David Cameron has been badly damaged by the gay marriage row, a Sun poll reveals today.
The PM’s bid to project a trendy new image has alienated millions of voters, including Tories.
Both supporters AND opponents of same-sex nuptials say they see his party in a worse light than before.And two-thirds believe the Conservatives are now a divided party, according to the exclusive YouGov poll.
Mr Cameron hoped extending gay rights would help shed the Tories’ “nasty party” image.
But the gamble has backfired with 134 of his MPs — over half — refusing to back him.
A senior party figure said last night: “He managed to win the vote but must now be wondering was it all worth it.”
...The top priority should be the economy, 56 per cent said, followed by immigration, the NHS and unemployment.
Only five per cent think gay rights is most important.
7 Comments
Cameron is a Social Democrat pretending to be a Conservative.
David Cameron wanted freedom from the "nasty party" image. But, who decides what is "nasty"? Not him, obviously. What a miscalculation! Now he has less freedom. . . Back to Reality.
In the USA, we are freedom lovers. We are born with freedom, comparatively. "Give me freedom, or give me death!" was the call of one of the founders. He obviously got freedom, and later, death.
But what happens when people decide they ALSO want freedom from the US Constitution, or part of it? (Very common idea, today, in USA) - the legal basis which protected freedom. . .
Certainly, lawyers would get more cases ($), if they can center themselves in a novel complication in the law, like inventing a constitutional right to same-sex civil unions or same-sex civil marriage. What a bonanza! It creates new specialties (but at what cost to society?). Some thrive on over-regulation (less and less freedom). To what extent can law enforcement cope with more and more legal complication?
What happens when people decide they ALSO want freedom from gender? How will the next generation be engendered; by who? Freedom from motherhood? "What a novel concept!" they say. (Not really - think abstinence, think abortion).
How far can the concept of freedom go? We already know that perfect freedom for ourselves would restrict the freedoms of the people around us, or the freedoms of our descendants. (Some humans don't even get to know what freedom is. . .)
Freedom is, by definition, limited. The care for the Earth also limits our total freedom - our available resources. We decided to burn hydrocarbons, to move around effortlessly - freedom of place.
As nations, we even now have the freedom to destroy ourselves with nuclear armament (Iran wants in), but our President focuses on limiting the freedom of gun ownership, and the freedom of exercising our religion outside our respective church buildings. . . He wants more freedom for himself, more power.
But, as David Cameron is finding out - there's a limit.
Good, he deserves it. Never mess with those who want to protect traditional marriage from the radical gay agenda.
Never mess with those who want to protect traditional marriage from the radical gay agenda
"Trendy new image?" It's a mile wide and an inch deep. Here's a trendy idea for you - try standing for something. Try keeping your word. In the case of our president, try keeping your oath to uphold the Constitution.
Now, *that* would be cool.
What Mr. Cameron has done is typical of the moral cowardice of British leadership. At this point I think that since Piers MorganS (a British subject) thinks he has the right to advocate the violation of Americans' Constitutional Rights, then I have the right to advocate something even for the United Kingdom.
Since the Royal Family are about the only prominent group (other than the armed forces and police) that espouse any form of traditionalism in the UK, the Queen should become an absolute monarch and institute the same type of laws that were prevalent during the Middle Ages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barb Chamberlain, Great idea! It can't be said enough.