This is Steve Tierney's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Steve Tierney's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Steve Tierney
Wisbech, Cambridgeshire
Tory councillor, Christian, Games Designer. And stuff.
Interests: games, martial arts, local and national politics, natural bodybuilding, debate.
Recent Activity
You are correct Tim. Though I'd take the Water Cannons too, for shock and awe purposes. This sort of weak response is more in keeping with a Liberal Democrat -led government.
1 reply
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both sounded and looked very weak. What a sorry day for Conservatism. They had better toughen up quick because another night of that mayhem will change the state of play, I think.
1 reply
That may be true of the more sheep-like, but I dont believe its true of everybody. Somebody who stands up against their own party policy because it bears no similarity to their supposed ideology can't be accused of this - and there are plenty of politicians at all levels willing to do that if necessary.
1 reply
I wonder if he'll try and call a general strike over the issue?
1 reply
I don't think anybody really takes the Greens seriously. Can you honestly see the average British person living on lentils and wheat shavings in a mud hut and powering their single light for a few hours a day on manure and fairy dust? : )
1 reply
If the entire company moved to meat then the person would have to do it or leave. But the analogy doesn't carry across unless the entire country becomes gay - in which case the lone straight person would probably have to find something else to do for a living, obviously. In one company I used to work for one person had ongoing (genuine) back problems. He was excused the odd lifting he used to do because it was only a small part of his job, he was a good employee and it was an easy change to the schedule that hurt nobody. People are different - if something changes and some smart management can mitigate the problem I'm all for the reasonable compromise. The alternative, it seems, is to act like an ass just because you can. Where I come that used to be called bullying - even if it was dressed up in high-minded motivations.
1 reply
Because I talk to my friends and am close with them. Perhaps this is alien to you? Maybe you don't have that sort of trust and confidence in your circle of mates - but again, that's not my fault. Try harder.
1 reply
>>Steve, you look at it from the wrong perspective.<< No, I dont believe I do. >> The real question is why do religious groups constantly want to stop homosexuals from having equal rights and having happy, normal lives?<< They dont. They want to stop them using the religious term "married" and would prefer them to use the non-religious term "civil partnership" instead. None of which has any effect on their rights or the happiness of their lives unless they particularly want to take on a religious term. >> Two gay people getting married doesn't hurt you nor anyone else.<< Two gay people calling their betrothal "civil partnership" doesnt hurt them or anybody else. >>Civil partnerships are clearly a second-class term, which is meaningless to most people.<< That's just plain nonsense. Everybody knows that "civil partnership" is the gay equivalent of marriage and the law respects that too. Its only "second class" if you believe it to be so - which says more about you than it does about anything else. >> If heterosexuals can have 'marriage' then I don't see why homosexuals can't. Separate but equal will never wash.<< Because marriage is a betrothal between a man and a woman. A gay man can't be somebody's "sister" either. Maybe they should have a "right" to be called someone's sister? Maybe a Lesbian should have a right to be recognised as someone's brother? Or uncle? Its a pure nonsense, fanned by people who have a gripe against religion. The left, principally. >>The bottom line here is that the rights of gay people are more important than the feelings of religious people.<< Ah-hah. Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others, huh? Thank you for clarifying your position. >>What you call 'religious liberty' basically involves taking away the liberties of other people.<< What you call 'Gay liberty' involves taking away the liberties of other people. >>And I bet you wouldn't accept being told that you no longer have a 'marriage' but instead have a 'civil partnership'!<< I am married to a woman and it was sanctified religiously. I don't claim to have a "right" to have chosen a civil partnership instead. I understand that the terms used by both groups can have equal weight and equal meaning and that would be the right, proper and reasonable approach for everyone. But you don't want 'right, proper and reasonable'. You want to upset religious groups on your oblique wrong-headed crusade.
1 reply
That's a mindless comment, Monkey. Unless you are a bigot, you'd know that long-time friends talk to one another. It really doesn't make any different who they choose to sleep with. Well, mine do anyway. Maybe left-wing friends are different? Or maybe the term "bigot", so casually bandied around by the left, is somewhat closer to home than you might want to admit.
1 reply
Yes, they absolutely should. But "Marriage" is a religious concept and it should remain so. I support that a civil partnership should absolutely have ALL the same rules, responsibilities and priveliges of marriage. In a legal sense it should be considered identically to marriage. But it is not marriage. The reason is simple - marriage is a union between a man and a woman as per the relgious tradition. I can't see why gay people would really want to be "married", if Civil Partnership is exactly the same - except to deliberately annoy the religious. Which seems too confrontational to me. We'd all live together and get along much better if we stopped trying to pick fights and get in each other's faces all the time.
1 reply
A cop out? Why? If somebody became a registrar years ago they would have joined the profession in the understanding that marriages were between a Man and a Woman. Now that the legal situation is different I think its fair to expect that if they take the job they should do any kind of partnership without complaint. But if they predate the change by a long time then they could have taken the job believing it would never impinge on their morality of religion. Seems that a reasonable way to deal with the (probably small number) of people who have a moral issue and predate the change is to allow shift changes like this. Over time they will be replaced through normal employment attrition with only people who do not have a valid reason to complain and then it will no longer be an issue. Imagine if a vegetarian took a job as a taster in a food factory that only sold vegetable products. Then the factory added a single meat product. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the taster to ask to be excused the tasting of the meat product - but it would be unreasonable for a vegetarian to take the job in future (because then they'd KNOW the company sold a meat product too.)
1 reply
When soldiers joined the army they knew there might be war and they knew it could be against a muslim nation. When registrars joined the profession they did not know that marriage might be widened to incorporate "same sex" partnerships. So its not a valid comparison.
1 reply
It's all good work. But the really "big beast" quangos are still out there - and still need cutting.
1 reply
>>But I did not elect a coalition government<< Yes. Yes you did. Unless you had the power to decide the government - you and you alone - then your vote will always be one vote among many. The result, in our system, is a cumulation of the votes placed by everybody (and those not placed at all, powerful by their absence.) You may not like to accept that in a democracy the result will be dictated by the choices of everybody - and you may not like the fact that in a parliamentary system the MPs we vote for join different groups who then make alliances they see fit - that IS the system. You took part in it. The result is therefore your result. You and everybody else. Your logic is faulty, I'm afraid. Though its a faulty logic many use - so you are in good company. If you want a presidential system - you'll have to campaign for one. Though it sounds, from your earlier comments, like what you really want is an authoritarian One World government. If you don't mind, I'll reserve my right to campaign against that. For as long as it takes.
1 reply
>>Like it or not the so called "mythical" centre ground is where most voters are.<< I've heard this many times and I still think its wrong. I understand why the conclusion is drawn this way, but I think its a classic piece of policial dialogue which has no bearing on real people. There's a lot of it about. Where I think "most voters" really are is a mixture of: "Can't really be bothered with politics but should probably vote", "I believe what the media says" and "I'm upset by XXX and will vote based on that" where XXX is any number of current political hot potatoes. If you actually talk to people about what they believe - without bringing party politics into it - I've rarely met anybody (of those who will express an opinion) who is anywhere near 'centre ground'. I'm not even sure there IS a center ground at all. If you are quite right-wing on one issue but leftish on another the average is "centre". Another person might have the reverse opinions. Neither of you will ever agree and neither of you are at all "centre" but that's what a graph would show...
1 reply
That's just silly John. The coalition was elected by everybody - even the people who voted Labour and the people who didn't vote at all. A choice was offered to the public, they cast their ballot (or not) and the outcome was what it is. Just because a result is surprising, infuriating or not to your liking doesn't make it "unelected". It was absolutely elected, just not in the presidential sense you seem to wish for. But we don't have a presidential system - so that's not altogether surprising.
1 reply
>>None of the parties are proposing to cut the debt.<< Correct. What the Labour "deniers" are doing is pretending that they haven't run up such an enormous economic problem that even WITH stringent cuts we can't even begin to make a dent into it. The sheer scale of what Gordon Brown did is too colossal to easily describe. I'm not sure, particularly with the lies and spin the left are indulging in, that most people realise just quite how dreadful it is.
1 reply
LOL. The only good thing about a new Euro-Tax is that'll it'll speed the end of the miserable edifice we know as the European Union and return democratic power and responsibility where it belongs - the individual nations.
1 reply
>>"same old Tories<< Labour's cleverest piece of spin was the whole "nasty party" label. In fact, anybody who knows anything about real Conservatives knows full well that our party are not "nasty" at all. Realism and common sense may seem nastier that rainbow castles and fairies, but the latter aren't actually real. In the face of Labour's misdirection, we chose to change our image to escape their criticism. That's one approach. Some might argue that it was precisely the approach Labour hoped we'd make. Another approach is to demonstrate why your policies are actually right, decent and fair - and for the most part always have been.
1 reply
Not necessarily true. The more people with like mind at every level of the Conservative organisation the more likely the future will move in that direction. This is all of our party. We all have a say. If you don't believe your voice or opinions have any power then I would respectfully suggest you need to be more confident in yourself.
1 reply
The debt problem we have dwarfs everything else and so it is necessary for the Conservatives to be in power to bring back some fiscal sanity. Furthermore, Thatcherism had many good points, but is not (in my opinion) a magic bullet anymore. Although elements of it remain as powerful as ever. The problem we have is that, haven taken control before the "final collapse" that Gordon was ushering in may have saved the country, but has also meant that some really dim people might believe Labour's spin and blame us for the problems that Labour made. It was a clever trap Gordon made with his scorched Earth policies, and frankly a bit damn evil in my opinion.
1 reply
>>who haven`t a hope of ever gaining a seat in parliament << The Greens are fa, far crazier than UKIP have ever been and they have a seat in parliament. I wouldn't be so cocksure if I were you, Jack. The political scene can change very quickly and in very surprising directions. Who knows what the next couple of years will bring?
1 reply
If David Davis and Dan Hannan along with a bunch of others decided to make a move to UKIP that would be very, very damaging indeed, in my opinion. But I think that extremely unlikely.
1 reply
It took too long and has created too much mess. No sensible Conservative could possibly have thought this was in any way right or correct in the current climate. Those who voted for it will be punished at the next polls - and they have brought it on themselves. Nevertheless, at least they DID listen in the end. It should not have have taken a media- and opposition-bashing to make it happen, though. Well done Kate salinger and any others who rebelled in the name of good sense.
1 reply
Labour leaders do indeed lie and spin in this way. You're right. But you've lost the masters of spin to retirement, attrition and public disdain. There's no coming back.
1 reply