Gay Marriage: The Conservative Case (For Votes)

If, as some argue, the Prime Minister were to drop his plans to introduce gay marriage he would be unlikely to win many back on the strength of it. People who oppose gay marriage would remember that he was in favour of it before the going got tough. Those who support it would see that he abandoned the idea in the face of a determined minority. Those who don’t much care either way would notice another flip-flop. In political terms, ditching gay marriage would probably be more likely to put off Joiners and Considerers – whom we need if we are to win a majority – than it would to win back Defectors.
It is notoriously difficult in polling to work out the electoral impact of a given policy with any certainty. People vote for a host of different reasons; their choice must take into account everything they know or feel, good and bad, about a party or candidate. They are therefore very unreliable when it comes to assessing to what extent one issue, taken in isolation, will affect their decision. Some Conservatives will no doubt find themselves unable to vote Tory this time if the plans gothrough – but it is also clear that the traffic would not all be one way...

From a fascinating, detailed article on Conservativehome by Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative Party's chief electoral strategist.
Note its implication that dropping gay marriage has been seriously considered.
And how principle doesn't come into it.

Nadine Dorries MP: Behind The Price Of Milk

"Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others - and that is their real crime."

Tory MP Nadine Dorries talking to the BBC's Daily Politics Show.
In fine she is correct - this is a government led by a cabal of ex-public school boy millionaires who have no idea how the other 99% live.
If only we could leave it there. 
The quote has been blown up by the media as a killer punch to David Cameron and George Osborne.
It sums up a regular recent Blimpish bleat from the Tory right that argues issues like gay marriage are only of interest to some metropolitan liberal elite, and are alienating the party from many ordinary voters.
Naturally the Telegraph loves Dorries's latest outburst.
But what does Nadine Dorries really mean?
Is it really a concern about the price of petrol and pasties and milk?
She's made her media name in the last two years mainly by mouthing off against social, specifically sexual, liberalism, and pushing pointless Private Members' bills about abortion and teaching sexual abstinence to schoolgirls.
Chris Bryant called the last one "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen".
I think she's a complete mentalist, but then even her colleagues call her "Mad Nad".
But it is exactly "this sort of thing" that vexes her far more than the cost of living.
Here she is ten days ago expanding on her theme for her blog for ConservativeHome;

'Social liberalism has always been an indulgence of the wealthy. The people who can afford to enjoy liberalism whilst protecting their own children from the societal influences of such by sending them to the most expensive schools. In addition to the majority of the British public being far from social liberals, they also aren’t stupid. They know that each family struggles financially whilst we send a 'billion of our hard earned cash to Europe each year.
'They know that gay marriage is a side issue which many gay couples living outside of London or bohemian Brighton (sorry Graeme) have no interest in and as one gay couple articulated to me in my constituency, “we wish Cameron and others would just shut the **** up and leave us alone in our civil partnership”. This from a couple who happily contribute to their local community and resent their relationship becoming a focus point for discussion as they queue for fish and chips and get on with their lives. Not all gay couples live in the south of England.
'And that is just about what everyone is doing, getting on with their busy lives and surviving to do too much about any of the disconnect they feel, however, suddenly a new dynamic has entered the political arena and penetrated the chatter bubble of everyone’s daily lives.'

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Rod Liddle: "As crushingly dull as Brian Paddick, as duplicitous as Mandelson"

Rod Liddle replies - one presumes - to Andrew Pierce's piece about how he "abhors these TV queens" in The Daily Mail this week.

"Homosexuals are tired of being portrayed on television as sexually obsessed, hilariously narcissistic, outrageously dressed queens each carrying a boxed set of Abba CDs — ie, Clary, Norton, Carr and so on.
They want a bit more realism, believing that this sort of stereotypical depiction is hardly better than the Black and White Minstrels, or Al Jolson. Well, maybe. But be careful what you wish for. Inaccurate it may well be, but at least it has been an agreeable stereotype which has probably advanced the cause of homosexual equality.
If we suddenly discover that gay people aren’t always the life and soul of every party but can be as crushingly dull as Brian Paddick, or as duplicitous as Mandelson, then even more bed and breakfast institutions might refuse them entry (“refuse them entry — ooh missus!” etc).
They should talk to the Irish, who know the value of good PR; the whole of Europe loves the Irish for being ineffably good-natured, top o’ the mornin’, fiddle-de-dee, live-and-let-live free spirits, rather than grey-skinned, marsh-dwelling gingers with an insuperable sense of grievance. The truth is somewhere between the two, as it always is.
Stick with the image, boys."

200 words on "the gays" without lapsing into bigotry.
Congratulations would be in order if Fagburn didn't feel the whole point of the piece was really Rod Liddle bitching about Andrew Pierce.
And Brian Paddick.
And Peter Mandelson.
Manbags at dawn!

Conservatives: Silver Screen Shower Scene

Fagburn has ConservativeHome to thank for this story; "Tories ditched £300,000 election ads that included gay shower scene"
They say it comes from yesterday's (paywalled) Sunday Times.
ConservativeHome say; "The Sunday Times reports that CCHQ [Conservative Party Head Quarters] commissioned and paid for a party election broadcast that portrayed people 'coming out' as Conservatives.
"One of the suppressed films that have now emerged shows naked men grappling in a shower, while another depicts a teenager being caught reading what at first appears to be a top shelf magazine. The third unshown ad makes light of teenage sex, portraying a girl confessing to her parents: “I am three months Conservative.”
According to The Sunday Times; "The most controversial of the films, which plays on the idea of gays “coming out”, features two good-looking young men standing in a shower.
"One says: “It feels so right. I am going to tell everyone.” The second puts a hand to his friend’s mouth as part of what looks like an embrace and replies: “I think I am too.”
"The camera then pans back to reveal the men’s teammates looking on in horror, before the Tory slogan is finally revealed."
The ads were due to be shown in cinemas during the general election campaign.
The Sunday Times quotes an anonymous party insider who said the ads were dropped for fear they "might have alienated more traditional core supporters."
But CH begs to differ; "My understanding is a little different. Senior Tories felt that the ads commissioned by Steve Hilton were at best out-of-date and at worst self-loathing. The opponents of the ad campaign felt that the 'decontamination phase' had gone on far too long and we needed to give people positive reasons for voting David Cameron and not to give people a new opportunity to think of Conservatives as the 'nasty party'."
Does this mean they thought the ads just wouldn't wash?
Thangyewverymuch.