DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

Sorry, that was a West Coast dig at the warm-hearted and welcoming citizens of Auld Reekie

Happy to put city rivalries aside and unite as one massive ukip-tolling conurbation tbh

er, trolling. Although we'll take your cash too nige, ya wobbly-lipped shitehawk.

All 19th Hole bigots are WATBs when challenged, it's the rules.

reading today's observer, it's just one thing after another for poor old d camz

The Conservative said on Friday: "It's fine. There's really no problem. The MPs just have to do it because the associations tell them to, and the associations are all mad, swivel-eyed loons."

don't understand why some people get so worked up about being described accurately

I can see him being torn apart by his party before too long. This is all starting to reach a hysterical pitch that's wholly disproportionate to its urgency.

Almost Shakespearean that Cameron, after modelling himself on Blair for so long, could find himself destroyed by the folly of governing by focus group.

if there is a referendum and the vote is to stay in, the conservative meltdown is going to be amazing/permanent

What's the polling on such a referendum saying now?

Not necessarily a good thing (xp)

50/50 xp

according to today's observer. read so many articles about europe and the conservatives in the paper that i can't actually find the specific link any more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/tory-party-europe-lord-howe

Recent polls show that those who want the UK to leave the EU and those who want the country to stay in are evenly matched. An Opinium/Observer poll published today suggests that more than two-thirds of voters (67%) want Cameron to "listen and pay more attention" to the views of his backbenchers.

"evenly-matched" is where i'm getting that 50/50 from, so who knows.

of course it will depend a lot on the "renegotiation" and the two alternatives (exactly what "in" and "out" mean)

An Opinium/Observer poll published today suggests that more than two-thirds of voters (67%) want Cameron to "listen and pay more attention" to the views of his backbenchers.

I'd like to see what the actual question was and what the actual response was. I would imagine that at least 50% of voters couldn't give a fuck who Cameron listens to.

http://news.opinium.co.uk/sites/news.opinium.co.uk/files/VI_14_05_2013.pdf
Recently David Cameron has been criticised by some Conservative backbench MPs and party members over Europe and other issues. Regardless of your views on the issues, which of the following do you think the Prime Minister should do?
- Enforce his views and overrule them
- Listen and pay more attention to their views
- Don't know

That's a bit loaded really - people are forced to give an answer, but most probably don't give a monkeys. 67% choosing the second option is not the same as 67% actively wanting Cameron to listen to his back benchers.

i don't know to what extent polls take into account the likelihood of Yes or No voters to actually vote. i can imagine the Nos being considerably more active/motivated.

i do not understand this gay marriage story, which reflects poorly on my reading comprehension, but also on the conservative party. how could this be so complicated?

I'm assuming Cameron can get through the gay marriage bill through anyway? All the LibDems and most of Labour will vote in favour, even if most of his party vote against. Always amusing when that happens.

iirc a lot of labour mps are thought to be voting for the "extend civil partnerships to straights" amendment too?

Yeah I couldn't follow the logic behind that at all. Why scupper marriage equality for a bit of symbolism? Unless the Labour MPs are actually against gay marriage, but that wasn't stated anywhere in the article I read.

Some of them are against gay marriage I think

I think it's a mix of people who are genuinely against gay marriage, in favour of straight civil partnerships, and just want to vote against the government.

I'm all in favour of straight civil partnerships really but I doubt that's really what this amendment is about, beyond some lame "why can't we have WHITE history month eh???" bullshit.

It makes sense to me to round out the legislation so that everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality, is entitled to have the same types of partnerships with the same rights - but I don't think there's a large body of straight couples desperate to have a not-a-marriage civil partnership so it's not necessary to include it at this time.

i kind of wonder how much basic westminster trolling there is in there -- fucking up the tories' gay marriage plans so that labour could subsequently do it and get the kudos?

i mean, i would like civil partnership to be extended to the straights, the way it is in France. Obviously I am coming from a very specific political/ideological position here, but as a marriage non-fan** the equal civil partnership seems like something with a lot of hope and potential to it. To me it's not "a bit of symbolism". (i mean, if a civil partnership currently bestows the same legal rights as a marriage, then marriage equality itself is "a bit of symbolism". these bit of symbolism are important.)

buttttt it is a bit worrying that pushing this point might lead the tory leadership to go into a huff and take their ball home and fuck everything up for people who are, for whatever reason, super into extending marriage.

** i don't have anything against it, it's just not really my bag

What is the difference in practical terms between a civil partnership and a marriage? If it isn't much, is there any point in civil partnerships existing once marriage has been extended to everyone?

yeah i was pondering the same thing myself. it's not like a registrary office marriage panders to god-bothering. what the fuck is going on really?

i think it is pretty much all in the name!

the potential is to make "civil partnership" something like the old fiction of common-law marriage, but in its present form it seems to be more of a marriage-in-name-only

Does anyone know what this £4bn figure is about? I read something about tax breaks earlier but AFAIK there aren't any tax breaks for marrieds so what tax breaks are there for civil partnerships? It's almost like they just made it up...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/05/truth-about-welfare

Good piece here on the economics of cutting unemployment benefits.

So it looks like labour withdrew from playing politics with gay marriage when it became clear that the tories would do it for them?

New zealand did this so much better

Presumably Miliband realised that this would've been yet another thing Labour would never have been forgiven for.

Well, yes.

Also, another thing the cons will not be forgiving Cameron for, any time soon..

Win Win, basically.

Norman Tebbit is fixated on the important issues:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen

a chilling vision of a dystopian future from a man in no way in the grip of advanced senility

"When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?"

Only one way to decide - send for Jeremy Kyle.

It's like the synopsis of a JG Ballard novel, if Ballard had been a massively homophobic bigot.

what if the future Queen of England was a killer lezbot?

Tebbitt hasn't been watching Game of Thrones.

Good demonstration of how absurd the idea of a monarchy is, well done Norman.

Only one way to decide - send for Jeremy Kyle. POLL!!!

(I like how it's "when", not "if"...)

the more i think about this "what then???" scenario the more baffled i am -- no matter where the sperm comes from, the child of a reigning queen would inherit 50% of its genes from the royal family, which is basically ideal unless you are a pharaoh (or a targaeryn).

the only way this works as a thought experiment is when the "other lady" is the one having a child? maybe Tebbit didn't feel the need to indicate that because it's clear that lesbians can't have children but must find ladies to marry who will bear them issue.

But what if they both are pregnant?

But what if the babies get mixed up? What if a prince is brought up... as a pauper?

And what if that pauper goes on to lead the resistance in the war against machines? And what if the machines send a robot back in time to kill his mother, and he sends a fighter back to protect her, who ends up sleeping with her and becoming his father?

It's ridiculous isn't it? Think of the other scenarios where a female first-in-line might not be able to conceive and therefore adopts or if there is some sort of surrogacy arrangement. Sexuality is not the primary issue here, it's the idiotic importance we attach to genetic determination of our monarchy in a world where this just should not be relevant.