Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

Ukip plans to derail the Tories over gay marriage: Farage has perceptively concluded that this, not the economy or Europe, is what will destroy Cameron

Farage understands the Tory grassroots much better than Cameron and his pals; this, in the end, is what will unseat him as leader of the party

By on Friday, 14 December 2012

Ukip leader Nigel Farage in Downe, Kent (Photo; PA)

Ukip leader Nigel Farage in Downe, Kent (Photo; PA)

I have been reading the Guardian for the last week. I get it on my Kindle, on which the first two weeks of a newspaper subscription is a free trial: and I have to say that reading the Guardian really is a bit of a trial for an old reactionary like me. Unlike the Independent, which does at least try to be dispassionate, every word of the Guardian is dripping in its own variety of Left-wing bias. The paper seems to me now a very long way from the vision of its most famous editor, C P Scott, who in a famous piece marking the Manchester Guardian’s centenary in 1921 wrote that the “primary office” of a newspaper is accurate news reporting: in his words, “comment is free, but facts are sacred”. Even editorial comment, he said, has its responsibilities: “It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair.” Well, the comment in the Guardian, signed or unsigned, is to my mind sometimes so grossly unfair that it’s practically unreadable: the very names of its two most prominent commentators, George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee, are almost synonymous with unfairness and spite (as Lord MacAlpine in the case of Monbiot discovered to his cost). And even the news reporting often needs to be checked against other sources.

But I digress. I mention the Guardian because of its (credible) front page splash on Wednesday: “Ukip plans to derail David Cameron over gay marriage.” Nigel Farage has, it seems, spotted what many others saw some time ago, but what Cameron himself has apparently not yet understood: that this, not Europe or the economy, could be the issue which will destroy his leadership of the Tory party and lose him the election.

The main group campaigning against the change – the Coalition for Marriage (whose petition, ignored by the government, as I write has 620,505 signatures) – is warning Tory MPs that the issue could bring about what it is calling Cameron’s “Iraq moment”. Tony Blair needed the support of Tory MPs to win the Iraq vote after 139 Labour MPs rebelled. But winning that vote with the help of his enemies did lasting damage to Blair’s authority within his party from which he never recovered. That seems to me an entirely valid parallel.

Cameron thinks this is all about the modernisation of the party and bringing it into touch with modern Britain. But if he loses the trust of his party, in the country as well as in the House, he will find himself walking on very marshy ground; and if he goes any deeper into this swamp (as he can now hardly avoid doing) it could (and I predict will) swallow him up. Members in the constituencies are resigning in record numbers. And it’s not just the Guardian which is reporting that. According to Iain Martin in the Telegraph, “Tory MPs say they are getting a steady stream of letters from outraged constituents and party members who are resigning. One MP, a supporter of gay marriage, admitted that the letters have been running 6-1 against over the past six months.”

And many of those who resign are defecting in the direction of Nigel Farage. That’s why Mr Farage, as the Guardian tells us, “plans to put the issue of gay marriage at the heart of Ukip’s campaign for the 2014 European elections”. “Amid signs that Conservative associations are losing members in their droves,” the paper reports, “over what is being dubbed the prime minister’s ‘clause IV moment’, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, warned that gay marriage could ‘rip apart’ the Conservative party. He plans to put the issue at the heart of Ukip’s campaign for the 2014 European parliamentary elections”.

These elections, it should be noted, will take place a few months after the gay marriage legislation is due to come into force (though my own guess is it could still be bogged down in the Lords, whence it may never emerge unless Cameron, with the general election looming, foolishly invokes the Parliament Act, thus signing his own death warrant as party leader).

This is how Farage explains his tactics: “David Cameron’s proposal has the potential to rip apart the traditional rural Tory vote. While Ukip wholly respects the rights of gay people to have civil partnerships, we feel the prime minister’s proposals will present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw. The division between city and rural is absolutely huge. In my village pub in Kent they are just completely against.”

Farage thinks the gay marriage issue will benefit Ukip by highlighting the impact on this country of the European court of human rights and by giving his party a touchstone issue around which it can rally. “Ukip is not a one-issue party,” he says. “But the gay marriage case is closely interwoven with the European Court of Human Rights, as is so much of our life. Ukip will be seen to be a party campaigning not just about who governs Britain but about how we think that Britain should be governed.”

Farage is right to invoke the spectre of the European Court of Human Rights. For, whatever legislation the government introduces to give national Churches the freedom to accept or reject the right to celebrate gay marriages in their own buildings and according to their own rites, any Church which forbids any such enactments on its premises and by its ministers will undoubtedly lay themselves open to proceedings in Strasbourg. In the words of the Anglican blogger Archbishop Cranmer, writing on the occasion of the government’s original bogus “consultation” (tell us what you think, then we’ll ignore it)

“The intention of the Government … presents a very high risk of Churches and Faiths being forced to marry gay people. Their right to manifest their religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance will be struck down at the Altar of Equality.

“It cannot be that legislating for religious gay marriage could be justified under Article 9.2 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] but we strongly fear – as do most of the Churches and Faiths of our country that, whatever the intentions of the Government are in this regard, such will be forced on them by the Strasbourg Court – a court which has a well-established track record of forcing the United Kingdom to adopt positions, such as votes for prisoners, which are anathema to our people. We [the Libertarian Alliance] believe that this case will be no different.”

I agree. The fact that whole Churches, as national institutions, may be given the right to (may even be legally forced to, in the case of the C of E) refuse to “marry” people of the same sex will not protect them at Strasbourg. Any Anglican, any Catholic, will have the right to take his own Church to the European Court, especially if other Churches have been given the right to go through some kind of “marriage” ceremony: this will simply, in the eyes of Strasbourg, compound the unfairness of those Churches who don’t allow it. So the latest concessions simply hasten Mr Cameron’s forward lurch into the swamp he has conjured up for himself. His leadership of the Tory Party has surely now gone beyond the point of no return. And it could indeed be Ukip which will finish him off, with the votes of many of those Conservatives who will never again (as in “never again glad confident morning”) vote for the party as long as he is its leader.

  • la catholic state

    There is a very real danger to ordinary Catholics if this bill goes through, and nobody is addressing it.  Will Catholic workers who voice their Catholic opinion on gay ‘marriage’ in the workplace… sacked and prosecuted for hate-crime or whatever.  The government seems to be deliberately focusing our attention away from such basic and important issues for Catholics and other practising Christians.

    I just can’t believe the evil implications that this will have for ordinary people.  It’s like Soviet Union all over again.

  • Sam Black

    Could be right about this. One thing is for sure, I’m not
    the only dismayed conservative in the country. David-Vacuous-Cameron pack your
    bags please!!!

  • Markpetergray

    I do find the insinuation that the European Courts will force churches to do something that goes against the faith of that church ridiculous. I don’t especially support gay marriage, but this insinuation comes across as pathetic before any case has been heard. The arguments against gay marriage are sensible if put forward in the right way (ie marriage as the foundation of the family). So stick to those rather than muddying the waters with unknowable conjecture.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Peter Hitchens on Question Time last night gave a slightly different angle.  His theme was that Cameron has already destroyed the Conservative Party over the economy and Europe and this gay marriage business is relatively unimportant.  I think the truth is somewhat in the middle – many voters will not vote for Cameron on the economy and Europe issues but most of them are probably fairly indifferent to the gay marriage issue – although there are many lifelong Conservatives, such as myself, who will never vote for them again because of the gay marriage issue but I think we are fairly small in number although perhaps important!  The fact that c4m has only produced 620,000 votes is somewhat disappointing when one thinks that all Catholics should have supported it as well as other Christians and the Muslims.

  • Gildaswiseman

    I sent my coalition MP the Ukip statement regarding gay marriage.I complained that it was not in their manifesto to legislate for same sex marriage. He replied that “same sex marriage is a direct consequence of my Party’s core values of liberty and equality”. What can one do?
    Cameron and his supporters seem unable to grasp the fact that this legislation will completely change the social structure of our country. It will without doubt be the cause of a persecution of conscience and the Church, no matter what they. Here is an insert from the Coalition for Marriage.

    Legal advice from leading human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC has made clear that the only completely safe course for churches will be to stop hosting weddings altogether, a massive change to Britain’s social landscape. He has also shown that, quite apart from the issue of buildings, individual people from any background who believe in traditional marriage face damage to their careers or even dismissal from their jobs, especially teachers, chaplains, foster carers and others in the public sector

  • Charles Martel

    We are going to be persecuted and prosecuted. There will be martyrs. We must ready ourselves for this. How many will fall away? I guess 90%, and that’s 90% of an already much smaller Church than it was 30 years ago. I know that the man in the pew really doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage or abortion, but I know equally well that almost none of them will stand up and be counted. They are terrified of being labelled ‘homophobic’, ‘reactionary’, ’19th century’, or whatever. No balls whatsoever. All our ‘Eucharistic Ministers’, all our liturgical facilitators, all our youth outreach coordinators, all our useless flunkeys in our diocesan chancelleries, all will have fled before the cock crows thrice. But the remnant will write another glorious page in our nation’s Christian history.

  • la catholic state

    Thank you Gildaswiseman…..very interesting.  This bill has so many INTENDED consequences that the government is hiding from us.  I can only say it is pure evil and meant as a fatal blow to the practise of our Faith.

  • NewMeena

    If Mr Farage succeeds in damaging the electoral chances of the Tory party in 2015 the result can only be a Labour government (or a Lab-LibDem coalition – even though Labour currently dismisses this last possibility).  

    If Cameron fails to achieve his aim relating to gay marriage, the post-May 2015 government will remedy the situation.

  • NewMeena

    WE have just about reached the point where marriage has ceased to be “the foundation of the family” for a majority of people in the UK.

  • NewMeena

    And whom would you welcome in his place? 

    Boris J, Mr Gove, IDS, his Deputy Mr Nick…..?

  • Nicolas Bellord

    I think many lawyers would disagree with you and believe there is a fair chance that the European Courts might hold that it is illegal discrimination for a Catholic church not to conduct a religious service of marriage for gay couples if they are doing it for heterosexual couples.  Litigation is always an uncertain matter but it is surely right to think ahead as to what might happen and prepare the arguments to prevent such a development.  I cannot see that it muddies the waters to do so.

  • Bob Hayes

    I can almost hear the martial music and goose-stepping in the background Meena, as the forward march of ‘progress’ (in the sense of Orwell’s warning of ‘newspeak’) guarantees that only those parties that agree with the elite consensus will hold office. 

  • adamson

      If I were a militant atheist I would work to force the European Courts to make the Churches go against their faith. It would be to good an opportunity  to miss. We shall see!

  • NewMeena

    “…. individual people from any background who believe in traditional marriage face damage…”

    But it would not be because of their BELIEFS, would it?

    It would be because they were trying to propagate their beliefs to people while openly attacking others (who do not share their beliefs) as: wicked, grave sinners, evil, sodomites, corrupters of children….. etc (many people here, I’m quite sure, can supply other words and lurid descriptions).

    Don’t kid yourself that any possible unwelcome consequences for criminal law-breakers would arise because of their BELIEFS.

  • NewMeena

    You have already very recently posted, and I have answered, the content of your first paragraph.

    I don’t think gay marriage recognised by the state would have gone down well with the authoritarian leaders of the Soviet Union. 

  • Breff

     You are right. But if one is ‘conservative’ in outlook and wishes to vote for a party with a similar outlook, then Cameron must go and voting UKIP, with all the consequences you list, is the only way to get rid of him. We are going to get ‘gay marriage’ because it commands a might majority in the Commons – all LibDems, virtually all NuLab and very very many Cons – so we have to look beyond this issue.

  • la catholic state

    I didn’t ask YOU anything! 

  • Cestius

    The trouble with Cameron is that he has completely misread the situation.  It is not social conservatism that loses votes, it’s his economic policies, in particular his failure to get the economy out of recession and close the deficit that will sink him.  He has also misread the results of the US election, again he put the Republicans’ failure down to social conservativism when it seems to me that it was more likely their economic policies that frightened the voters. He must have been very badly advised over the gay marriage issue in particular, he’s chasing very few votes on it and stands lose a lot of people that would otherwise support him.  Most of the liberals that really want gay marriage will voter Labour/Lib Dem anyway.

  • la catholic state

    Labour is not very vocal on this matter of gay ‘marriage’.  It seems it doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of its all important Muslim voters.

  • Pewfodder

    Yes, it would.  

    I do marriage preparation in a Catholic parish.  My beliefs would lead me to say that it is simply impossible to do that for someone who is entering into a same sex relationship.  If the state disagrees, and I end up in prison, that is because of my beliefs.  

    I’m not attacking anyone: I’m simply pointing out what marriage really means in a Catholic context.   But nor am I actually protected by any exemption for the Church from carrying out same-sex ‘marriages’; preparation isn’t the same as carrying out.

    But to be honest, I’n sure we;’ll cope.  The Catholic church has experience of operating underground, both in the UK and in other places where authoritarian governments have made it necessary.   

    There are places where Catholic marriage preparation is already carried out in secret, and the Tories just want this country to join that club.  That or they are simply too ignorant to understand what they are doing.   

  • parepidemos

    Mr Oddie, I agree that the bill will face a tough situation in the Lords. However, seeing as the issue of same-sex marriages in a religious context was not in the election manifesto, nor the Queen’s speech, the Government will not be able to invoke the Parliament Act. At least, this is my reading of the situation.

  • parepidemos

    Well said. Same-sex marriage has been legal in several European states for a number of years. Even in those countries which are much more liberal than the UK (eg. Sweden, Denmark) there has been no case brought before the European Court and it is highly unlikely that one will emerge from the UK. Far better to fight the cause in terms of marriage and family rather than what you so rightly call “uknowable conjecture”.

  • la catholic state

    What about the blatant anti-Catholic discrimination that is going to result from this bill.  What is the European Court going to do about that?!

  • Nicolas Bellord

    But Peter Tatchell has said such a case is on the cards.  And it is not just the European Courts that may be in play here but also the European Parliament/Commission:

    I found the following on: 8, 2012 Radical EU Resolution Must be Stopped!To all parents,No matter where you live, we are urging you to help us stop the European Parliament (EP) from advancing a dangerous measure disguised as a resolution on fundamental rights. This motion will be debated Tuesday evening [that was the same day - last Tuesday as our Government announced a bill] and voted on by all EP Members on Wednesday morning. As noted below, we have a simple, one-click method to send a quick email to 52 key leaders in the European Parliament.The following are specific serious problems with the resolution:Encourages Member States to criminalize and characterize opinions against homosexuality as “hate speech” and calls for an inappropriate expansion of criminal offences to include expressions based on “homophobic or transphobic intent.”Promotes the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortions where not already legal. (Abortion is a competency of Member States, not European Union (EU) law, and thus not the European Parliament.Encourages liberalizing laws regulating comprehensive sexuality education. (Click here to see the serious problems with this kind of education.)Calls on Member States to protect “the freedom of those without a religion not to suffer discrimination as a result of excessive exemptions for religions from laws on equality and non-discrimination.”Can you guess which organizations helped draft the content of the proposed resolution?They are many of the same activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that recently bashed Mr. Borg’s nomination as EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner, falsely claiming that his personal and religious beliefs concerning the family, homosexuality, marriage and abortion did not conform to “European values.” You can read a copy of FWI’s letter to key committee chairmen on the Borg nomination here.The NGOs that want to radicalize European values through this proposed resolution include:The European Humanist Federation, the LGBT lobby (International Lesbian and Gay Association, or ILGA for Europe), Social Platform (an umbrella organization of activist NGOs), and International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).Many of these NGOs advocate the same radical sexual rights agenda at the United Nations level, and we cannot allow them to advance their agenda in a large region such as the EU.Now for the kicker: The proposed resolution also “Calls for the revision of the procedural rules of the CJEU [Court of Justice for the EU] and General Court in order to facilitate third-party interventions, by human rights NGOs in particular.”If these rules were modified per the resolution, it would expose the independent judicial system in the EU that defines human rights to political pressure by NGOs to redefine and radically expand them.Many of the NGOs that drafted the resolution and that would likely intervene in judicial cases receive significant funds from the European Commission, creating a serious separation of powers problem. In fact, the resolution also calls for a “permanent scoreboard on justice.”Time is short. Many leaders of the EU are sensitive to world public opinion. We urge you to email the suggested message attached below to the 52 key leaders of the EP with just the click of your mouse. By doing so, you are sending the email pasted below.Please take a few minutes to make your voice heard on these dangerous social policies being considered by the European Parliament. If they are adopted, they will set a dangerous precedent that other governments will be pressured to follow.Sincerely,
    Sharon SlaterPresident

  • Michael Turner

    I can understand the outward exhuberance of Mr Farage at this time, in fact I feel sure that if he were invited onto  dessert island disc’s ‘ he would declare ‘ pennies from heaven ‘ as his favourite song.
    It would be quite refreshing to have a party that wasn’t hampered in the quality of its decision making process by the accumulation of decades of inhouse shenannigans. However, as the leader of the only party of any importance opposed to Gay Marriage it is vital that he fights his corner now. The issue is having someone on the political scene who is able to do that prior to voting taking place in the house. The bulk of the electorate are not really interested in how many votes UKIP will gain at the European elections, simply that we are able to crush this highly damaging bill soon as.

    Michael Turner

  • mollysdad

    I’m against gay marriage, but all in favour of destroying David Cameron. Does that make me bisexual?

  • paulpriest

     Sir: You’re a legal whizkid – so I [like a broken record] ask you the same question I’ve been recently asking everyone I can :

    Given that the new civil marriage will be a universalised civil partnership which has no obligations towards physical union or consummation…

    …this now means that baptised non-Catholics who go through this ceremony will no longer be recognised as validly married by the Church.
    …and this ‘law’ becomes license to live in sin as well as equalising same-sex unions.

    Now we’ve alreasy condemned same-sex civil partnerships because they repudiate Aquinas’s second perfection in marriage [the procreative end]
    Mustn’t we also condemn these universalised heretosexual civil partnerships in that they deny Aquinas’s first perfection [a loving contractual physical and spirtual union]?

    So rather than it being a situation in a Catholic Nuptial ceremony where previously the civil consequences were merely parallel and exigent to the marital vows and validity of the sacramental marriage – the previous civil law might have been extrinsically secondarily contrary to Church teaching [e.g. in permitting divorce & remarriage etc] – it wasn’t directly, intrinsically contrary to that which the Church does and teaches [in that it legally affirmed physical union and consummation]

    …we’d now be in a situation where the civil aspect wouldn’t merely be an external irrelevant state ratification…’s a factor which is directly contrary to the very nature and end of mariage itself to the extent that it scandalises it.

    Doesn’t this make the new civil marriage an intrinsically unjust law?
    Something with which we are absolutely forbidden to either formally or proximately materially co-operate? [Evangelium Vitae 73.2 & The CDF's Considerations on homosexual unions]

    Now a Canonist friend has appealed to:

    Canon 1101 #1: “The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform
    to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.”


    Canon 1060: “Marriage possess the favor of law; therefore, in a case of
    doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is

    But how can these apply when the marital promises which formalise the marital contract are never made?
    Because same-sex couples can’t make them – heterosexual couples won’t be allowed to make them….

    You can’t have a presumptive marriage [before death of one convalidates/radically sanates] if marriage vows were never made…and they are now technically being abolished from marriage

    If you could find any mistakes in the reasoning or flaws in the legality of my argument it should be greatly appreciated….

  • whytheworldisending

    Many rulings of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, and therefore rulings of UK domestic courts which follow them, are bad law having been made per incuriam, or in ignorance of UK and other member governments’ Treaty obligations as set out in the Statute of the Council of Europe, adopted by the UK in 1949.

    The Statute begins by the member states “….Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.”

    Notice the words, “Spiritual and moral values” – These are Christian values!

    Notice the words, “Common heritage of their peoples” – This is our Christian heritage!

    The Statute continues, saying, at Chapter I:

    Aim of the Council of Europe:
    Article 1
     a) The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
    Notice the word “Safeguarding.” – That means guarding against corruption and subversion!

    The Council of Europe is there to guard our Christian ideals and principles and to preserve our common Christian heritage, but the people of the UK and the citizens of the other member states have been betrayed by those who have infiltrated the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, in order to corrupt and subverted the values of the people of Europe in order to undermine democracy, and remove our freedoms.

    Britain’s Common Heritage has to do with traditional family values. It has nothing to do with sexual immorality in any form and all rulings promoting homosexuality are devoid of authority since the ECHR has no authority outside of its mandate from the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe has no authority outside of its own mandate as laid down in the Statute of the Council of Europe.

    There is no need to leave Europe. Europe must get back in touch with its roots.  

  • Kevin

    “Cameron thinks this is all about the modernisation of the party and bringing it into touch with modern Britain”

    If it were simply about being “modern” then there would be no controversy. Everyone alive is “modern”. Cameron manifestly wants to impose on Christians and conservatives the unsupported view that there is such a distinction as “gay” people.

    It is frequently claimed that the “gay” distinction is analogous to, say, being black. But black people do not need marriage to be redefined in order to fit them. There are black men and women and they can get married.

    As others have pointed out, why should the alleged “gay” distinction be restricted to an analogy with normal sexual relations? Why should a “gay marriage” involve only two people? Why should it be consummated (whatever that would mean)?

    This whole exercise can only have come from a view of human relations that is focused on sex and sex acts rather than children.

  • whytheworldisending

    The so-called “gay marriage” controversy is like the Death Penalty issue. Once defeated it will never come back.  

  • whytheworldisending

    Parliament is there to represent the people, not just rubber stamp the dictates of a government nobody voted for. When such an unrepresentative government seeks – without any mandate – to introduce such fundamentalist changes to the British way of life, the very least that democracy demands is a REFERENDUM.

  • whytheworldisending

    Hitler got to power because NONE of the main political parties represented the views of the majority of the people. Eerie isn’t it.

  • whytheworldisending

    It only takes one person to take a stand on this and the silent majority will quickly follow them. Maybe its time traditional conservatives joined forces with decent working class Old Labour politicians to form a new party representing ordinary British people against out of touch decadent toffs.

  • whytheworldisending

    I will not vote for any party supporting “gay marriage.” To keep them out I will vote for the party opposing it which i smost likely to win. Presently that is UKIP. I would never have dreamt of votying UKIP before but I will now, and suggest suggest that all C4M supporters follow the same strategy – I would hate to have to vote strategically if it meant the BNP were going to get a seat but ultimately even they are preferable to gay marriage. 

  • NewMeena

    You know the answer to your phony question.

    You also disgracefully seek to make a mockery about a state of sexuality applicable to some men and women. 

  • mollysdad

    You just don’t have a sense of humour, do you?

  • whytheworldisending

    The problem is that the ECHR have corrupted the definition of family so that “marriage as the foundation of family” argument will not get off the ground. It is the coalition who are muddying the waters – they are undermining the rule of law by introducing legal rules without any moral basis which can command any respect from the majority. They are bringing society to the point where the masses have no respect for Law in general because there are abhorrent laws which are alien to their innate sense of what is right. It is a recipe for EVEN MORE social disorder and unrest than we have already.

  • NewMeena

    “..the silent majority..”
    ..are the noisiest, most self-interested group in our society.  And they are not a majority.

  • whytheworldisending

    Every legal ruling is a political ruling. Its a political fight and the easiest way to win is via a referendum. Why? For the same reason we have anti-discrimation laws. People naturally tend to discriminate against what they don’t want.

  • NewMeena

    “Will Catholic workers who voice their Catholic opinion on gay ‘marriage’ in the workplace… sacked and prosecuted for hate-crime or whatever.”

    You are clearly unaware that In the Lords this week, by a whisker, Section 5 of the Public Order Act was amended to REMOVE the offence of using “insulting words or behaviour within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harm, alarm or distress thereby”.
    “Catholic workers” will doubtless be told by their peers to “grow up”, raise their level of consciencious and to show their much-vaunted love of their fellow men. 

  • Jordy

    Anatoliy Golitsyn, Soviet defector and honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire, explained in his 1984 book “New Lies for Old” that the Left Wing in the West are naive and unwitting pawns of a continued KGB strategy for world domination; that strategy has not changed according to him because of the collapse of the Soviet Union which he predicted would be a false collapse to lull the West into a false sense of security. Most of the Left are idealists who don’t realize they serve the Marxist Leninist cause according to another defector, Yuri Bezmenov. If this is true, we must be much more vigilant.

  • Jordy

     Anatoliy Golitsyn, Soviet defector and honorary Commander of the Order
    of the British Empire, explained in his 1984 book “New Lies for Old”
    that the Left Wing in the West are naive and unwitting pawns of a
    continued KGB strategy for world domination; that strategy has not
    changed according to him because of the collapse of the Soviet Union
    which he predicted would be a false collapse to lull the West into a
    false sense of security. Most of the Left are idealists who don’t
    realize they serve the Marxist Leninist cause according to another
    defector, Yuri Bezmenov. If this is true, we must be much more vigilant.

  • whytheworldisending

    In a democracy making yiour voice heard (“Noise”) is allowed. So is “Self-interest.” (Its called politics) Even irrationality has its place - I think “Majority” still means what it always meant, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the LibDems have plans to redefine that aswell! I guess the majority of people are democrats at heart – as opposed to aristicrats (Toffs).

  • Tom47

    If the potential threat to the church’s freedom to administer the sacraments becomes an actual proposal , given the secularist coalition supporting it, there would be serious and dangerous consequences in that it of itself means  that the major parties and therefore the whole party system become  dysfuncttional at least as far as Catholics are concerned..
    Traditionally most English Catholics have voted Labour and Catholics were present as members and councillors in great numbers, especially in the NorthWest of Engalnd, and the West of Scotland. However the party suffered a severe loss of Christian members over the invasion of Iraq, our backbone strengthened by JPII’s effective exposition of the doctrine of the just war and the conditons that had to be met if an invasion was to be acceptable.What Cameron is doing out-Blairs  Blair. Up to now Catholics in the Labour Party have been keeping their heads down, as on abortion, in public at least.But that cannot last. For those of us on the social democratic and socialist end of the spectrum, if it comes to the crunch I feel that Catholics from the left will make common cause with our co-religionists from other political backgrounds (and none): we are all Catholics first.

  • Bob Hayes

    You mean ‘conform or shut up’, don’t you Meena?

  • Bob Hayes

    And it shows…

  • Bob Hayes

    Are you referring to Stonewall here Meena?

  • Alexander VI

    Nonsense, Dr Oddie. The Euro elections don’t matter and gay marriage will have been forgotten by the time of the next Westminster election. Tories in rural areas have massive majorities and UKIP will fail to win a single seat. 

  • NewMeena

    I don’t think it funny to make a mockery of the sexuality of other Human Beings.

    I do have a sense of (real) humour and always read your comments.

  • NewMeena

    It is strange to read this comment from one who defines “truth” as the opinion of an authority figure.