The Politics Thread

[Lost Leopard Spot]

so... after all this time and (presumably tens of thousands of pounds in lawyers fees and what-not) Chris Huhne decides to plead guilty at the very last opportunity...

wanker...

Maybe him and Lance Armstrong could set up a business - Lies R' Us
(go on sue you nice people. I'd tweet it if I had an account).

[Bijou Bob]

The unfortunate thing for Mr Hune is that as he didn't plead guilty at the first available opportunity he will receive little credit for it. I sense a jail term, unfortunately suspended coming on.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The unfortunate thing for Mr Hune is that as he didn't plead guilty at the first available opportunity he will receive little credit for it. I sense a jail term, unfortunately suspended coming on.

I don't think it will be suspended. The 'usual' term for his offence is 6 months. If it's suspended it'd be a scandal.

Eastleigh is going to be one very interesting by-election. I can see Farage throwing his hat into the ring.

[Harry Genshaw]

My God, it's got mi dander up this story. What an absolute to55er. He's lied about it constantly whilst all the time his legal team have been trying to get the case dropped. Even lying while all the time his own son was begging him to tell the truth.

Like David Chaytor & Lance Armstrong, he's lied until he had no alternative other than to cough to it.

Depending on his sentence my next post about the scumbag will either be in the happy thread or the angry thread.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You'd think twice before crossing his ex-wife wouldn't you?!

As ever, it's easy to say this now, but there would be nowhere near this stink if he'd just held his hands up when it came out. I'm sure everyone knows somebody who has transferred speeding points to a partner - I can think of two people I know who have done it.

What he's done since though really is unforgivable. The nice person.

[William the White]

As ever - it's the cover up that unravels that does for them. For the sake of a political career with the Lib Dems!!! he was prepared to enter a criminal conspiracy with his wife, destroy his family, pervert the course of justice, perjure himself and keep on this path until, in the end, there was no way out, though he sought the dishonest one right until the last feasible moment...

And had he coughed at the start, the 'storm' about going over 12 points (and he was certainly rich enough to afford a six month chauffeur) would be long over and remembered only in the occasional satirical snipe...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's the sheer absolute gall of the man. To stand there straight faced and utterly deny any wrongdoing with a face of angelic innocence, you could never ever trust what he said again - well I couldn't.
But even worse, despite the fact most political journalists think his career is over for ever, I could tell that yesterday's little performance outside the court was the beginning (in his mind at least) of his comeback strategy.
And to think this is only a week since I told you on here that things were going on behind the scenes - last Monday the nice person and his lawyers were having a private Mention Hearing trying to get the case thrown out with no case to answer and have his ex-wife arraigned for perjury and have reporting restrictions imposed - two-faced c*nt.

[thebish]

credit where credit is due...

cameron didn't need to do this - yet he must certainly have taken FULL barrage from the blue-rinse brigade in his own party.. and is being warned by some of his activists that they will no longer work for him at the next election, and loads of his own MPs will vote against him - and his only (and fairly sure) chance of even succeeding lies with Labour/libdem MPs...

but - finishing what labour started and opening up Marriage to same-sex couples.

I, for one, applaud his courage on this issue.

[bwfcdan94]

I think we bound to end up with a coalition after the next election as well as nobody has faith with and polictical party full anymore, in fact most people just moan about them. IMO Cameron is bound to be voted in next time because he said he is going to get us out of the EU, who the coalition is with is the big question. Out of intrest what happens if not one party gets enough votes to stand on its own two feat in governmant and no other parties are willing to form a coalition with them?

[BWFC_Insane]

credit where credit is due...

cameron didn't need to do this - yet he must certainly have taken FULL barrage from the blue-rinse brigade in his own party.. and is being warned by some of his activists that they will no longer work for him at the next election, and loads of his own MPs will vote against him - and his only (and fairly sure) chance of even succeeding lies with Labour/libdem MPs...

but - finishing what labour started and opening up Marriage to same-sex couples.

I, for one, applaud his courage on this issue.

Agree with this. I see some "right" commentators are saying, he's only doing it to appear more "cuddly" to voters, whatever that means.

But who cares? The right thing happening is what matters, the reasons behind it are far less important.

Surely this whole issue is the biggest non debate ever though? I mean apart from a few right wing, Christian nut jobs and the odd homophobe out there, who else would oppose this?

It's surely supported by the vast, vast majority of the public. In fact most people probably don't care an awful lot.

So why the right are getting so uppity about such a non issue puzzles me.

Surely there are some brown folks to blame for something somewhere?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

credit where credit is due...

cameron didn't need to do this - yet he must certainly have taken FULL barrage from the blue-rinse brigade in his own party.. and is being warned by some of his activists that they will no longer work for him at the next election, and loads of his own MPs will vote against him - and his only (and fairly sure) chance of even succeeding lies with Labour/libdem MPs...

but - finishing what labour started and opening up Marriage to same-sex couples.

I, for one, applaud his courage on this issue.

He can't even get that right. He is at the same time (quite contrarily) denying heteosexual couples a similar extension by not allowing civil partnerships. Even when flying in the face of partisanship the knob still refuses to do the proper thing.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think we bound to end up with a coalition after the next election as well as nobody has faith with and polictical party full anymore, in fact most people just moan about them. IMO Cameron is bound to be voted in next time because he said he is going to get us out of the EU, who the coalition is with is the big question. Out of intrest what happens if not one party gets enough votes to stand on its own two feat in governmant and no other parties are willing to form a coalition with them?

Proper Egg Corn

[thebish]

credit where credit is due...

cameron didn't need to do this - yet he must certainly have taken FULL barrage from the blue-rinse brigade in his own party.. and is being warned by some of his activists that they will no longer work for him at the next election, and loads of his own MPs will vote against him - and his only (and fairly sure) chance of even succeeding lies with Labour/libdem MPs...

but - finishing what labour started and opening up Marriage to same-sex couples.

I, for one, applaud his courage on this issue.

He can't even get that right. He is at the same time (quite contrarily) denying heteosexual couples a similar extension by not allowing civil partnerships. Even when flying in the face of partisanship the knob still refuses to do the proper thing.

still not sure why any heterosexual couple would want a civil partnership given that marriage is open to them. the neatest thing to do would be to have abolished civil partnerships - what advantage do they offer over marriage? they were only introduced because the UK wasn't judged ready to allow same-sex marriage.

try as i might I am finding it very hard to feel even the tiniest bit discriminated against because I can't choose a civil partnership...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

credit where credit is due...

cameron didn't need to do this - yet he must certainly have taken FULL barrage from the blue-rinse brigade in his own party.. and is being warned by some of his activists that they will no longer work for him at the next election, and loads of his own MPs will vote against him - and his only (and fairly sure) chance of even succeeding lies with Labour/libdem MPs...

but - finishing what labour started and opening up Marriage to same-sex couples.

I, for one, applaud his courage on this issue.

He can't even get that right. He is at the same time (quite contrarily) denying heteosexual couples a similar extension by not allowing civil partnerships. Even when flying in the face of partisanship the knob still refuses to do the proper thing.

still not sure why any heterosexual couple would want a civil partnership given that marriage is open to them. the neatest thing to do would be to have abolished civil partnerships - what advantage do they offer over marriage? they were only introduced because the UK wasn't judged ready to allow same-sex marriage.

try as i might I am finding it very hard to feel even the tiniest bit discriminated against because I can't choose a civil partnership...

But it is not the same as marriage - if it was then there would be no need to extend marriage to non-heterosexuals.
And if it such a non-issue why is Cameron so stubborn on the issue.
Either abolish civil partnerships or reciprocally extend marriage and civil partnerships. It's not a difficult solution!

[thebish]

But it is not the same as marriage - if it was then there would be no need to extend marriage to non-heterosexuals.
And if it such a non-issue why is Cameron so stubborn on the issue.
Either abolish civil partnerships or reciprocally extend marriage and civil partnerships. It's not a difficult solution!

it's not the same as it was invented in order to offer something to same-sex couples when really they should have been offered marriage, and so is only open to same-sex couples.

can you explain how it is tangibly different (other than the name), though, cos I can't see it.

I do think the name is important, though. "marriage" (rightly or wrongly) has long been described as part of the bedrock on which society is built - it has all sorts of associated connotations - one of which (crucially in this case) is "acceptance". If you offer essentially the same thing to same-sex couples but call it something different - then you are suggesting that they are not quite fully accepted - that there is something deficient or second class in the relationship they have - when there isn't. If something is the same it should have the same name. maybe civil partnerships will fall into disuse and eventually be scrapped - they will be at worst an anomaly - not a civil rights issue for heterosexuals.

of course - you could do the other thing and call marriage "civil partnership" and abolish marriage - which would kill all the birds with one stone... getting rid of the unnecessary link between religion and marriage/not having two differently named ceremonies for the same thing - but I suspect that might have been a step too far even for a couageous tory leader!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But it is not the same as marriage - if it was then there would be no need to extend marriage to non-heterosexuals.
And if it such a non-issue why is Cameron so stubborn on the issue.
Either abolish civil partnerships or reciprocally extend marriage and civil partnerships. It's not a difficult solution!

it's not the same as it was invented in order to offer something to same-sex couples when really they should have been offered marriage, and so is only open to same-sex couples.

can you explain how it is tangibly different (other than the name), though, cos I can't see it.

I do think the name is important, though. "marriage" (rightly or wrongly) has long been described as part of the bedrock on which society is built - it has all sorts of associated connotations - one of which (crucially in this case) is "acceptance". If you offer essentially the same thing to same-sex couples but call it something different - then you are suggesting that they are not quite fully accepted - that there is something deficient or second class in the relationship they have - when there isn't. If something is the same it should have the same name. maybe civil partnerships will fall into disuse and eventually be scrapped - they will be at worst an anomaly - not a civil rights issue for heterosexuals.

of course - you could do the other thing and call marriage "civil partnership" and abolish marriage - which would kill all the birds with one stone... getting rid of the unnecessary link between religion and marriage/not having two differently named ceremonies for the same thing - but I suspect that might have been a step too far even for a couageous tory leader!

There are legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages (although I can't iterate them). My objection is one of fairness. When Cameron is extending marriage, he is not abolishing Civil Partnerships. There are people (not me personally) who want heterosexual civil partnerships.
My sole point here is why not give proper equality.
The options would be
1) Civil partnerships for all, abolish marriage
2) Marriage for all, abolish civil partnerships.
3) Civil Partnerships and/or Marriage for all.
But instead he (Cameron) insists on a fourth unequal option
4) Civil partnerships and/or Marriage for homosexuals, Marriage alone for heterosexuals.
I object to the inequality of it. That reason and that alone is worth objecting about something. Inequality stinks.

[thebish]

There are legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages (although I can't iterate them). My objection is one of fairness. When Cameron is extending marriage, he is not abolishing Civil Partnerships. There are people (not me personally) who want heterosexual civil partnerships.
My sole point here is why not give proper equality.
The options would be
1) Civil partnerships for all, abolish marriage
2) Marriage for all, abolish civil partnerships.
3) Civil Partnerships and/or Marriage for all.
But instead he (Cameron) insists on a fourth unequal option
4) Civil partnerships and/or Marriage for homosexuals, Marriage alone for heterosexuals.
I object to the inequality of it. That reason and that alone is worth objecting about something. Inequality stinks.

indeed it does! but on the scale of inequalities facing us in the 21st century, this isn't high on my list of stuff to get too steamed up about - I doubt ANYONE will be hurt by it or denied something they actually want other than in the mental process of imagining that it is a logical inconsistency, and I imagine it will get sorted out pretty quickly - quicker than so many other inequalities that plague us and have plagued us...

It's certainly not enough to dampen my EXTREMELY RARE praise of David Cameron for doing the right thing today.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There are legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages (although I can't iterate them). My objection is one of fairness. When Cameron is extending marriage, he is not abolishing Civil Partnerships. There are people (not me personally) who want heterosexual civil partnerships.
My sole point here is why not give proper equality.
The options would be
1) Civil partnerships for all, abolish marriage
2) Marriage for all, abolish civil partnerships.
3) Civil Partnerships and/or Marriage for all.
But instead he (Cameron) insists on a fourth unequal option
4) Civil partnerships and/or Marriage for homosexuals, Marriage alone for heterosexuals.
I object to the inequality of it. That reason and that alone is worth objecting about something. Inequality stinks.

indeed it does! but on the scale of inequalities facing us in the 21st century, this isn't high on my list of stuff to get too steamed up about - I doubt ANYONE will be hurt by it or denied something they actually want other than in the mental process of imagining that it is a logical inconsistency, and I imagine it will get sorted out pretty quickly - quicker than so many other inequalities that plague us and have plagued us...

It's certainly not enough to dampen my EXTREMELY RARE praise of David Cameron for doing the right thing today.

I will allow you to give extremely rare praise to David Cameron on the understanding that it is caveated with a quick tut for doing a half-arsed job of it, even though nobody gives a monkey's either about civil partnerships or the devastation it is not wroughting (?) on the blighted lives of bonking heterosexuals who want legal claim to their other halves possessions as well as a quickie, but not the full before the eyes of God unionisation.

[thebish]

There are legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages (although I can't iterate them). My objection is one of fairness. When Cameron is extending marriage, he is not abolishing Civil Partnerships. There are people (not me personally) who want heterosexual civil partnerships.
My sole point here is why not give proper equality.
The options would be
1) Civil partnerships for all, abolish marriage
2) Marriage for all, abolish civil partnerships.
3) Civil Partnerships and/or Marriage for all.
But instead he (Cameron) insists on a fourth unequal option
4) Civil partnerships and/or Marriage for homosexuals, Marriage alone for heterosexuals.
I object to the inequality of it. That reason and that alone is worth objecting about something. Inequality stinks.

indeed it does! but on the scale of inequalities facing us in the 21st century, this isn't high on my list of stuff to get too steamed up about - I doubt ANYONE will be hurt by it or denied something they actually want other than in the mental process of imagining that it is a logical inconsistency, and I imagine it will get sorted out pretty quickly - quicker than so many other inequalities that plague us and have plagued us...

It's certainly not enough to dampen my EXTREMELY RARE praise of David Cameron for doing the right thing today.

I will allow you to give extremely rare praise to David Cameron on the understanding that it is caveated with a quick tut for doing a half-arsed job of it, even though nobody gives a monkey's either about civil partnerships or the devastation it is not wroughting (?) on the blighted lives of bonking heterosexuals who want legal claim to their other halves possessions as well as a quickie, but not the full before the eyes of God unionisation.

you COULD add another inequality if you like - if you're looking for them - given you mention "before the eyes of God" - in that the same-sex marriages will be denied the opportunity to have their marriage in an Anglican Church as the govt will ban the Anglicans from performing the ceremony if it involves a same sex couple. so - there's a balancing inequality for you and all is well!

personally I don't think the church should have the right/responsibility/duty to be involved in the legal side of marriage at all... it is a legal/civil ceremony and should be clearly and unambiguously so. i suspect those outside the church would object to this change more than the church would... so the link won't be broken - but I have never seen the need for it.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There are legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages (although I can't iterate them). My objection is one of fairness. When Cameron is extending marriage, he is not abolishing Civil Partnerships. There are people (not me personally) who want heterosexual civil partnerships.
My sole point here is why not give proper equality.
The options would be
1) Civil partnerships for all, abolish marriage
2) Marriage for all, abolish civil partnerships.
3) Civil Partnerships and/or Marriage for all.
But instead he (Cameron) insists on a fourth unequal option
4) Civil partnerships and/or Marriage for homosexuals, Marriage alone for heterosexuals.
I object to the inequality of it. That reason and that alone is worth objecting about something. Inequality stinks.

indeed it does! but on the scale of inequalities facing us in the 21st century, this isn't high on my list of stuff to get too steamed up about - I doubt ANYONE will be hurt by it or denied something they actually want other than in the mental process of imagining that it is a logical inconsistency, and I imagine it will get sorted out pretty quickly - quicker than so many other inequalities that plague us and have plagued us...

It's certainly not enough to dampen my EXTREMELY RARE praise of David Cameron for doing the right thing today.

I will allow you to give extremely rare praise to David Cameron on the understanding that it is caveated with a quick tut for doing a half-arsed job of it, even though nobody gives a monkey's either about civil partnerships or the devastation it is not wroughting (?) on the blighted lives of bonking heterosexuals who want legal claim to their other halves possessions as well as a quickie, but not the full before the eyes of God unionisation.

you COULD add another inequality if you like - if you're looking for them - given you mention "before the eyes of God" - in that the same-sex marriages will be denied the opportunity to have their marriage in an Anglican Church as the govt will ban the Anglicans from performing the ceremony if it involves a same sex couple. so - there's a balancing inequality for you and all is well!

personally I don't think the church should have the right/responsibility/duty to be involved in the legal side of marriage at all... it is a legal/civil ceremony and should be clearly and unambiguously so. i suspect those outside the church would object to this change more than the church would... so the link won't be broken - but I have never seen the need for it.

Strangely enough, the Japanese view is totally opposite. A marriage is recognised in law (in a town hall by entering the names onto a civil register) ONLY after a religious ceremony of marriage has been performed in a religious building by a '*priest' - no register office marriages over there.
[usually Shinto, but not necessarily so]