Last night I posted THIS on Iain Duncan Smith's Sunday Telegraph interview, which I followed up with THIS post earlier today. Iain has just posted a response on the first thread, but I thought I'd post it here too.
IDS: Actually Iain, I did not say gays were irrelevant to family policy, I would have thought you would have known better about me. I was replying to a question that implied that gay couples splitting up and who had children would have an effect on our figures about family break up. The point about being irrelevant was that the numbers were to small to effect the overall figures and were therefore not likely to make a difference to the overall numbers. The ST were looking to start a row and plucked the comments out of context and without showing everyone what the line of questioning was. I understand they added a paragraph to their second editions explaining this point, although it was too late. I explained this on the Politics show. I am sorry you made the assumption you did. I might have thought you would have read the item carefully and seen what they were up to. This is too important a report, (300000 words on breakdown) to be sidetracked by a contrived story. Iain DS
I'm grateful to Iain for clarifying this. As I said in my first post, I have a tremendous respect for him. He came to help me in North Norfolk and has been very supportive to me. I was rather taken aback by his reported comments in the Sunday Telegraph and I still think he could have chosen his words more wisely. But I am glad that he has now set, first hand, out what actually happened.
37 comments:
I still think he could have chosen his words more wisely - you're absolutely right Iain, I'm glad you're sticking to your guns on this point. Phrases like "irrelevant" and "they don't even register on the Richter scale" could have been substituted for something a little more sensitive in the context in which they were placed. IDS is an experienced politician and he should have been aware of the potential controversy such words would generate.
What concerns me more now than IDS' words is some of the comments that have been posted on the previous threads on this site. Sadly they show that the battle against prejudice and bigotry is still to be won amongst parts of the party.
Iain,
It baffles me that you didn't double check with IDS first rather than just believe the MSM
You could have then corrected the perception of homophobia and perhaps done his work the justice it deserves.
Aren't you guys on the same side?
Psalm 133:1
Blessings,
+Cranmer
Iain, do you really believe what you read in the (Sunday) Telegraph? If IDS mentioned the word "irrelevant" and "homosexual" in the same sentence, some editor is bound to headline this. Why don't you get some media training? ;-)
As B&B asks, why didn't you check your facts first before posting? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're a blogger and not a journalist, even if you're one of the more measured ones.
Yup. You're in the clear there, Iain. He should have chosen his words more wisely. And I'm sure he's extremely grateful that you've given him a chance to put the record straight.
When are you flying off to Malawi to adopt a new sprog like Madonna then?!!
Suddenly, Iain Duncan Smith is back, making his pitch to lead the breakaway party of the few remaining Tories among Conservative MPs in the coming hung Parliament. He'll have to fight Edward Leigh for it, though. And Leigh had the wit to oppose the Iraq War.
Interesting that they are both Catholics. Most Catholics are not Tories of any stripe; and most High Tories are, of course, C of E.
Just more evidence of why IDS was so hopelessly out of his depth when he was leader. It doesn't matter what he meant - what matters is that he said something so stupid.
Scummy newspapers sticking the boot in. Nuff said.
I still think he could have chosen his words more wisely
Kettles and Pots
This is an obvious pitfall and IDS should have been more careful. I am struggling to see how Iain can be faulted.
Timing is everything and the conservatives need this now like a hole in the head.
Onto the general subject: I continue to be impressed by IDS. He's a man who has every right to do a Ted Heath - but has instead thrown himself back into the fight. Not just for the good of the party - a party that did not cover itself in glory in its treatement of him - but more importantly for the country.
He may not be leader any more - but that hasn't stopped him showing leadership. ( He was great on Today-R4 this morning. )
"I still think he could have chosen his words more wisely"
Please, just once, have the nuts to stand up and say that, yet again, you valued style over substance and were wrong.
If it makes you feel uncomfotable, you don't have to dwell on the fact that your hysterical posturing has helped to derail a debate on a serious issue which the government has failed to tackle for a decade.
Maybe he typed this himself. I hope not, bearing in mind the typos. But his comment about the statistical significance of such small numbers is fair, I think.
I also think that IDS has done well. He could have gone off and sulked in a corner, but he has chosen to do something which is difficult and worthwhile. A great pity that other politicos don't do the same.
IDS was out of his depth as leader (we are told), but at that moment (2001) the Conservative Party was in danger of falling into europhile hands - whether the openly europhile Ken Clarke - or the cryptically europhile Portillo. We should be eternally grateful to IDS that he barred the way to Clarke and Portillo for over two crucial years from his election in 2001 until his assassination in October 2003. If he hadn't done that, the Party would have been finished.
IDS founded the Conservative Social Justice movement, and it was during his leadership that the Policy of Direct Democracy and Localism came to the fore. Cameron is son of IDS. It is thanks to IDS that we are still here. Was he a great leader?
He lead us through our time of greatest danger. Isn't that the key role of leadership? I rank him as one of the Party's greatest leaders, although apparently he was out of his depth. He was strong becasue he had unmoveable values and beliefs, while everyone else around him was tradeable for position. He will be seen as the crucial link between the Thatcher Conservative Party and the more 'modern' Party that comes along now. People are far more interested in values again now chastened by war experience and terrorism. In 2001 no one gave a toss. The good times rolled.
IDS crucially won and equally crucially held on just long enough to see off Ken Clarke and Portillo, and we now have a chance of winning power once more and rebuilding the damage done by NU Lab to our country.
"the numbers were to small to effect the overall figures"
Error - should be "too small"
Yours truly,
The Pedant
Who cares about what he said ? what a boring fellow he is.
This report will vanish as of tomorrow, and will never be heard of again.
Of equal importance and relevance however is that I came to these same conclusions 40 years ago,poor folk are unhappy and nasty,rich folk are happy and nice.
Mike.
Still you don't apologise. You should be a journalist.
Call me homofobic but I dont think same sex couples should bring up children.
'Interesting that they are both Catholics. Most Catholics are not Tories of any stripe; and most High Tories are, of course, C of E.'
You will find that all members of the Church of England are Catholics, though not of the Roman variety; bishops of the English Church are wholly as capable and empowered as Peter himself .
johnny, we won't be calling you that because it isn't a word, not even in the redneck dictionary.
I know I'm just repeating myself for the practice but if the US has an estimated 8-10 million homosexual households bringing up children and a population base comparable to the UK, how is it responsible or accurate to say that they are statistically insignificant?
Iain, I am a professional when it comes to hunting down those that are disingenuous.
After watching the Politics show, I am absolutely convinced that IDS was caught out hook, line and sinker.
The judgement of his ulterior motives, I will leave to those less able than I am.
Doom.
Yes I `m sorry ( in that not sorry at all way) but I also have great difficulties with the notion of same sex couples actually being regarded as a perfectly equivalent substitute to the more traditional arrangement . I know many gay people especially men and I count several as friends . I have absolutely no problem with their sexual habits bizarre though they seem to me . We seem to be going a good deal further than that
It is a mistake that you can support the family and at the same time support every possible alternative to it. I believe that Iain Duncan Smith was giving a deliberate message that our government would cease to listen only to pressure groups strong in the media and with plenty of time on their hands
It is a myth that human sexuality is a constant. All the , admittedly anecdotal , evidence , suggest that it is a highly culturally specific phenomenon and the images and messages children receive affect their ongoing development . Quite how this works is unknown and it is not straightforward. . The states insistence that schools are full of books recommending children to become homosexuals is unlikely to cause direct change . Nonetheless I would prefer that the wishes of parents were paid more respect .
Placing the family back at the heart of our life will not please all there are great vested interest in denigrating it and implying it is merely one option from the range of other equally attractive states.
Johnnies two Daddies and Jennies two mummies are not models I want to actively promoted by the state and while we are on the subject isn’t it about time the vast over representation of gay men in Parliament was addressed .
Another picture of Tory and gay , Nic Boles was recently in the Telegraph handing over his apple to teacher in an typically forgettable tract of vanilla flavoured Cameroon .He is standing for Mayor the fix is in . What David Cameron does not need in this high profile role is an Old Etonian Lifetime policy wonk who is gay. Immigration, housing policy and house prices have put working London families under great pressure . They are the people the Conservative party must talk to . It will be entirely clear that Nic Bole knows nothing about either families or work and
Everything you fear , in my view unfairly , about DC will be amplified .Boles may think his rainbow of gays , environmentalists and assorted toffs is an equivalent substitute for Conservatives . I disagree
Let him take up his A list option , he will cause the party further damage . Thankyou as ever to the marvellous Tapestry for correcting my impression of IDS .
Sorry to Iain who as powerful gay man in the media is perfectly entitled to seek to increase the influence of his team. As a powerless person I will continue in my small way to support the traditional marriage as the best model , in every way.
Incidentally I nearly met Nic Boles the other night . A few remarked it might have made for a lively discussion . Google his name and my views will appear
…well what a coherent argument that is.
Would you care to elaborate on that or perhaps even learn to spell?
Oh and that comment was aimed at Johnny Norfolk's post.
I don't think it is possible to choose your words with such care that the media cannot misunderstand if they really want to. Certainly not in a 30,000 word report. Indeed the way politicians self censor to prevent saying something that can be taken out of context seriously limits political debate on all sides.
The only way out is to kick back at our atrocious media which, I realise, tends to interfere with the allinces politicians need with them.
I’ve only considered two but I do think these are the most relevant issues.
No the most relevant issue is that we have no idea what a world in which sex is removed from procreation might be like .Gendre is of no relevance and children are routinely brought up by "couples" who have no blood tie to them .
Homosexuals cannot know what that feels like . I do and I simply doubt that the tie can be replaced.
The fact that there are bad parentsof all sorts is not relevant and borders on facile.
I am happy for people to experiment with new and interesting ways of living . I am less happy to impose them on children and concerned that the state seems to support everyone exopect the married working man and woman
Someone mentioned hysterical posturing.
Let's not forget that what is at the core of this is the well-being of the child. Any posturing outside of that single, crucial criterion is "irrelevant".
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I would rather have been brought up by two gays or lesbians who loved me, than the two hopeless and loveless people who had to deal with me as a result of a quick pre-marital shag.
I think we just have to remember that adopting children isn't another fashion fad, like some megastars we could mention.
Couples of any gender should be able to demonstrate stability, longevity and an ability to love. Children change your life forever. Autonomy, self, personal convenience goes out of the window..that is if you are doing it right.
Homosexuals should not be let anywhere near children
It seems the Tories will now embrace any social-sexual pathology in their quest for power.
The hounding of this quiet man by Thought Policeman Ian is frankly 0bscene and sinister. Perhaps resident commentator Peter Oulds(?) can answer if there is any correlation between homosexuality and Fascism.
I gained a lot of respect for IDS on hearing him on family breakdown. Now all he has to do is convince us the party can turn words into actions.
Dave just listed various Family types--he mentioned married couples THIRD.Time for him to go.(BBC radio 4)
Poor old IDS. Thinks it was the media's fault that he has generated some bad headlines. His comments about homosexual couples was at best unfortunate. Likewise, the language and tone he adopts when talking about co-habiting couples just makes me weep. He sounds like he blames them for bringing up children badly. And stereotypes the entire Tory Party with his outdated views. You simply can't abolish gay people or unmarried couples but that is what it sounds like he wants to do.
Oh yes and IDS doesnt know the difference between effect and affect.
Come on this is just Iain with a dose of 'The Only Gay in the Village' syndrome.
Whilst all this is very comendable. When are the Tories going to look into where all our tax money is going. Everyone I talk to is sick of tax and we hear nothing from the Tories only side issues. Mrs Thatcher may have won her first election on a moderate manifesto.
But not on the rest.
Wake up Tory party and oppose this government,starting with this new pension that we are already paying Nat. Ins. for.
Niconoclast wrote:
Homosexuals should not be let anywhere near children
Please don't mistake homosexuality for paedophilia or ebophilia, there's a good chap. And while you're at it, please don't mistake paedophilic attraction with paedophilic activity either. The men I've pastored who recognise their particular sexual neurosis but are determined to never act out on a minor would be highly offended by your remarks.
It seems the Tories will now embrace any social-sexual pathology in their quest for power.
Que? How so? I think the lady doth protest too much.
The hounding of this quiet man by Thought Policeman Ian is frankly 0bscene and sinister. Perhaps resident commentator Peter Oulds(?) can answer if there is any correlation between homosexuality and Fascism.
Interestingly, a leading number of the SA in the early 30s, including Roehm, were homosexual. One might also want to look at modern-day right-wing politicians (not necessarily facist - the word is bandied around with incorrect applications too much these days) like the late Pym Fortuyn in the Netherlands.
Interestingly, where one is a right-wing libertarian (Whig?), the natural position would be to tolerate homosexual activity, whereas right-wing social conservatives would take a more traditional stance.
Oh, and it's Peter OULD. No s.
Politicians are the last people on earth to lecture others on moral issues. This brings to mind the horrors of John Major's Back to Basics which happened while he was having an affair with Edwina Currie. I think this has done more harm for the Tory party. Society is the way it is because past policies have made it so. It is policies that will fix society's ills, not patronising moralistic soundbites. I rather think this is a cynical attempt by right-wing factions to shift the party agenda back to its previous home territory following its recent centre-left-leaning lurch.
Yes yes Oulds but the position of Iain is far in advance of easy tolernace this or that alternative life style. he is saying it is "outrageous" to suggest that Homosexual couple s are not on an equal footing with a normal married couple with regard to children. It is not outrageous and homosexual men are not in a position to know what uit is they cannot provide...Wonder what Cramner makes of it ?
Post a Comment