By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Johann Hari has a revealing and "grilling" interview with David Cameron in today's Independent.
In the interview, Cameron denies he voted against gay adoption and insists he "abstained" on the 2002 vote. Hari writes:
"He says he didn't know any openly gay people as a child, or even at university. The first openly gay people he met were at the Conservative Research Department, after he had graduated. Perhaps this explains how he formed the attitudes that kept him opposed to gay equality for so long. I start to go over his record beyond Section 28 – and slap into a brick wall. In 2002 he voted against allowing gay couples to adopt. Yet when I ask him why, he flatly denies it. He says: "No... we were three-line-whipped on that vote and I abstained on it." I point him to Hansard, which records his vote against gay marriage in cold, black ink. He says "my memory" is that he abstained, and that he now thinks "the ideal adoption is finding a mum and a dad, but there will be occasions when gay couples make very good adoptive parents. So I support gay adoption."
But despite Cameron's denial, it's clear from the records that he did not abstain from voting in the first two instances, but that he voted against gay adoption, favouring adoption for specifically 'married' couples only.
The Tory leader also voted, along with many of his Tory colleagues, for an amendment to allow unmarried couples to adopt, but which specifically excluded gay couples. The amendment he backed sought to replace the words "whether of different sexes or the same sex" with "of different sexes".
In an interview with Sky News in 2005, Cameron was insistent that his voting record on gay rights is vindicated by his abstention from a Tory three line whipped vote, rather thanvoting against the party whip:
Cameron: The thing we voted on is when a person adopts should you take into account the fact that they are in a stable relationship and..
Adam Boulton: But you didn’t vote...
David Cameron: I abstained on a three line whip.
Adam Boulton: But you voted against it twice previously.
David Cameron: I abstained on a three line whip which was...
Adam Boulton: You voted against it twice.
David Cameron: I abstained on the three line whip, Adam. I haven’t been through Hansard.
So, ConservativeHome's trumpeting that David Cameron is "reaching out" to the gay community is exactly right. But he can't rebrand his voting record.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Why do left refuse to accept that it is the responsibility of the individual.
I don't buy this lack of opportunity claptrap, where I live we have colleges, both vocational and FE, sixth forms and other training schemes aimed at training school leavers, all they have to do is identify what they want to do, apply to the course, identify the requirements and then do that thing that no-one wants to accept. WORK TO ACHIEVE YOUR AIM, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN SUCCESS That is the most important bit. You cant legislate for kids not being bovvered.
Your comment was ridiculous, what you listed aren't privileges they are twists of fate, and to presume otherwise means your just an apologist for serial underachievers, but thats OK, while you use one group or another as your political football and socialise there lack of aspiration, it means that thye don't have to take responsibility of it themselves.
Is this a follow up to allowing a comment that clled the torys "nazis and homophobes" , Has Mr draper got his old job back?
Danny
The issue is the lie, trying to hide it. This confirms people's fears about Dave. Voters on the right and left are concerned about his 'man of the people' act and this act is being increasingly shown up for what it is.
Cameron is much more to the right than he is leading the electorate to believe, he needs to be honest about it - he will win many more votes with his integrity intact.
Why can't they see that voters are crying out for a bit of honesty?
I made the comment to illustrate the vacuousness of yours, Why do the right always want to make life easier for people who by birth get an easier ride anyway Your comment was a maasive generalisation that plays upon a stereotype, The only easy ride I got by birth, was from my hardworking but by no means wealthy parents who instilled in me a work ethic, and the belief that everything is possible if I work hard enough, and I get out of life what I am prepared to put in.
But of course these are old fashioned qualities long superceded by the myth of progressive politics, that I have a right to sit on my a*se and get something for nothing. Especially if part of a single issue protest group, but thats OK, one can always blame the toreeeez, that way one wont have to face up to ones own mediocre achievements. they eat babeeeez so it must be there fault.
I think your comment illustrates a lack of understanding of those born without privilege, you may wish to look into it.
Now that he is no longer a conservative, but another puppet for Big Pharma, the EU, globalisation, climate change fraud, etc., he blows with the wind. If there's a few votes to gain, he'll be 'spearheading' a campaign for the Tories to renounce more of their beliefs and leave their integrity in shreds in order to accommodate a philosophy which is alien to them.
Clearly, he imagines that the millions of Tory voters will continue voting for them regardless, because they want rid of New Labour.
It's about time they taught him a lesson about respecting your core vote; something Labour should also have done, rather than take the longsuffering man-in-the-street for a mug.
Cameron, as much as I would never vote for him, realises that. There is a fair bit of evidence that he has actually shifted on this issue and that his wife has always held liberal views on the topic
i think we need a permanent and seperate additional place for general comments outside the context of an article.
Yes, I am very naughty at times Peter, you should ask the poor rabbits in Margaret Hodge's Office as i spend my time hiding their stationary whilst droning on most boringly and seriously about the state of the political system ;)
All good fun though....
"Why do the left always have to spend money taken from hardworking families to hand out to a feckless few to fund a lifestyle which means that they don't have to work."
I think you'll find that some gays do work, some have even been known to use primitive tools. (No offense).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7014275.ece
Gordon Brown demanded immediate and deep cuts to military spending only six months after the invasion of Iraq, a letter seen by The Times reveals.
Ralph can be a mischievous one, don't we know it!
In my defence I was defending the Government record in response to Alan M's statement ;)
lol!
"Ralph can be a mischievous one, don't we know it!"
I could not possibly comment ....
This is just triablism - the difference here is that David Cameron can prove his integrity as Prime Minister when he is Prime Minister, Gordon Brown can't prove that he has integrity while he is Prime Minister, and with a Labour Party which is too terrified to get rid of him for someone with a bit more credibility.
Spending did not actually decrease for the military. There is going to be a massive reduction in senior military and civil service personnel and they are all very angry about it and attacking GB.
It is a petty political in-fighting thing with the MOD.
It's not just senior officers. It really is more prevelant throughout the ranks and different services.
If Brown has decided that he doesn't think Britain should take part in operations overseas than he should say so. Instead of which he's committed us to a war-time scenario, where we are spending peace time amounts on our forces. And that is just Afghanistan and Iraq.
At the moment we are fortunate to be in a situation where there is a direct military threat to Britain itself, but history shows how fast the world can deterioate. We haven't spent anything close to what we should have done in the good years, and now we have no money to spend. I was bitterly disapointed that neither party thought that defence spending was worth ringfencing. Along with the NHS it is really something we can't afford to cut.
"Spending did not actually decrease for the military."
Correct. In real terms (2007/08 prices), Labour increased Defence expenditure from £28.7 billion in 1996/97 to £36.2 billion (estimated outturn) in 2008/09 : 26 per cent real terms increase.
I do believe that the "cost of war" (artillery, extra fuel, for example) is charged to reserves and not to the defence budget itself.
Now, whether the people involved actually spent the money on the right stuff for the right time, is something that I don't know. However, equipment planning must be very difficult, given the lead times and what can happen in the intervening periods.
Not any more. The new, decade-overdue, grudging helcopter order is an "urgent operational requirement" for Afghanistan but is coming out of the Defence budget, not the Reserve. RAF Cottesmore and a Harrier squadron are being axed as a direct result, amongst other cuts.
There was a blog post here a couple of months back, called something like "Labour has a proud record on Defence". Perhaps it should be re-opened.
Gordon Brown has increased defence spending by slightly above the rate of RPI in almost every budget since Labour cam to power.
However, the Treasury Select Committee reports that the rate of inflation for defence equipment is 8%, far higher than the typically prevalent RPI rate of around 2%
Therefore defence spending has been cut in real terms every year when measured against the cost fo defence equipment rather than general RPI.
Out of a Defence expenditure of £37.4 billion in 2007/08, only £7.9 billion (21 per cent) was spent on capital equipment and the "inflation factor" of 8 per cent should be applied to this, not the whole.
Personnel cost £11.5 billion, equipment support £4.3 billion and depreciation £6.2 billion.
Mabye fifty years in a future - but the country isn't ready now.
Cameron could say that - and to be honest most people would probably accept that. But again - he seems to be flip-flopping on an issue.
Would you want a politicians representing you that says one thing to the media, but votes an opposite way, suposedly to his conscience, in the Commons?
He's not doing very well on the integrity front recently is he?
That isnt quite fair, peoples opinions do change over time, and this isnt confined to Cameron,
e.g yesterday GB at PMQs denied that he had cut MoD spending in the post war Iraq period, while evidence given at the Iraq Enquiry stated otherwise and a letter has come to light stating the same, and Hansard investigations show Bob Ainsworth making comments in the house about the same. This sheds light on the integrity of the PM on which front he's not doing so well recently. Is he? And in the house of commons! Does he have no sense of honour or decorum!
Why lie about the fact that he voted against it in the first instance instead of just saying he's changed his mind?
Don't get me started with GB, blimey, we'll be here all day. But focusing on Cameron, if he really is going to be the man to replace GB, does it help if he can't tell the truth? Irrelevant of whether GB can or can not, that will determine whether the voters trust him or not, but this is highlighting that the alternative really isn't a whole lot better.
Don't get me started with GB, blimey, we'll be here all day. But focusing on Cameron, if he really is going to be the man to replace GB
But the point of these articles is "The Tories are no better so vote for more of the same"
But I WANT CHANGE, I want to think that we have an alternative to the status quo, that we do not just have to have more of the same, and for me right now the Conservatives offer that.
I do not want GB as the prime minister, i think that he is fundamentally damaging to this nation, and its population. The country needs a different direction.
But yes, this post highlights that Cameron doesn't vote that way, in spite of often talking about equal gay rights.
More recently David Cameron has adopted a new approach. On Section 28 he now says "we (the Tories) got it wrong. I hope you can forgive us."
I wished to know from Mr Hague whether he is at one with his party leader in the fulness of this apology, and, if so, to seek a fuller account of the nature of the mistake he had made?
I have written again, repeating my request. I am still awaiting a reply.
From my extensive experience of contacting MP's via email or by post the silence is the most common affirmation of their attitude towards a policy or decision they have made. Remember these people cannot debate as we can and cannot account for themselves either, that is why we are faced with the problems we are in at the moment.
But I think this is a dead issue as the public are in the majority quite accepting of Homosexuality or at least uninterested in it because it has been accepted as the reality of life that it is.
I don't see this as an issue except where it is threatened as a freedom. The Tories are weak on this no doubt in part but I cannot envisage DC being stupid enough to challenge this position....there are limits even to the stupidity of MP's.
Why do the right always want to make life easier for people who by birth get an easier ride anyway.
Can you explain this... It seems I could make a comment like.
Why do the left always have to spend money taken from hardworking families to hand out to a feckless few to fund a lifestyle which means that they don't have to work.
Neither makes a huge amount of sense but superficially form an accepted stereotype...