Posted on 10/04/2006 9:36:03 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Britain's Conservative Party leader David Cameron, in an effort to "modernize" his party, has embraced gay marriage as a key issue facing the next generation.
Cameron hopes to "bury old taboos" of past British generations, according to a report in The Times (U.K.). Among those taboos are gay marriage, single parenting and new house building.
Cameron, who is campaigning to replace outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair in the upcoming U.K. election, has targeted "female-friendly" issues, much like Blair did a decade ago, to broaden his party's base and secure more votes, according to various news reports.
In a speech to the Tories, Cameron sought support for "a new direction" he hoped the Conservatives would champion, one which is in sharp contrast to what more traditional British voters might expect of his party.
With polls showing women voters who flocked to Blair in 1997 are now swinging behind the Tories, the 39-year-old leader aimed his first keynote conference speech directly at their concerns.
Cameron blurred the lines of family when he included so-called "same-sex partnerships" in his support for the family cohesion that binds a successful society.
"All families do a vital job and they all need our support, but I also believe that marriage is a vital institution and we should back it," Cameron said. "And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman or a man and another man. And I'm proud that we supported civil partnerships."
The Tory leader also bolstered his support for British military troops fighting terrorism throughout the globe, despite criticism - sometimes within his own party - for the United Kingdom's alliance with the United States.
"Our mission in Afghanistan is not just a moral responsibility, it is vital to keep Britain safe," he said. "A lawless, broken Afghanistan was the cradle for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Our armed forces are doing important work in Afghanistan and Iraq, so let the message go out from this conference to the best armed forces in the world - you are fighting in our name and we are proud of what you do."
How do you reckon Maggie Thatcher would be feeling about now?
It's always impressive when people who have stood for something decide to abandon their moral compass. You let the voters know that you can't trust them with anything.
This isn't expanding the party, it is destroying the party. Why not just put up a neon sign saying 'hey, we're just the same as the other party, so it don't matter whom you vote for.'
Idiots.
Like Brits would say NOT AMUSEDDD
Hey IVANNNN
Shame on you Larry Bird
What an idiot!
...related.
'No turning back', Cameron tells Tories ["No turning back to the policies of the Thatcher era."]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713816/posts
A democracy is about reflecting public opinion, particuarly when it comes to divisive social issues, as it should be. Britain is like Vermont on this one. Britain and for that matter Israel, inter alia, allows openly homosexuals to serve in the military, and next to the US, those militaries are viewed as the most lean, mean killing machines on the planet. The US is an outlyier on this one, vis a vis its developed country cohort, and more and more so, as time goes on.
Cameron is the Tories Bill Clinton. Or possibly John McCain. So, all the people that think Mccain is better then Hillary? Check out what cameron's doing. That's the future of the party and conservative movement if you elect John McCain. basically he is going to end up destroying both.
This is why some would sneer that the US, rather than being a developed country, is in fact "the richest developing country" with the strong social conservatism among a significant enough number of people and the competitive work climate.
You may not like it, but Western Europe by and large now has a standard of living comparable to the US. I saw it with my own beady little eyes in England a couple of months ago, and will no doubt see it in Rome in a couple of weeks. What generates a standard of living is more complex than ideological sound bites.
Could you clarify the statement? Europeans (Britons included) and New Zealanders always sneer at the poor-Americans-and-how-we-are-overtaking-them. They always view that the USA is a "lucky b****** with Third world characteristics that got caught up with our standard of living".
In their eyes, they always view the hallmark of a developed world as:
1. Mass literacy;
2. Materially well-off;
3. Social-welfare;
4. "Liberal" social beliefs and secularism.
IMHO what you said seem to add fuel to their arguments.
What I said, is these days those nations largely match the US in their standard of living, which was not true 20 years ago, and I don't think there is US envy (frankly that is a ludicrous assertion), but deep down, probably some sense of a safety net that the US rather than some place else, is the lone super power. In a free trade environment, with relatively equal skills overall, relatively equal standards of living of those in nations with relatively equally developed infrastrutures, and civil and peaceful societies, with relatively mobile populations, is inevitable. It just is. The huge immigration to the US was due to wage differentials, with the demand for bodies in the US higher than in Europe. That was true from about 1800 to 1970, nad particularly from 1800 to about 1920.
I mean no offense, but we in the Southern states tend to classify any nation as "third-world" if they have no barbecue joints and are incapable of "sweet tea" production.
I won't even bother to brag about our dominating position in the "Strategic Grits Initiative."
I would say the US is always regarded as a poor second fiddle when compared with Europe in the eyes of Asians and New Zealanders. When I was a boy in 1980s Hong Kong, it is always that the best will go to Britain, to the likes of Oxbridge or King's College, to study and the tour packages to Europe rather than USA/Canada that earn the highest prestige to show off.
It is only now that the prestige of going to America has gone up in NZor Asia.
Well Oxbridge is competitive with the best US Univesities. That is the only place outside the US that is. One thing that has helped Britain immensely, is that more of the Oxbride product stay in the UK, as opposed to immigrate someplace else in the Anglo Saxon diaspora, with their superb education and diploma in hand.
Maybe we aren't talking on the same channel. In the 1980s people sneered that "What is Harvard? Oxbridge would be just right?". In other words, Ivy League "can't compare with Oxbridge". It is sneering, the other round.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The rotten fruit of the influence of the Anglican Church.
This is code language for: its open season on having a boy toy for MPs!!!! Used to be, it costed you your seat. Now, it will be fine since you support gay marriage. Mark Foley could move to Britian and be 'one of the boys' in todays Tory party.
I have trouble believing that, but then I don't pretend to know much about New Zealand.
I wish Dame Margaret Thatcher would come out with criticism of Mr Cameron, so as to sink his chances. Of course she has far too much class to do so. God bless her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.