Recently the Coalition government looked back on the first 2 1/2 years of the 5 year parliament and just about broke their own arms patting each other on the back.
On Tuesday, this same government will push forward with the 2nd reading of legislation to re-define marriage and allow homosexuals to 'marry'. So what? you may ask. Well, where is the mandate for this? It wasn't in the Conservative manifesto. It wasn't in the Coalition Agreement, either. The latter document, which I quote here stated:
When you look at the way the deficit reduction programme is working out, you might say, why, when the government borrowings are increasing, is the government not focused on the economy? Does anyone really think that allowing homosexuals to 'marry' will reduce the deficit? And please don't prattle on about any kind of civil liberties deficit - you know what I mean.
The Coalition Agreement also said:
This was a long standing 'commitment' from the Conservatives to support, what they called the 'traditional marriage'. Needless to say, the one promise about marriage, that they did make, they don't keep and then they introduce ones that they never made and for which they can categorically be said to have absolutely no mandate. Indeed, 3 days before the 2010 election, David Cameron is reported (Coalition for Marriage) as to have categorically said that there were no plans to redefine the definition of marriage. It is customary to hold politicians in such low regard that as a matter of nature, we tend to expect them to lie rather than tell the truth, but usually they have the decency to cover this in 'politico-speak' but here Cameron gave an unequivocal answer. So why the change?
I think that given the Lib Dems, shameless and petty and spiteful rejection of the Boundary Changes legislation, the Conservatives should encourage all of their MPs to vote down this legislation, simply in retaliation. I would like to think that they would actually vote this down on the dubious merits of the bill and the inherent inequalities that this bill brings as well as the inevitable intrusion into Church affairs but even among Tories, pandering to vocal minorities still occurs, so however you justify it, have the courage to do the right thing and vote it down.
At some point, the Coalition has to start moving apart so that by the time the next election comes, in May 2015, they can be seen to be the separate political parties that they are. So the Conservatives should follow the Lib Dems lead. The latter has started to move away from the Coalition, the Conservatives should do the same.
On Tuesday, this same government will push forward with the 2nd reading of legislation to re-define marriage and allow homosexuals to 'marry'. So what? you may ask. Well, where is the mandate for this? It wasn't in the Conservative manifesto. It wasn't in the Coalition Agreement, either. The latter document, which I quote here stated:
The deficit reduction programme takes precedence over any of the other measures in this agreement, and the speed of implementation of any measures that have a cost to the public finances will depend on decisions to be made in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
When you look at the way the deficit reduction programme is working out, you might say, why, when the government borrowings are increasing, is the government not focused on the economy? Does anyone really think that allowing homosexuals to 'marry' will reduce the deficit? And please don't prattle on about any kind of civil liberties deficit - you know what I mean.
The Coalition Agreement also said:
We will also ensure that provision is made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to the coalition agreement.
This was a long standing 'commitment' from the Conservatives to support, what they called the 'traditional marriage'. Needless to say, the one promise about marriage, that they did make, they don't keep and then they introduce ones that they never made and for which they can categorically be said to have absolutely no mandate. Indeed, 3 days before the 2010 election, David Cameron is reported (Coalition for Marriage) as to have categorically said that there were no plans to redefine the definition of marriage. It is customary to hold politicians in such low regard that as a matter of nature, we tend to expect them to lie rather than tell the truth, but usually they have the decency to cover this in 'politico-speak' but here Cameron gave an unequivocal answer. So why the change?
I think that given the Lib Dems, shameless and petty and spiteful rejection of the Boundary Changes legislation, the Conservatives should encourage all of their MPs to vote down this legislation, simply in retaliation. I would like to think that they would actually vote this down on the dubious merits of the bill and the inherent inequalities that this bill brings as well as the inevitable intrusion into Church affairs but even among Tories, pandering to vocal minorities still occurs, so however you justify it, have the courage to do the right thing and vote it down.
At some point, the Coalition has to start moving apart so that by the time the next election comes, in May 2015, they can be seen to be the separate political parties that they are. So the Conservatives should follow the Lib Dems lead. The latter has started to move away from the Coalition, the Conservatives should do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment