Coffee House

Nick Clegg: I don’t think gay marriage opponents are bigots

11 September 2012

8:19 PM

11 September 2012

8:19 PM

Nick Clegg is currently eating a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream called ‘Appley Ever After’ with gay marriage campaigners celebrating the government’s consultation on introducing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Things didn’t go all that appley for the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today, though, when the Cabinet Office sent out what he later claimed was a draft of his speech that he was never going to give, which said:

‘Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we “postpone” the equalities agenda in order to deal with “the things people really care about”. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once.’

An hour and a half later, a recall notice popped into journalists’ inboxes – which was clearly enough time for them to read the press release at a leisurely pace and then share the word ‘bigot’ with their twitter followers. It was followed a few minutes later with this corrected speech:

‘Continued trouble in the economy leads some people to demand we “postpone” the equalities agenda in order to deal with “the things people really care about”. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once.’

[Alt-Text]


A spokesman for Clegg claimed that ‘this was not something the Deputy Prime Minister has said. It is not something he was ever going to say, because it is not something that he believes.’ Clegg himself told the reception that he was ‘a little bit surprised to see cameras assembled outside the gates, for the slightly obscure surprising reason that they expect me to use a word about opponents of gay marriage that I had no intention of using, would never use’. Which is intriguing, because it was clearly something someone who drafted the speech believed it at some stage today.

Though ‘bigot’ attracted fury from Tory MPs on both sides of the debate, I understand the speech was not redrafted at the request of the Prime Minister. Number 10 didn’t actually need to get involved before the new version of the speech was sent out. Downing Street sources are reminding us, though, that the Prime Minister remains committed to passing gay marriage before 2015 using a free vote in the Commons. The problem is that some MPs in David Cameron’s party suspect that he feels the same way about their plan to vote against the legislation. I suspect some of them may wish to press him on what he thinks of opponents of gay marriage at Prime Minister’s Questions tomorrow.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.stanfordbrown Richard Stanford Brown

    I’ve never really understood why this is such a big issue. There’s much more important issues that need addressing by the goverment, principally itself. and its tendency to over legislate everything. If we bin all legislation regarding the definition of marriage for example, accepting that one person’s idea may differ from another’s, realising that it is intended as an agreement between two people, or two people and their god dependent on personal belief system, but certainly not the contract between two people and the state it is reduced to, then we don’t need to even have this debate. Gay people can exchange rings and have a party too. Priests and others wont be obliged to attend, everyone’s a winner. We’d save some administration costs within the civil service to boot. We probably wouldn’t see many gay marriages in catholic churches, but that’s fine isn’t it? I find it curious Homosexuals would wish to be part of a religion that advocates stoning them to death.

  • Kevin

    In this context it is relevant that Clegg appears to have expressed no regrets about having slept with “no more than thirty women” (the exact figure being uncertain). Politicians who have a flippant attitude to monogamy and procreation have a vested interest in promoting legally institutionalised lust and, as a corollary, demonising “politically incorrect” supporters of marriage. It prevents their own lucrative careers from being cut short by scandal.

  • Cogito Ergosum

    To refer to a same-sex arrangement as marriage is biological and scientific nonsense that puts sentiment ahead of science. A civil partnership gives them the legal rights of inheritance and other matters, which was what they said they wanted and which most people would not deny them.
    But to go further is the thin end of the wedge.

  • David Ossitt

    “Downing Street sources are
    reminding us, though, that the Prime Minister remains committed to passing gay
    marriage before 2015 using a free vote in the Commons.”

    This will be Cameron’s downfall his nemesis, this silly-Billy
    has the political antenna of a dry cow-pat.

    Before every decision he should ask himself two questions,
    what would the blessed Margaret have done and what Nick Clegg would do, he
    should do nothing that NC would approve of and everything that Margaret would
    have done.

  • ACN

    Can’t we have a moratorium on the use of the word ‘bigot’? It seems to have replaced the words ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ in the ignorant vocabulary of abuse from the left. The definition of the word suggests it can apply to the person using it as much as anyone. Particularly so in the case of Clegg. Also, as much as I enjoy reading his stuff, Ron Liddle is a little overfond of its use.

  • David Ossitt

    Am I alone in thinking that Nick Clegg is a deeply unhappy
    man?

    Every single photograph published and every snippet of video
    coverage shows a man who is distressed and troubled, disquieted to a marked
    degree.

    He should resign and find a job that is more suited to his very
    limited ability.

  • wrinkledweasel

    If anything this demonstrates Clegg’s inability to engage with those who disagree with him, in the same way that anybody who suggests a curb on immigration is called a racist.

    This type of discourse, the use of made up words with a “phobe” suffix are used to shut down debate.

    Sensible people must learn to expect that from the “liberal” elite and find a way of countering it. The other trick they use is to change the “correct” word for things. That way they can easily work out who their comrades are. This has backfired from time to time as older generation lefties have failed to keep up with the lexicon.

    The kind of awkward questions you can ask the left are ones about democracy, public will and freedom of speech and expression. Another is to probe their understanding of what is right and wrong because in they end they tend to have only an arbitrary grasp of this, based usually upon second-hand pop opinion.

    In this issue, gay marriage, the reality of the debate has always centred upon the extent to which the government meddles with peoples’ private lives. In my opinion there must always be a level playing field. In other words, every citizen should have the same rights as every other citizen, if those rights are in the gift of the government.

    But it is not about that is it? It is about a real fear that it will go further. Not only will gay marriage be officially recognised, but it will curtail the freedoms and conferred rights of those who do not subscribe.

    I do not believe we are a nation of homophobes – or whatever you like to call it this week – I believe we sense that a section of society, the liberal ruling elite, are riding roughshod over the popular will. (Europe is an object lesson.)

    This issue is the perfect example of something rather trivial which has become a cause celebre due to the very profound issues that underlie it.

  • sir_graphus

    So he thinks Christians are bigots. And Muslims. Nice vote winner, Nick.

  • sir_graphus

    So he thinks Christians are bigots. And Muslims. Nice vote winner, Nick.

  • BenM_Kent

    But Nick, you were right first time.

    Opponents of Gay Marriage are bigots. As the thread here proves.

    • james102

      A bigot:” one blindly and obstinately devoted to party or creed.” Sounds like Clegg.
      What a shame political parties are not subject to the Trade Descriptions Act. The LibDems are neither liberal nor democratic.

    • james102

      A bigot:” one blindly and obstinately devoted to party or creed.” Sounds like Clegg.
      What a shame political parties are not subject to the Trade Descriptions Act. The LibDems are neither liberal nor democratic.

  • MikeF

    Here we go again – let’s knock this word ‘bigot’ on the head once and for all. The word has a dictionary definition – something along the lines of an individual with an inflated regard for their own opinion – but that is not how it used by the people who bandy it about the most in other words the ‘liberal-left’/socialists/gay activists etc. Instead it has become an epithet – a word that has been turned into a reflexive term of abuse used in an indiscriminate, repetitive, incantatory manner to try to suppress debate by intimidating into silence anyone who does not follow whatever it is deemed to be the left-liberal etc orthodoxy of the moment.
    As such like all terms of abuse it says nothing at all about the people against whom it is directed but reveals an awful lot about the people who employ it and what it reveals is ugly to say the least – a stew of conceit, intolerance, authoritarianism, illiteracy and perhaps most of all an odd fusion of a preening self-regard with a rather bovine wish to run with the crowd. No word in current use better illustrates the debasement of political discourse that is the hallmark of much of public life today.
    Frankly the people who use the word don’t ‘think’ anything because they do so without definition or justification. Its ubiquitousness in public discourse today is a manifestation not of enlightenment but of an irrationalism that verges on being a form of secular occultism and its employment must be confronted, deconstructed and in the final analysis defied at all times.

  • Heartless etc., – also A Bigot

    I oppose ‘Gay’ ‘marriage’.

    I detest the word ‘gay’ – another Bliarist bastardised word, – previously part of normal English conversation.

    I detest the concept of ‘gay marriage’ – a contradiction in terms, and rightly reviled by The Churches and all right thinking people.

    I am therefore PROUD TO BE CONSIDERED A BIGOT BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT.

    PS – am also a bigot over the Wind Farm / OS Aid / HS2 Scams

  • Heartless etc., – also A Bigot

    I oppose ‘Gay’ ‘marriage’.

    I detest the word ‘gay’ – another Bliarist bastardised word, – previously part of normal English conversation.

    I detest the concept of ‘gay marriage’ – a contradiction in terms, and rightly reviled by The Churches and all right thinking people.

    I am therefore PROUD TO BE CONSIDERED A BIGOT BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT.

    PS – am also a bigot over the Wind Farm / OS Aid / HS2 Scams

  • Jim

    Why is marriage considered to be any of the law’s business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.
    In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
    Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
    In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet “gay marriage” advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
    They argue against a “ban on gay marriage” but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

  • Daniel Maris

    Will he condemn the people who complained about Tom Holland’s TV programme on Islam as “bigots”? One rather thinks not. In fact one knows he won’t. Certain people can be as bigoted as they like as far as he is concerned.

  • Nicholas

    Bigot. The new leftofascist word for counter-revolutionary and imperialist running dog.

  • TomTom

    So Clegg thinks he is not a “bigot” that leaves those who loathe Clegg with an identifying label then……

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Way to go Meneer Clog!
    The Westminster cabal clearly have a long way to go in their detoxification of the nation. Clog obvously thinks, just like Broon and the H2B, that the nation isn’t quite worthy of them yet.

  • Archimedes

    “The problem is that some MPs in David Cameron’s party suspect that he feels the same way about their plan to vote against the legislation.”

    Well, I hope so. It’s not exactly neoliberal to be strong-arming the way people live under the guise of liberation; and it’s not exactly Tory to be abandoning ancient institutions now, is it?

  • dalai guevara

    This is In The Thick Of It Coalition, right?

  • wrinkledweasel

    I’m Gillian Duffy

  • Judy

    The Church of England opposes gay marriage. The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. Almost all evangelical Christian organizations and authorities oppose gay marriaage. All the Orthodox Jewish religious organisations and authorities oppose gay marriage. All Muslim religious organisations and authorities oppose gay marriage. All bigots, eh?

    • David Lindsay

      No one goes to court to force Catholic priests to marry divorcees, or Anglicans to do so without going through the required procedures, or Orthodox rabbis to perform mixed marriages, or what have you.

      But the limitlessly funded homosexualist lobby, by far the most powerful in the country, is an entirely different matter. It certainly will pursue clergy all the way to financial ruin, to prison, to nervous breakdown, to suicide, to whatever you care to mention, for having had the temerity to do anything other than spontaneously acknowledge the self-evident rightness of whatever that lobby might happen to have demanded.

      And it can.

      • Fergus Pickering

        By far the most powerful lobby in the country? How? In what way? It is true that many homosexuals are rich. Many are also good-looking and intelligent? Whereas certain other people are ugly and stupid. What are these terrible things homosexuals want? They don’t want to erect wind farms at the back of my house. They don’t want to build huge extensionsn in my neighbouring back gardens. They don’t want to concrete over the green belt. The things they want don’t affect me in the least, but they do affect those non-rich, non-powerful lobbies the effing Catholic Church and associated bigots.

        And you, Lindsay. And you.

        • Nicholas

          Actually, Fergus, I agree with David Lindsay on this. There is little doubt that if this goes through people of conscience will end up being prosecuted – essentially for their disapproval and refusal to be coerced to conform. Exchanging one form of persecution for another is not progress. At one time in Britain homosexuals were prosecuted as criminals. But imagine if at that time those who openly stated they approved of homosexuality were also prosecuted as criminals. We are getting to a stage where people are being mobbed and persecuted for their stated beliefs. Can the state ever compel that? And if it can, should it?

          • Fergus Pickering

            Well, Nicholas, it can, and it does in the matter of racism, but it should not. And aren’t you going over the top about this. We are quite a long way from a society where expressed disapproval of homosexuals gets a prison term. We are much nearer one where being a homosexual gets you a prison term. It did when I was younger. ‘People of conscience’ so often seem to be people who want to stop other people doing things. Well, i’m a person of conscience and my conscience tells me that homosexuals should be equal IN EVERY WAY with heterosexuals, that their sexual preference is IN NO WAY inferior. Just as people who wish to have heterosexual sex but don’t wish to have children should not be persecuted for their ‘unnatural’ behaviour.. It is also OK with me that you should live a totally celibate life like the Pope.

            • Nicholas

              That’s a rather silly response. Stopping people from doing something is quite different to refusing to take part and disapproving. Since the Church presides over the religious marriage ceremony they have skin in the game and every right to approve or disapprove and to take part or not. The direction of travel of travel in this country is towards a rather narrower definition of tolerance where expressed disapproval might well get you a prison term if recent Twitter cases are anything to go by. If private B&B owners can be prosecuted and coerced for discrimination I’m sure presiding clergy can be and will be. The agenda is not equality but forcing everyone to hold the same views and coercing not just tolerance but approval in the same way that North Koreans were coerced to publicly mourn. If you can’t see that you are naive.

              • Fergus Pickering

                Ah, saying that people who disagree with you are silly and/or naive is a regular knock-down argument, isn’t it? And as for forcing everyone to have the same views, this is not just a foible of the left, is it? I am at least as Tory as you, but many people of the right wish to force me to believe what I do not believe and do what I do not wish to do. The ‘direction of travel’ argument seems to suggest all sorts of things. If more people go the universities then all educational standards are dead. If girls appear on the streets in immodest dresses then we are all going to hell in a handcart. Muslims like this sort of argument, but I do not.

                • Nicholas

                  No, Fergus. Another silly response. I did not say you were silly for disagreeing with me. I said that your response was silly because it did not differentiate between disapproval and imposition. The direction of travel comment was specific to tolerance not generic to the “way the country is going”.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Well, let us just say that I do not see our directtion of travel to be towards intolerance. Our socirty now is immeasurably more tolerant than it was fifty years ago. I am sure you do not deny this. One of the reasons is the diminishing power of the Christian religion, in particular the Roman Catholic version which is obfuscating and vicious as it always was.. The rise of muslimism is most unfortunate and should be resisted. Still, we saw off Marxiism which is far more intelligent. A religion of desert nomads ought not to ne a problem.

                • http://www.facebook.com/richard.stanfordbrown Richard Stanford Brown

                  “we saw off Marxism” Good Work Comrade Pickering! They don’t suspect a thing… “which is far more intelligent” really though, the list of things marxism is more intelligent than is extremely short, and until marxism has provided the world with something to eclipse the modern numerical system, even a “religion of desert nomads” isn’t one of them.

            • CraigStrachan

              I love the way you express yourself, Fergus. In fact, I may simply love you. Want to get married?

            • CraigStrachan

              I love the way you express yourself, Fergus. In fact, I may simply love you. Want to get married?

    • http://twitter.com/ianwalkeruk Ian Walker

      Aren’t all religious devotees bigots by definition? Technically it means to be intolerant of other ideas, religions or creeds, which is part of the basic tenets of most of the major world religions (although they all hide it away nowadays, like the embarassing dotty aunt who’s been sent off to a home)

      Not that I agree with this pointless legislation – every gay couple I know is perfectly happy with the existing civil partnerships, and specifically doesn’t want this unnecessary ‘equailty’ law inflaming anti-gay sentiment.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Nope. I think you will find that the Church of England is terribly tolerant of other ideas, right from the time .of Queen Elizabeth the First of blessed memory. She persecuted Catholics because they wished to undermine the state and murder her, an entirely different thing

      • Publius

        “Aren’t all religious devotees bigots by definition?”

        No.

    • CraigStrachan

      Very possibly. I’d need to know more about their rationale. But, generally speaking, despising people because of an innate characteristc such as sexual orientation would be bigotry, yes.

      Denying people civil rights because of an innate characteristic goes beyond bigotry and becomes discrimination.

      • Nicholas

        How is it that personal conscience and disapproval are now being conflated with hatred? Is there no freedom now to make a personal moral judgement and disapprove of something without being accused of hatred and – ergo – ultimately criminalised? Are we really moving towards a situation where thought is compelled by the state and approval must be coerced? If so called bigotry and discrimination must be eradicated by fascism then count me out.

        • James R

          Well said sir.

        • CraigStrachan

          Of course individuals can make personal moral judgements, although anti-gay prejudice is fast becoming the sort of thing they should probably keep to themselves.

          However, a modern state cannot and should not discriminate against its citizens based on their sexual orientation.

          Gay marriage is going to happen. The good news is that you don’t have to participate, if you aren’t so inclined.

          • Nicholas

            My prejudice is not anti-gay it is anti-fascist. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation and you are missing the point completely. The bad news is that those involved in presiding over the religious marriage ceremony will be compelled to participate and criminalised if they refuse so no eyewash please. Fascism is fascism however it tries to dress itself up.

            • CraigStrachan

              Churches, with one notable exception, are private and voluntary concerns and as such should not be compelled to carry out marriages of which they disapprove. (And I’m not sure that gay couples would want to dignify by their presence churches that expressed such disapproval. There will be plenty of churches that will welcome them, and be glad of the business.) That notable exception? Why, the case of an established or state church. Such as the Church of England, which certainly should not be permitted to discriminate against citizens of the state. Not unless it disestablishes and swears off any and all state support first.

        • CraigStrachan

          Of course individuals can make personal moral judgements, although anti-gay prejudice is fast becoming the sort of thing they should probably keep to themselves.

          However, a modern state cannot and should not discriminate against its citizens based on their sexual orientation.

          Gay marriage is going to happen. The good news is that you don’t have to participate, if you aren’t so inclined.

    • http://twitter.com/mackydee1977 Macky Dee

      A lot of people (gay or not) are not even religious but still want to be married. I dont get it. Marriage is about family and pro-creation, it is a religious entity. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.

      • Fergus Pickering

        But, Macky Dee, they want it. And if marriage is about family, what about marriages with no children? Words mean, in the end, what people want them to mean. Humpty Dumpty is right in the long term. Look, if you will, at the history of the word ‘silly’. It used to mean ‘poor’ and therefore ‘deserving of pity. So we ought to be able to say that many lower class people are silly without giving offence. But we can’t because the meaning has changed.. .

        • Publius

          Fergus Pickering writes: “Words mean, in the end, what people want them to mean.”

          – Perhaps. But words are a medium, are they not? And you cannot really stop at your comment above without discussing what is real and true as opposed to what is fantasy and deception.

          There are certain political activists, Fergus, particularly on the left, who think you can refashion reality by forcing people to refashion their vocabulary. They understand what you appear not to understand: that words have power.

          • Fergus Pickering

            I do not deny that words have power. Where did I say that I did? I said that words change their meanings. Do you deny this? You seem to think that these changes naturally come about through coercion. And I am really not sure that the left are way out on their own in attempting such coercion. The right do it too – in this case by insisting that marriage ‘really’ means what it does not.

            • Publius

              Looks like you haven’t bothered to read what I said.

              • Fergus Pickering

                I read what you said. You said words are a medium. I deny this. A medium for what? Your view of language is naive, simplistic and untrue. You are in good company. Hobbes made the same mistake.

                • Publius

                  Actually, Fergus, I was thinking more of the Cratylus. Did you not guess?

                • Publius

                  Actually, Fergus, I was thinking more of the Cratylus. Did you not guess?

  • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

    So we know what Clegg thinks of most of us. I wonder if he is aware of what most of us think of him?

    • James R

      On the topic of same-sex marriage,I think he’s been caught with his pants down.

  • Keith

    Reminds me of Brown and Mrs Duffy

  • ButcombeMan

    What a delightful own goal by Clegg, his intolerance of contrary opinions takes out swathes of the electorate and will haunt him forever.

    One does not have to have any religion or oppossition to civil partnerships to be against the “Newspeak”, forced redefinition of the meaning of the word “marriage”. Many, even perhaps most, homosexuals understand that.

    Astonishingly Clegg like Cameron, appears not to. Both will be damaged by it.

    Motes & Beams applies. Herr Clegg. Maybe you would be more comfortable out of UK politics forever?

  • ButcombeMan

    What a delightful own goal by Clegg, his intolerance of contrary opinions takes out swathes of the electorate and will haunt him forever.

    One does not have to have any religion or oppossition to civil partnerships to be against the “Newspeak”, forced redefinition of the meaning of the word “marriage”. Many, even perhaps most, homosexuals understand that.

    Astonishingly Clegg like Cameron, appears not to. Both will be damaged by it.

    Motes & Beams applies. Herr Clegg. Maybe you would be more comfortable out of UK politics forever?

    • telemachus

      So you are a bigot then?

      • telemacharse

        Better a bigot then a brain dead moron with his head up his bum. You contribute absolutely nothing to these fora. You are as thick as your hero, Brown’s catamite, the fat fool Balls. You are so stupid you think your comments are witty when in reality they reflect the lack of intelligence of their owner. My neighbour has a dog who has more brains than you. You are stupid stupid stupid.

      • Nicholas

        Here is how it works. A leftofascist decides how things should be. If one dissents and publicly says so one is treated not to debate, or persuasion but instead to a coded pejorative contrived to demonise and undermine that dissenting view, to marginalise it and to render it, in that infamously deceitful category as “unacceptable”.

        Bigot – a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. That seems to me to perfectly describe Nick Clegg when it comes to any “group” who disagrees with him. And you, telemachus, and you.

    • HooksLaw

      Liberals, not least in their ‘Liberal Democrat’ manifestation, are intolerant. All of them. They are increasingly intolerant of the notion of actually being in government. Far better for LDs to be out of govt with the easy life of just carping from the sidelines.

      The point you seem intent on missing though is that homosexuals in relationships exist and more and more people are managing to deal with that.

  • Daniel Maris

    So our political class think people who are concerned about mass immigration are bigots…people who believe in traditional marriage are bigots…anything other “dire traits” they want to stigmatise as “bigoted”? Believing violent criminals should go to prison perhaps?

    • telemachus

      All members of Conservative Voice

      • David Lindsay

        The voice of the necessary State
        action in order to conserve against the ravages of capitalism national
        self-government, the only basis for international co-operation, and including
        the United Kingdom as greater than the sum of its parts?

        The voice of the necessary State
        action in order to conserve against the ravages of capitalism local variation,
        historical consciousness, and family life?

        The voice of the necessary State
        action in order to conserve against the ravages of capitalism agriculture,
        manufacturing, and small business?

        The voice of the necessary State
        action in order to conserve against the ravages of capitalism close-knit
        communities, law and order, and civil liberties?

        The voice of the necessary State
        action in order to conserve against the ravages of capitalism academic standards,
        all forms of art, and mass political participation within a constitutional
        framework?

        The voice of those who, since
        they rightly oppose the unregulated movement of labour, rightly also oppose the
        unregulated movement of goods, services and capital, and vice versa?

        The voice of those who, since
        they rightly oppose the decadent social libertinism deriving from the 1960s,
        rightly also oppose its logically inevitable, and not unwitting, development
        into the decadent economic libertinism deriving from the 1980s, and vice versa?

        And the voice of those who, since they rightly oppose the erosion of
        self-government and cultural distinctiveness by the European Union, rightly
        also oppose that erosion by American hegemony and global capital, closely
        connected as all those three are, and vice versa?

        No, of course not. Quite the
        reverse, in fact.

        Not only that, but a star vehicle
        for the man who ran a parallel foreign policy out of his office as Defence Secretary
        and through his fake charity, since deregistered. He ran it in the interests of
        the American neoconservatives, who are not even in government in their own
        country, and in the interests of the racist Israeli Far Right and the Sinhalese
        genocidists of Sri Lanka, who most unfortunately are in government in their
        respective countries.

        He
        even appointed an American intelligence operative, without so much as the fig
        leaf of a British passport, as one of his Special Advisers, meaning that the
        MoD contained someone with the direct ear of the Secretary of State but who had
        been refused security clearance.

        Why
        has Liam Fox not been expelled from Parliament and prosecuted? Why is he still
        in receipt of the Conservative Whip? These are not rhetorical questions. Nor is
        that of what on earth David Davis is doing, getting himself mixed up with this
        sort of thing.

      • telemacharse

        See above jackass.

    • james102

      Anyone who disagrees with them are bigots, by definition.
      They call themselves “liberals” so it is either a lack of a sense of irony or
      they have taken Orwell’s 1984 as an instruction manual.

      • Nicholas

        Indeed. q.v. Sturmbannfuhrer Strachan above. You should keep these thoughts to yourself he whispers menacingly.

  • BaragouinKiss
  • David Lindsay

    Bigots have votes. In, among other places, the North of Scotland, the West Country, and Mid Wales.

    What is the only party always to have promised a free vote on the redefinition of marriage, the only party that has not talked itself into having that redefinition in its 2015 Manifesto, doing to channel those votes?

    • chudsmania

      What the hell are you on about ? Every contituency has bigots , but its how you define bigot . I hate the EU with a passion , does that make me a bigot ? I hate MP’s screwing taxpayers money , again does that make me a bigot ? Is anyone who dislikes something a bigot ? I hate cheese too so the bigotry rolls on , where shall we stop ?

      • David Lindsay

        You have ever so slightly missed the point.

        • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

          I am sorry, I tried, but I cannot understand what you are going on about in this thread.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here