2017 General Election thread

[EastStandBlue]

She ain't my girl,just saying.

So, in your opinion, how does routinely voting against LGBT rights compare against ducking a question on the religious viewpoint on homosexuality?

 

[mrsblue]

So, in your opinion, how does routinely voting against LGBT rights compare against ducking a question on the religious viewpoint on homosexuality?

Live and let live is my motto.....2017 yet I'm still amazed some make a big deal on this matter...people in public life should either do the decent thing or crawl back under their ancient stone.

 

[superblue24]

Could be worse, he could've routinely voted against LGBT equality like your girl Theresa May has:

Can you please provide your source? according to publicwhip.org.uk, there is no history of some of the "voting" records you have stated in your post.

Another website, https://www.theyworkforyou.com, outlines all of her voting on her Gay Rights related voting:

Key votes about equal gay rights:
On 22 Jun 1998:
Theresa May voted against reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts. (in line with your post)
On 4 Nov 2002:
Theresa May voted no on Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters Show full debate(in line with your post)
On 10 Mar 2003:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Local Government Bill — Maintain Prohibition on Promotion of Homosexuality
On 25 May 2004:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Gender Recognition Bill — Allow Marriages to Remain Valid If They Become a Same Sex Marriage (in line with your post)
On 12 Oct 2004:
Theresa May voted yes on Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 19 Mar 2007:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Feb 2013:
Theresa May voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 21 May 2013:
Theresa May voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Mar 2014:
Theresa May voted to enable the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Mar 2014:
Theresa May voted to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.(Mysteriously missing from your post)

I cannot find any voting records from 2000, 2001 and 2008 you refer to. Please provide more information.

For the votes she was absent on, can you really use that against her when she did not attend? Perhaps she didn't feel strongly one way or the other. Did EVERY other MP attend the votes she was not present for? Seems unfair to single one person out when I'm sure others from different political parties were also absent.

As for your "quotes", or should I say "misquotes".....

You said "Impossible to build a cohesive society where there is any immigration".
She said "Mass immigration making 'cohesive society' impossible"

You said: she stated that the UK should withdraw from the European convention on Human Rights regardless of Brexiut result
She said:

But as I have said before, the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights – which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights – is not clear. Because, despite what people sometimes think, it wasn’t the European Union that delayed for years the extradition of Abu Hamza, almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada, and tried to tell Parliament that – however we voted – we could not deprive prisoners of the vote. It was the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.


I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.

You said she ensured that public bodies no longer "have to" reduce inequality.
She Said: Quite a bit worth reading https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/theresa-mays-equality-strategy-speech, but doesn't quite boil down to the intentionally skewed angle of that propaganda you posted. I suppose the highlights could be set out as:

A new approach
We need our equalities policy to work with the grain of human nature, not against it.


That means government no longer dictating how people should behave.


Instead we need to put in place an architecture to support business and wider society to do the right thing.


We will take a new approach to tackling the causes of inequality. We will use targeted action to deal with its consequences. And we will ensure accountability by shining the light of transparency on organisations, allowing their performance to be challenged and acting as a driver for change.

Funny what truths exist when you scratch beneath the surface a bit.....

 

[mrsblue]

ESB been telling porkies again.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It won't be for most people, but it will be for a few. But that's a silly argument really. Are you actually saying that you don't care about anti-semitism in the party because it's not going to win/lose many votes? Surely you're against racism of any kind because it's racism regardless of what it does for peoples' voting intentions?

that is not what I said - maybe read the thread I put a link to, its well covered there

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Wrong. Most of the Jewish supporters have left. At the last GE 18.5% of Jews voted labour. The current number intending to vote labour is 8%. Labour has lost 57% of its Jewish vote. So, yes, there are some left, but certainly not a "strong section". However, as you alluded to earlier when discussing the idiot KL, that doesn't equate to a whole lot of votes.

we have a general election in June and can then stop trying to make conclusions from tiny polls that often have an advance desired outcome

 

[londonblue]

that is not what I said - maybe read the thread I put a link to, its well covered there

It is what this impies:

General Election 2017 most asked question on the doorstep is bound to be 'what is your take on Ken Livingstone', bound to be, its the most burning issue of the year and is going to be the thing most on people's minds when they cast their vote

 

[londonblue]

we have a general election in June and can then stop trying to make conclusions from tiny polls that often have an advance desired outcome

They could probably have polled the entire Jewish population of this country given how small it is. Regardless of that, it certainly doesn't equate to a "strong section". It seems to me you want to believe that to imply that Jews that are upset about anti-semitism in the labour party are a minority. They're not, they're the majority of labour supporting Jews.

 

[MK Shrimper]

George Osbourne quits as an MP. A lot of Labour MPs to follow allegedly.

 

[Supernaut]

George Osbourne quits as an MP. A lot of Labour MPs to follow allegedly.

Every cloud an' that.
Poor old George - hope he has no trouble finding alternative employment. Oh wai...

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It is what this impies:

not at all, merely that your obsession with Ken Livingstone - who is currently not a member of any political party - is not going to be the burning issue on the doorsteps, other than when any of the parties canvas your house of course

 

[londonblue]

not at all, merely that your obsession with Ken Livingstone - who is currently not a member of any political party - is not going to be the burning issue on the doorsteps, other than when any of the parties canvas your house of course

I didn't bring up that idiot. I replied to a post and you decided to wade in. It's also important to realise that the idiot is just the latest example of a party that has gone soft on anti-semitism to the point where the party has lost 57% of its Jewish support. But to answer your point above. It does imply you're only worried about the number of votes it might or might not cost the party rather than worried about racism as an issue.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I didn't bring up that idiot. I replied to a post and you decided to wade in. It's also important to realise that the idiot is just the latest example of a party that has gone soft on anti-semitism to the point where the party has lost 57% of its Jewish support. But to answer your point above. It does imply you're only worried about the number of votes it might or might not cost the party rather than worried about racism as an issue.

not really, you were the first to mention racism and when some of Boris Johnson's various racist outbursts were mentioned you decided they were not very important for some reason.

 

[londonblue]

not really, you were the first to mention racism and when some of Boris Johnson's various racist outbursts were mentioned you decided they were very important for some reason.

Wrong. I did indeed mention racism as a reason to not vote labour. You, however, accused me of being obsessed with the idiot but I was just replying to a post.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Wrong. I did indeed mention racism as a reason to not vote labour. You, however, accused me of being obsessed with the idiot but I was just replying to a post.

why do you not see Boris Johnson's racism as significant?

 

[rigsby]

why do you not see Boris Johnson's racism as significant?

Why do you avoid speaking about Dianne Abbott.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Why do you avoid speaking about Dianne Abbott.

I've mentioned her about 3 or 4 times in this thread. Why do you not pay attention?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Nice try but you can't avoid the fact that Dianne Abbott is a racist and has the full support of you.

I bet none of them were Jewish.

I don't recall you ever being outspoken about racism before - does any other racism offend you or only if it comes from Abbot?

#2

 

[londonblue]

why do you not see Boris Johnson's racism as significant?

When have I said it isn't? He's offensive. He's also a buffoon. For me the difference is twofold. Firstly, you're trying to imply that the tories are just as bad, but in my view they're not. Labour's track record since Corduroy was elected is quite amazing for a party that has always prided itself on its tolerance. (Perhaps that is what makes it so shocking.) Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, BJ isn't intentionally racist, he's just an idiot. People (such as the idiot KL) are very deliberate in what they say and do, and try to cause maximum offence.

You may argue that BJ hides behind his "buffoonery", but that would be only your opinion, and would be contrary to mine.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Can you please provide your source? according to publicwhip.org.uk, there is no history of some of the "voting" records you have stated in your post.

Another website, https://www.theyworkforyou.com, outlines all of her voting on her Gay Rights related voting:

Key votes about equal gay rights:
On 22 Jun 1998:
Theresa May voted against reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts. (in line with your post)
On 4 Nov 2002:
Theresa May voted no on Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters Show full debate(in line with your post)
On 10 Mar 2003:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Local Government Bill — Maintain Prohibition on Promotion of Homosexuality
On 25 May 2004:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Gender Recognition Bill — Allow Marriages to Remain Valid If They Become a Same Sex Marriage (in line with your post)
On 12 Oct 2004:
Theresa May voted yes on Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 19 Mar 2007:
Theresa May was absent for a vote on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Feb 2013:
Theresa May voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 21 May 2013:
Theresa May voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Mar 2014:
Theresa May voted to enable the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. (Mysteriously missing from your post)
On 5 Mar 2014:
Theresa May voted to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.(Mysteriously missing from your post)

I cannot find any voting records from 2000, 2001 and 2008 you refer to. Please provide more information.

For the votes she was absent on, can you really use that against her when she did not attend? Perhaps she didn't feel strongly one way or the other. Did EVERY other MP attend the votes she was not present for? Seems unfair to single one person out when I'm sure others from different political parties were also absent.

Sorry, I'd assumed people would recognise that the summary I posted wasn't actually mine. It's been widely shared on social media, but stacks up. May's voting record on LGBT issues, as reported by the International Business Times, is widely documented and her specific voting history on the repeal of section 28 is here.

As far as singling May out goes, she's the prime minister. She absolutely should be held to a higher regard/scrutiny than other MPs. And she's the one rival party leaders will be held against, as mrsblue attempted to do with Farron