Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Caption competition (7) | Main | Editorial: Behaving like one party »

Comments

James Hellyer

Not true I'm afraid. A deed of covenant doesn't give one the legal right to be recognised as next-of-kin, for all the myriad reasons in life when such recognition is necessary.

So there's one area where it doesn't given't give equivalence (which largely relates to the tax system). That does not refute the point.

Sorry but none of this shows preaching about how somebody should live their lives (Henry's original point). Not voting is not evidence of preaching. Indeed, not supporting lowering the age of consent is not preaching. There are concerns about the vulnerability of children of older adults (similar to those expressed by some MPs opposing lowering the age of hetrosexual consent) that motivate such positions, rather than a desire to preach or foster inequality.

Henry Cook

How about supporting a ban on homosexuals entering the armed forces? Is that not completely about inequality?

James Hellyer

Or is that not about the morale of the armed forces, and reflective of the recommendations of senior officers?

It's also still not preaching about how someone can live their life.

Henry Cook

The 'morale' of armed forces?! Please, please explain this to me. You're saying that morale goes down if there are gays around? This is extraordinary - I'm dying to hear more.

And it is in fact preaching, depending on how you define the term. Its saying - if you are gay, you are not fit to be in the armed forces.

Mark Fulford

is entirely reasonable to have legislation requiring people to live up to the commitments they have made to each other

I would call that preaching - an imposition of your moral viewpoint upon others. What’s your justification for this? How do you know what’s better for people who want divorce than they do?

James Hellyer

"You're saying that morale goes down if there are gays around?"

That's what the senior officers said for years - yes. So stop trying to pretend that you've never heard that before. Such disingenuity really is tiresome.

And it is in fact preaching, depending on how you define the term.

What? You mean if you use preaching so that it doesn't mean telling people how to live their lives?

Its saying - if you are gay, you are not fit to be in the armed forces

That's your gloss - nothing more.

Sean Fear

I would call that preaching - an imposition of your moral viewpoint upon others. What’s your justification for this? How do you know what’s better for people who want divorce than they do?"

Well, much of the law is about "preaching" in the sense of imposing one person's moral viewpoint on another. For example, I think it's right that parents should look after minor children, and that spouses should look after each other. The law imposes such obligations on them, in my view rightly. In the one case, the parent has chosen to have children; in the other the spouse has chosen to get married.

You might argue that the framer of the legislation has no right to impose his moral viewpoint on others. I would argue that where people have *voluntarily* undertaken a particular obligation, it's reasonable for the law to hold them to it.

In the case of divorce, I think it's wrong that one person can benefit from their own bad conduct - in that cruel or adulterous behaviour is not taken into account when determining ancillary applications.

And when children are involved, I think it would be entirely reasonable that their interests should be considered, in deciding whether or not a divorce should be permitted by law.

Henry Cook

"That's what the senior officers said for years - yes. So stop trying to pretend that you've never heard that before. Such disingenuity really is tiresome."

I can honsetly say that I've never heard that before - my youth perhaps means I was shielded from such antiquated ideas. I am intrigued as to what these arguments were, or even, it now seems are - do you believe such arguments? do you think Liam Fox believes such arguments?

I am sorry that you find me tiresome. Or is it that you simply don't like scrutiny of Liam Fox's views?

malcolm

I don't find you tiresome Henry.You go for it young chap.You've shown remarkable restraint in the face of some very patronising and pendantic posts.

James Hellyer

I can honsetly say that I've never heard that before - my youth perhaps means I was shielded from such antiquated ideas.

They're the same views that the US Army used for years under similar circumstances. It's hardly groundbreaking stuff. The principle was that soldiers had to be able to rely on their fellows in combat and that sexual tension undermined their ability to do so (the same case was made for not having women serve with men in frontline combat).

do you believe such arguments? do you think Liam Fox believes such arguments?

It's hardly relevant now - it's been done and it's another issue where most of the party voted for the losing side under Hague. It doesn't say anything about current views and attitudes (and if that answer is sufficient for Cameron fans trying to distance him from his job pre- 06/5, it's good enough now).

I am sorry that you find me tiresome. Or is it that you simply don't like scrutiny of Liam Fox's views?

No, I just think you can't extrapolate much from a voting record (especially when a) most of the votes follwed the party line and b) there are absences). If you can, Cameron's pre-election record shows he's a Howardite rather than a "moderniser"...

Oh and Malcolm:

You've shown remarkable restraint in the face of some very patronising and pendantic posts.

Given that your every post appears to abuse or patronise other people, without contributing substantive points, you are hardly in a position to criticise others.

a-tracy

What is this - get at Fox - are you all getting worried about him? If you want to know what Fox believes go on his website and blog him- how can you expect James H answer for him.

If we are to be a moral free, no rule society, with anything that anyone wants goes where do you think we'll end up - like the Romans and every other decadent society that collapsed I think.

What next legalise sex between 14 to 16 years of age because they're all doing it anyway! Raise the speed limit on all urban roads to 50mph because we want to.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"What is this - get at Fox - are you all getting worried about him? If you want to know what Fox believes go on his website and blog him- how can you expect James H answer for him."

I expect, bearing in mind my occasional criticism of David Cameron, that I will be branded a hypocrite for this but I find it astounding how the Cameronites have turned this thread into a Fox hunt with all sorts of hyperbolical statements about how he's been preaching to people about how to lead their lives simply because he has (or in some cases, hasn't) voted a certain way. If anybody criticised Cameron in the same way, the squeals of 'smear!' would be almost deafening, but not quite loud enough to drown out the bleating about how that evil David Davis must have started it.

James Hellyer

Not only that, but on several occasions I have been told that Cameron's voting record is irrelevant to his current campaign. Double standards? I should coco...

Michael Smith

If anybody criticised Cameron in the same way, the squeals of 'smear!' would be almost deafening, but not quite loud enough to drown out the bleating about how that evil David Davis must have started it.

Well said, Daniel.

One of the funny things about the people who go on most stridently about the need for a Conservative Party that 'looks like Britain' is their doctrinaire, witch-burning intolerance of those in present-day Britain who aren't, through some default of either of application or aptitude, metropolitan libertarians like themselves.

Foxy and I don't agree about everything, but I do dearly love the fact that he is willing to stand up - and speak up - for his moral convictions, even when these don't match the views of those who govern our airwaves and newspaper copy.

Henry Cook

Daniel, Michael, James, and Tracy, this thread has been turned into a 'Fox hunt' (great pun btw) because it is a thread designed to examine Fox's credentials. It seems to me that I've spent the last week maybe two quite rightly defending David Cameron (mostly from you four), so I don't think its too outrageous to go on the offensive for once.

Don't get me wrong - I really like Liam Fox. He's genuine, principled and has the most relaxing lilt in his voice I have heard from any politician. However, considering all the debate over taking drugs at uni, I think its absolutely justified to examine LF's voting record.

For me his stand on issues such as gay rights disqualifies him as a potential Prime Minister, because he is too illiberal for the modern voter. There should always be a moral voice in politics - but letting them lead is not a good idea.

Tracy - I'm not at all worried about Foxy, but I know it would annoy James if I ignored him.

Daniel - How can you call examining a candidate's voting record smear? Its a very different thing to digging into someone's student past.

James - I do not apologise for drawing my own conclusions from the fact that LF has never once voted to extend gay rights, despite the party line sometimes being in favour.

Michael - I am not a metropolitan libertarian; I live in Buckinghamshire, a thoroughly rural area. And I love this country and the people in it, whether they share my views or not.

a-tracy

Don't get me wrong Henry - I like David Cameron, other members of my family don't though and this bothers me.

I do have a problem with drug taking you're right but not DC as a person and I think if you read my threads I have said this on several occasions. I also have concerns about the 25% remarks that his team have alluded to. I can't understand yet just what aspects the New Tories want to give up on in order to become 'more electable' because they may be the very reasons I vote Tory in the first place.

Perhaps we should look in more detail at the three remaining candidates previous voting histories as you say because unlike this thread I can't remember doing this before.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home

Subscribe

  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:
    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe    
    Unsubscribe