You're catching up, aren't you?

Unless the negotiable elements are stated before the election, any coalition agreement is likely to contain manifesto backtracks.



I shouldn't have to explain this to you.



These back benchers are not "honourable keepers of manifesto pledges", they are self-centred sheep who haven't the balls to face up to their crusty selection committees and are terrified of falling off the gravy train if they get deselected.

Not to mention self-righteous religious (in many instances) hypocrites, who will happily quote the parts of scripture where 'God' forbids homosexuality, but ignore all the inconvenient bits that don't back up their argument.

Be interesting to see how many are getting quite as upset about Cameron's lies on the NHS.

No a commitment to Gay marriage wasn't a manifesto commitment but then manifesto's are not and never been a [ilimit[/i on what government's do but set out what they hope to do.



Have a read of this [urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/tory-mps-gay-marriage_n_2315406.html[/url

It does seem strange that so many are getting so animated over a proposal that will have zero impact on anyone other than the two people who want to marry. Yet they are content to sit on their hands as the NHS becomes divorced from the state

As I said some time ago, it's a parody of priorities.



And if some of these people are getting wound up from a religious perspective, perhaps they'd do well to spend some time asking themselves the old question: 'what would Jesus do?' about a number of things this government is doing – not least it's attacks on and demonisation of the poor and disabled etc.

Jesus would have suggested "loving one another as I have loved you". A statement that many Christians seem to ignore when it comes to imposing their outdated and often bigoted views on others.

I suspect that, for some at least, their religion has little to do with an actual belief in what one might consider the teachings of that religion, and more a 'belief' in the traditions, trappings, liturgy and culture of that religion, if not quite for their own sake, then for the sake of something not connected to faith in the mystical god etc.

I will say that there was an interesting point today on the daily politics.

Surely if marriage is for all then so should civil partnerships purely when looking at equality?



Before anyone asks I know it's only being raised as a means to trash the bill by hypocrites but it's still a valid point.

It's an entirely valid point – and it's not just people wanting to trash the bill who are raising it. Peter Tatchell has been campaigning for civil partnerships to be available to heterosexual couple for some time, for instance.

Well yes and I'll happily concede the point but it has being hijacked by some for that reason.

Infact there one such individual today who sat there saying he wasn't being a hypocrite when he clearly is.



Before anyone asks his name escapes me.