The Conservative Group at Thanet District Council will vote against debating the same sex marriage motion at Thursday night’s Council meeting.
Group leader, Cllr Bob Bayford explained: “The consultation document from the Government could not be clearer. It states that ‘this consultation is about how we best remove the ban on same sex couples having a civil marriage, not on whether this should or should not happen.’
“We believe, when family budgets are tight and council services stretched, that there are far more pressing issues for Thanet District Council to be considering.
“This motion is brought about by two independent councillors who are imposing their own agendas on a hung council. The weak, minority Labour administration is allowing itself to be held to ransom by these councillors in order to cling to power.”
If the Conservative group feel this should not be debated at TDC level then they should leave the council chamber should the debate go ahead. Absolutely no point in setting up members to be labelled homophobic by the mouthy Driver.
ReplyDeleteJust a conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteUsually certain concervative council members very openly blog to death about anything all the time, They've mysteriously gone a bit quiet after this press release.
Perhaps the order to vote against having the debate has come from head office, and all the local concervative representatives have been gagged for damage limitation purposes.
If it's true, it would be slap in the face to Roger Gale.
11:39 Think you should look over on Thanet Life where the debate rages on. Really do not think Head Office, as you quaintly put it, is the slightest bit interested in what TDC debate.
ReplyDelete@Ren Wood.
ReplyDeleteSeen it already, Clr Simon Moores seems very restrained this evening. Usually he's dishing out insults left, right and centre.
From Wikipedia (naturally)
ReplyDelete"District councils are responsible for local planning and building control, local roads, council housing, environmental health, markets and fairs, refuse collection and recycling, cemeteries and crematoria, leisure services, parks, and tourism."
Is it just me or can anyone else not find the part where it says "Making political statements on behalf of their electorate that equate to a sanctimonious / supercilious pat on the back to the govenment and the opportunity to score political brownie points?"
No one?
Guess it wasn't just me then. So the council are doing something out of their remit on my behalf. Personally I would rather issue anyone who wants to debate this with a bin bag and a pair of long grabbers - they obviously have too much spare time on their hands (having apparantly dealt with local planning and building control, local roads, council housing, environmental health, markets and fairs, refuse collection and recycling, cemeteries and crematoria, leisure services, parks, and tourism) and could therefore be set to walk up and down the prom at Margate collecting rubbish.
Instead of sitting in a hot room spouting it.
Let's be quite clear about this, here is the link to the government document asking local authorities to respond to the consultation http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2012/DEP2012-0483.pdf
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit difficult to discus the issue without reading what the government actually asked local authorities to do first.
I have read it and yet again I point out paragraph 2.4 which clearly states that this is a consultation about how best to implement the change in the law NOT whether or not it should happen. How many times need this be said Michael - what bit of this confuses you?
ReplyDeleteDidn’t think I had said I was confused, just though some of the comment here suggested that people hadn’t read the document the government produced about this.
DeleteOf course there are a lot of people called anonymous on the internet which is fairly large, and that is confusing, perhaps you could point me to where you said what you have said before, many times, so that I can respond coherently to you.
Michael, I have pointed out the consult v debate point several times and I am not anonymous. Still you persist with your seeming support for the TDC debate. How about the Ramsgate and the Broadstairs town councils, should they debate it as well or does it say somewhere that it stops at district councils?
DeleteWell said Tuck - particularly like the bin bags bit. And Michael, you mention about being anonymous - but do you really think the likes of Driver/Worrow would leave any member of the public or political world alone if they could get the names. It would be more than cyber-bullying then, which is what happened to poor Tony Flaig.
ReplyDeleteTom I didn’t know you had revealed your true identity, could you kindly fill me as I missed that one?
ReplyDeleteI guess the reason the government asked local authorities to be consultees on this matter was either a mistake and the should have said county councils instead, or because district councils own a lot of civil marriage venues, and have a considerable amount to do with social services housing and benefits, also they will have staff who are married. I don’t think parish councils count as local authorities and at the moment don’t think any of the Thanet ones own marriage venues.
Frankly I think the Thanet Conservatives group are wasting a lot of time and energy over this issue where the independent group have the apparent backing of the Conservative government and the moral imperative of equality.
I think the best route for them in this case was to accept they had been politically outmanoeuvred and go along with the thing, as things are they are repeatedly drawing attention to the fact they were bettered by people who the claim are political inferiors.
1.22 I don't think Tony should necessarily be seen as a school child in need of protection from cyber-bullying, truth is the there isn't much creditability from people like you self who don't even have a pen name so I can follow your reply or even know if you made one. are you the person who though I was confused or someone else?
Michael, I use a pen name, but at least you can follow my thread and see the comments I have made elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThink you are being picky choosy over your authorities. With the localism legislation, town and parish councils are most definitely local authorities. On your point about political outmanoeuvering, I don't think even the Labour group called for this debate, but simply two renegade councillors who, for the moment, hold the council to ransom. That cannot be good for democracy.
There is also no mention of ownership of marriage venues in the government directive, simply a reference to registrars with responsibility for performing civil marriages. Think you are making it up a bit to suit your case.
Would also dispute the moral imperative of equality. Same sex couples already have equality in law through civil partnerships. All we are talking about here is what we call unions and I really do not see how having differing names for different mixes of unions can impinge on equality. I would also suggest this is more a philosophical issue than a political one. It is the mischief makers who seek to make it political.
As for the Conservatives regarding others as their political inferiors, that is nonsense. As I have said it is not the Labour group who have called this debate, but two rather noisy, self inflating councillors who were both elected less than a year ago under party banners and campaigns they have since abandoned. Are you suggesting they are anyone's political superiors?
All rather bizarre and no, there have been no instructions from anyone's head office.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not throwing insults or indeed being unusually quiet but do have a life to lead in between blogging. However the debate continues on www.thanetlife.com with or without me!