Lammy's gay marriage speech

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 7, 2013 at 19:07

Billy, now I understand. You think the the people of Tottenham are so thick that they can't understand politics?
I think you've just written the next Conservative manifesto for the election. Your contempt for the electorate is breathtakingly offensive. Do you wonder why with attitudes like yours (now in the public arena) the Tottenham Conservative party can't even get a council seat?

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 8, 2013 at 18:26

What is so precious about believing that people can think for themselves? Echos of Justin Hinchcliffe and his 'useful idiots' come to mind (try searching this site for the term Billy, and wonder why the Conservatives have never made any headway in this borough despite having a natural home in the west)

Permalink Reply by Liz on February 8, 2013 at 22:13

Really? You think Billy's arguments are stronger than Michael's? Really? I think they come across as surprisingly anti-politics for someone who is usually quite pro. The public don't knowingly vote in crooks or criminals even if they subsequently prove to be so. It is true that people vote along party lines but they don't usually vote for people who are known to be crooked...and sometimes they throw out people who go too far. Let us not forget Portillo's surprise and anguish at losing to Twigg. He admits himself now that much of the right-wing stuff he was spouting before the election was what he thought people wanted to hear not what he *believed*. Out of politics, he's proved to be a much more thoughtful man politically.

Politics is a messy business and can ruin people but as the saying goes, "it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it" and sometimes we are reminded of the idealism that sent many of these folk into politics in the first place...I think what we saw in Lammy's speech was just that. More of that please!

Permalink Reply by David on February 7, 2013 at 23:08

Personally (and I admit that, as a gay man, I am biased), I think that David Lammy does represent his constituents in this. Even if people do oppose gay marriage, they don't do so strongly enough to overcome their main reasons for voting for Labour (which are probably economic).

In ten years time, this will be a completely uncontroversial issue and I think that is the judgement that Mr Lammy has reached based on his knowledge of the community.

Permalink Reply by David on February 7, 2013 at 23:21

Also, I find your comment a bit asinine, given that I consider this issue to be one where other people's opinions don't matter.

Just because you or anyone else doesn't think that I shouldn't have the right to do something that harms nobody doesn't mean that you have the right to stop me. If you're an Anglican, then I don't care if you don't want me to marry in your church or not, but I actually don't see why you have any right to legislate over who I love. if we were a country like the US, then the equivalent of the Supreme Court would have allowed this. i'm astonished (and, frankly, impressed), that we are allowed it during the era of a Conservative Prime Minister.

Permalink Reply by KatyT on February 8, 2013 at 10:10

Must admit, I find the Anglican view that same sex marriage somehow 'denigrates' the institution rather ironic. Didn't the chap who initiatied the church of england have 6 wives?

And anyway, Jesus had 2 dads.

Permalink Reply by hob on February 7, 2013 at 13:04

Why not post the letter to William Hague ? It would not be very appropriate for Mr. Lammy to take on the job of a postman. They have had enough of their members laid off over the years without him sticking in the boot.  

Permalink Reply by william spring on February 7, 2013 at 20:00

I did send the letter directly to William Hague, of course. No reply or acknowledgement. I( is an understood fact that with a useless Minister such as Hague you cannot expect a personal reply or acknowledgement unless your MP agrees to forward the letter to the Minister. I asked David Lammy to do that. He did not reply to my request.

Permalink Reply by pamish on February 7, 2013 at 20:08

I believe David Lammy has the biggest caseload of all MPs, I would not be surprised if that were true.  That's why his expenses are high, he has several staff to help him manage it. Not wanting to apologise for him but I think people forget that MPs are more like social workers most of the time, not lounging about on those green benches. The only way to get your basic rights can be to set your MP onto them for you.

Permalink Reply by John D on February 7, 2013 at 20:08

There is a convention that an MP for one constituency does not engage with an elector from another constituency. That is why William Spring acted correctly in asking HIS MP to pass his letter to Hague.

Permalink Reply by hob on February 7, 2013 at 22:45

Mr Spring was trying to contact Mr Hague with regard to his position as Foreign Secretary. This is not a "Lammy won't fix a pothole, will you." His letter should be acknowledged and should not have to go through Mr Lammy. 

Permalink Reply by TTTH on February 8, 2013 at 10:20

I am glad that the extreme views on this post are largely being ignored and people are supportive of the bill.  People should really stop and think before posting on a community website: will my contribution be valued, does it help or will it merely come across as a bitter old rant.  They don't represent the views of the majority and Mr Lammy spoke for the majority of his constituents in Tottenham where I am pleased and proud to reside.  If you don't like it move out into the sticks, I am sure you would love it there    These extreme views are dying off and society is moving on thankfully.  I emailed David Lammy to vote in favour and didn't expect this rousing speech - thanks for posting Liz

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page