroll

    If this Government are so wonderful, why won’t they allow the DWP to release the deaths of people let down by the WCA? It is figured to be around 70,000 and counting. That is culling of the disabled and it’s appalling.

  • The Prufeshanul

    Great piece Matthew.

    Unfortunately this is a trend set to continue. The lessons we learnt from the 80’s were hard won. Today, people have become complacent and consumerist in their approach to politics

  • Colin Ward

    Interesting. I’ve respected Matthew Parris ever since his World In Action documentary about living on benefits, made when he was a young Tory MP.

    I’m a long-standing Labour voter. I vote Labour because I truly believe that the best way to help all people live better lives is to use progressive taxation to transfer wealth from the richest to the poorest in society, and at the same time introduce laws to transfer power from the powerful to the powerless. However, I fully understand that Conservative voters have a very different perspective and that it is equally coherent. You believe society should allow people the freedom to increase their wealth, without restrictions, to create economic growth that will eventually benefit everyone, whatever their personal resources. And that Government should do very little except free up market forces, even if that allows some power to gather in the hands of the few, because the pressures and counter-pressures of competing groups will ensure we find some natural equilibrium that benefits the majority.

    It’s possible the answer to the question is simple – people vote for which of those two ideas they believe in. And at the moment, people are more inclined to believe that Government needs to intervene to shift both wealth and power.

    • manofsuffolk

      One of the most sensible posts ever on this site, and I’m a very diehard Tory. So many people think their narrow, partisan views are right and everyone else is wrong. Every party HAS to be a broad church of views to have any chance of electoral success. At the moment the key moan from the public seems to be “all politicians are losing and we can’t trust them”. What they forget to say is that if any politician was brutally honest no one would ever vote for them.

      • Simon Fay

        “What they forget to say is that if any politician was brutally honest no one would ever vote for them.”

        Hmm. Not sure I agree. If they laid out a programme that squared with their (verifiable) bluntness of assessment they’d at least get a start with someone as disgusted as me.

  • Chris Davison

    What do you do for a living these days Mr Parris? It surely can’t be writing magazine articles

    • Simon Fay

      He’s Tower Hamlets’ oldest rent-boy.

  • Alex Williamson

    Milliband’s Britain will be virtually indistinguishable from Cameron’s Britain.

    • Simon Fay

      Perhaps initially. I suspect Ed’s little helpers will start to ratchet back up the vindictiveness and gratuitious attacks on settled community & tradition though once a few months have elapsed.

  • alunowen

    “But the fundamentals of prudent government have stayed sound; David Cameron seems a steady and basically sane sort of chap; our Chancellor is quietly an enlightened politician”

    What? Do you actually believe this, it must be a case of being so blindly partisan that you can’t be remotely objective.

  • ForGodsSake1

    I think that Matthew (from his perspective) is too pessimistic (or perhaps he doesn’t want to tempt fate). I reckon that, when people actually get into the polling station on Thursday, they will realise that they have to elect a government, not register a protest. UKIP, I suggest, will be the real losers (I am discounting the Greens, and the Welsh, NI and Scottish electorates march to a somewhat different beat). Thus: the UKIP vote will be much lower than predicted; and the Conservatives will be the main beneficiaries. I doubt if even Farage will win a seat. All this should be enough (or close enough, if you count the 8 or so DUP MPs as ‘tories’) for the Conservatives to come back with a tiny overall majority.

    On a different note, I thought that the Royals were supposed to stay out of politics. So why has the Princess Kate ‘gone into Labour’?!

    • Lawrence Newman

      Wait and see. UKIP popular vote will be minimum 18%.

  • Paddy Quinn

    A shame that Matthew has not made the effort to reach out to the millions of people who are culturally inoculated against voting Tory-these are not silly or even misguided people but in fact they are being hyper rational about the impact of the Tories on the poorest in society. After Labour abandoned millions of working class people, the Tories should have stepped up and became the party of the poor-instead they are now even more under the grip of the elite and wealthy. I’m afraid that is why it will be another 5 years since they last won a majority.

    The facts of life maybe Tory-but i cannot vote for them at this election

  • Hegelman

    “…there has been something rather unlikeable, rather rude, rather
    mean-spirited, about the impression the party has given from the top
    downward over the past couple of years.”

    Precisely. Except that I would substitute “obscenely” for “rather”.

    Rich man’s party, fuck the rest party.

    What is a decent fellow like you doing among that nasty bunch?

    And Labour will lose anyway.

  • independentthought

    I can’t actually believe that you believe what you are saying Matthew Parris (By the way, you used to be my MP in Derbyshire) The bedroom tax, the unmandated dismantling and selling off of the NHS, the cuts to disability claimants which include the terminally ill, the attacks on legal aid.

    • The under-occupancy penalty (or bedroom tax/spare room subsidy depending on ‘which side’ you are) was merely bringing the public sector renting in line with private sector. And why should tax-payers pay for social housing tenants when those tenants don’t need multiple bedrooms?

      Dismantling and selling off of the NHS? So far 6% is in private hands, of that 4.5% was done by New Labour.

      • independentthought

        There isn’t anywhere more suitable to go in many cases and mostly they target the disabled.

        • Mr B J Mann

          That applies equally to the benefits claimants in accommodation paid for by the public sector but rented from the private sector.

      • red2black

        Why should tax payers pay for any type of housing tenant?

    • Mr B J Mann

      The only party that has ever planned to introduce a bedroom tax was Labour.

      Although it planned to target little old widows, whose children had flown the neat, who wanted to see out their final years in the homes they bought with their husbands with their own hard earned cash, and maybe have their grandkids round to stay in their own property.

  • HaHaMrWilson

    The only party with any momentum, with any programme for real radical change is Ukip.
    The only party with any honesty is Ukip.
    That is why all the left of centre parties, yes including the Tories, are throwing as much mud and slurs as they can, hoping some of it will stick.
    This is what happens when vested interests of the liberal elite are threatened. A vote for any other party, even for the SNP north of the border, is a vote for the establishment, for the continuing insidious growth of pan-European statehood.
    If England does not wake up (it’s too late for the rest of the so-called UK) it will be carved up into regions and be called ‘Britain’ before we know it, it will be subsumed with all the other faceless regions of that neo-imperial superstate called the EU. Remember, we’ve been told we’re not worth saving, that England does not officially exist, that English ‘nationalism’ is dangerous when other kinds are not… Well, we clearly ARE a threat to the liberal elite, but not in the way they portray.
    For those who will listen, do not make the Ukip leader a voice in the wilderness. Do not let him be the only one to turn his back on the EU national anthem. Not a vote has been counted yet, get him as close to Downing Street as you can.

  • The Masked Marvel

    Apparently Mr. Parris didn’t notice the steady rise and rise of the class war rhetoric over the last two years.

  • James Martin

    This guy is high yes?

  • Dear old Matthew…..your pondering about the seeming foolishness of the British leads you to write the following: “Have I — have we Conservatives — completely misread our countrymen?”

    That rather depends on who you think our countrymen are. The socialist block vote imported by Labour and the Conservatives are not natural conservatives, are they? I know you won’t like me saying such terrible and reprehensibly racist things, but can you not see that by importing millions of fast breeding, illiterate, poorly educated people from the third world, they will end up voting for the hand that feeds them the most?

    And this will get worse as their numbers grow whilst sane Brits leg it abroad to pastures new. Still, you were never a racist, so that’s the main thing! A traitor to your country, yes. But a racist? No. Congratulations.

  • trace9

    Invert animadverts, after beginning sentence with ‘and’. World ends with ungrammatical simper. Was it ever worth such trouble..
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-reveals-next-cover-a-cartoon-of-prophet-muhammad-behind-the-sign-je-suis-charlie/?tid=pm_pop

  • ManOfKent

    When someone as disgustingly arrogant, sneering and obnoxious as Matthew Parris sticks his foul head above the parapet the only mistake is to take any notice of his snide abusive twisted thoughts!

    Even posting on this thread makes me feel unclean! I’m off for a shower!

  • Lina R

    The Conservatives need more working-class voices in prominent positions. Quoting GDP figures when low pay has been stagnant for years and private rents have almost doubled in a decade, make Cameron/Osborne and co seem absolutely impervious to the lives of ordinary people. This election is an ugly baby contest where no one really wants to vote for anyone, but I’ll vote Tory because the prospect of Labour in charge is too much to contemplate.

  • Kevin T

    Why? Because you and Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine and the rest of the Tory wets have transformed the party into Labour Lite. You now differ only from the real thing on economic policies and then only to the degree that you’ll limit benefits to the equivalent of a £35 grand salary. Your candidates, which you help pick, and your policies are aimed directly at the liberal upper middle classes who agree with the left’s social policies but don’t want to pay higher taxes. The working class and the lower middle classes despise you as much as you despise them and now they have an alternative.

  • Remedy Ailment

    It amazes me that anyone can believe that the economic plan is anything other than an utter disaster. For David Cameron to say that Labour spent all the money when he presides over a coalition that has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13 is typical of the short memories everyone has in politics. The fact that in 2010 George Osborne told us the deficit would be zero by 2016/17 and it is still a whopping £80bn and then he wants us to believe him when he says he is the only one who can guarantee the deficit will be gone in the next parliament is equally typical. Then there are the circumstances around this recovery. A global economy recovering from a deep recession should surely expect to see growth, add to that record breaking low interest rates, low, low oil prices and the huge windfall effect of an estimated £12bn that many citizens have shared in PPI payouts. The best Osborne can convince me of is that he was present when we crawled out of recession, with record numbers in poverty, employment figures plumped up by Thatcher style re-classifications, part-time and low paid work, the NHS in tatters… need I go on? and last of all, look at the Tory manifesto to see where its priorities are. Tax evasion is estimated to cost this country £113bn a year (known as the tax gap), benefit fraud £1bn per year (£1bn is actually saved every year due to people not claiming). the Conservative manifesto states that in the next parliament they want to cut £12bn from the benefit bill, and claw back £5bn from tax evasion and avoidance. This sums it all up for me, even under the governments very contrived way of measuring tax evasion, its still a problem that is 4 times bigger than benefit fraud. Be careful what you wish for..

  • Caractacus

    You didn’t misread your countrymen. Peter Mandelson set out on a mission to replace your countrymen with uneducated foreigners who will vote Labour regardless of their policies.

  • CommonSense Matters

    “It’s been tough economically for millions — I know that well — so one could hardly expect a Tory landslide; and there has been something rather unlikeable, rather rude, rather mean-spirited, about the impression the party has given from the top downward over the past couple of years.”

    Do you know that well Matthew Paris? It is infinitely unlikely you do tough economics well or have ever felt them, which should cause the reader to question the integrity of this article in its entirety and precisely whose interests, whose cowardly “career-defining” interests you are championing.

    This is a piece which is two dimensional and simply does not speak in facts or realities for the majority of the British people. Why is responsible capitalism hard for you to understand? Why is pretending an Unqualified Chancellor who spent Billions more Last Year than Labour did straight after the Global Economic Crisis somehow acceptable?

    And the feeble attempt you make to try and link your twee rendering of your Uncle Ray and socialism as somehow a personification of this Labour and the Progressive and Responsible Capitalism being offered by Milliband is cheap and transparent. You strike me as someone who can afford the mansion tax so you must stop your complaining. Accept Britain is seeing a brighter future ahead with a Responsible and Level-Headed Labour, not the career-defining coward who seeks to further divide and rule and turn Britain into a ghettoised and internationally marginalised wasteland.

  • Lawrence Newman

    Wants to stand up for the working man in the UK and stand up to big business. Supports mass immigration that’s good for big business and drives down wages and creates housing crisis.

    Lefty logic. Dogchasingitstailism.

  • Lawrence Newman

    If Nigel Farage loses in Thanet, then the UK is officially beyond repair. It will be clear that the British people don’t want to improve this country but want to stick with the same old same old political elite who’ve been destroying our country for decades.

  • Lawrence Newman

    I just wish one mainstream party would speak up against male genital mutilation and promise to ban it. But they’re all cowards when it comes to religious nutjobs, and males are at the bottom of the pile of priorities–they’re far too gynocentric.

    The only party that opposes it is Justice for Men & Boys, but they have no hope of getting representatives because most people are thick as two short plants and have minimal critical-thinking skills.

  • Dogsnob

    Fairly likely the British public will make the mistake you anticipate. You and so many like you, Mr Parris have helped put all of this in place. Well done and thank you so much.

  • On one key point, Matthew Parris has his argument exactly the wrong way round. He says that “borrowing nearly sunk us, in recent memory”; in fact, we were nearly sunk in 2008-10 because of the collapse of our (and many others’) banks, and as a result had to borrow a lot more in order to stay afloat, ie to avoid a 1930s style Great Depression. Before the 2008 crash, our debts were low by global and historical standards. At no time has our budget deficit since then threatened national bankruptcy. Now, the government’s borrowing costs are at their lowest not just in recent memory but in centuries. No one can guarantee that this will last, of course, but it is a background that ought to be born in mind when claiming opponents’ plans to “borrow more” (actually, to reduce borrowing more slowly) are somehow reckless. You might disagree with them, but they can’t honestly be described as reckless.

  • John Andrews

    Whatever the failings of Uncle Ray’s economics, he grasped the importance of truth in politics. Today, the only major party leader with this understanding is Farage.

  • Ossettian

    “I love the British people”
    I’ve seen no evidence of that.

  • davidshort10

    I’m not sure what Parris means by ‘my party’. He was never a Conservative Party member, even when he held a Tory seat.

  • Sean L

    You *are* a lefty mate.

  • 3x4_34

    Parris makes Uncle Ray sound like he was a good old fashioned communist. No wonder Parris’s blue is tinted pink.

  • MrJones

    No grooming gangs at all
    signed
    liblab

    No grooming gangs where we live
    signed
    con

  • rtj1211

    You can be distinctly non-socialist and still think like your Uncle that the British way doesn’t fit your core philosophy.

    Unfortunately for all those who are self-righteous, the British way is unthinking yobbery, nowadays more emotional than physical, mindlessly parroting the drivel they are fed by their ‘betters’.

    30 years ago I learned how inferior Britain was by being educated abroad for a year. It was a true eye-opener into the appalling sanctimonious, self-righteous faux superiority of self-serving manipulative thugs who lost their empire so needed to control their own people the same way.

    The mindless arguments about grammar schools (I am as elitist as they come where education is concerned, but know that grammar schools is an antibiotic selection for narrow conformity when you need biodiversity), the ‘we know what’s best for you/do as you’re told’ nonsense of those who never taught anything to anyone, the pathetic spy rings which reduce adult life to an open prison for all, the organised mafias which reduce economic activity to blackmail and swindle, the media rubbish which panders twaddle in extremis about politics etc etc.

    Britain doesn’t want an empowered people it is still a nation of feudal masters who control through thuggery because they can’t empower through enlightenment.

    I gave up believing the hype in 1982. That’s because I saw the reality from the lens of overseas.

    Britain is still as rotten at its core as it ever was.

    It won’t change in this century and if those with the money have their way, it will never change ever.

  • Patrick G Cox

    I think the once great Conservative Party is in its death throes. Torn between the ‘Little Englanders’ and the true conservatives, devoid of any real policy on a wide range of things, out of touch with almost everyone who earns less than a hundred thousand a year. David Cameron doesn’t have a clue what he and his colleagues have destroyed in terms of real services in the police, fire and health sectors and are still wedded to the idea that everything can be delivered better privately and for a profit.

    As for the rest, Labour are still fighting the battles of the 19th Century, and the LibDems are little better. I don’t know of any current front bencher on either side of the House that has more than a few years in the real world of work – all of them seem to have risen through student activism, to ‘researchers’ and ‘spüecial advisers’ to MP. In short, their entire lives have been spent in politics, and in the Ideological Bubble which bears no relationship at all to reality.

    I predict that the Conservative Party will destroy itself over whether or not Britain should remain a part of Europe, or become even more of a satellite of the US. Our business culture is already entirely predicated on the premise that it is the sole duty of a business to produce a profit for its shareholders and nothing more. That is why all our major industries are now owned by offshore interests or foreign companies. That is why our workers are on ‘Zero Hours’ contracts while the Boardrooms are stuffed with accountants. That is why companies like Tescos can go from being extremely profitable to making massive losses in a very few years.

    Is Labour any better? No. Largely because it is stuffed with all the same type of people, people for whom all that matters is the ideology and to hell with reality. The only way our ‘democracy’ can be made to work, or even become anything that resembles ‘democracy’ is to scrap the FPTP system entirely, and introduce a multiple vote proportional representation system which awards the seats on the twofold system of direct elected and appointed lists proportional to the vote captured by the Party.

    For the last 30 years I have watched the ‘out of Europe at all costs’ wing of the Conservative Party distract it, threaten to wreck governments, undermine it and sabotage elections. Time to recognise that they are the problem, and until the Party becomes less ‘Oxbridge’ and ‘Institute of Directors’ Hooray Henry oriented, they are likely to end up like the LibDems – a minority group begging favours from whoever might need their support in future.

  • Raddiy

    Top comment Lady Mag, speaking for us all!!

    Mr Parris, it must quite galling to have to acknowledge that nobody is listening to you, and nobody is interested in what you have to say. It might be of interest to you, that most of us have been subjected to that from the political establishment all of our lives.

    We have been telling you, if any of you had dropped your arrogant aloofness and cared to listen that we were not joking, not messing around, not protesting, or spitting our dummies out. What you and your ilk have created is a critical mass of focused and determined people who are going to metaphorically destroy the politics that you are a perfect representation of, and that isn’t a compliment.

    You represent a politics that has attempted to destroy the country we cherish, without even a bye your leave, even the condemned man got a last wish, we were never given even that luxury. Today you are all reduced to pathetic begging for our votes, and pleading for us to come home, despite the fact you despise us, and all we stand for. There will be no coming back, we know where our journey is going, and where it is going to end, there are no tickets for politically dead men walking, only for like minded friends from across the country. Do us all a favour and bow out gracefully, you are an embarrassment.

  • CHARLIE BERMAN

    fascinating to read this post election result… Matthew Parris you consistently make sense with a balanced but nevertheless soundly right wing perspective. I unashamedly find my views coinciding with yours. There is now a huge opportunity for this country to move forward. Let’s hope we don’t tear ourselves apart over the referendum and let the left back in. So much work to do to repair the finances and continue to build a chesive, tolerant and successful country with strength and compassion.

  • MC

    You didn’t misread them Matthew! They thought like you all along… As Margaret Thatcher used to describe them ‘that small, quiet, insistent voice’ that calmly goes into the booth and votes the right way. It was they who saved Britain on Friday…

Close