Voting in the 2019 General Election

As we prepare to go to the polls in the General Election on 12 December, it is worth reflecting on Church teaching and the principles which should guide us in deciding how to use our vote without violating God’s law.  

Click here to read a guide prepared for American Catholics, which seems to be fairly comprehensive.  I’ve not studied everything on that [EWTN] site, but I have checked out some key topics and I think we will all find it useful, and a source for fruitful discussion.

Below, a video clip from the trial of St Thomas More,  saint and martyr, patron of lawyers and politicians, who has been an inspiration to many, including many who are not Catholics, because of his strong, conscientious insistence that God’s law must always be above any law created by man. 

Comment: 

If the voting guide given in the introduction above still leave you with unanswered questions or doubts,  feel free to ask for clarification on this thread. 

Here, at Catholic Truth, we are apolitical and we discuss politics only in the context of our Catholic duty to be decent members of society, contributing, where possible, to the common good.  Please, therefore engage in discussion in a spirit of respect, bearing in mind that the Church exhorts us to adhere to certain principles but does not dictate that we should support (or not) any particular political party. Our overall aim must be to take care not to offend God in the way we vote; not to support the transgression of His Moral Law.  To this end we pray…

St Thomas More, intercede for us, and for all the politicians participating in the forthcoming election; guide and inspire us in the weeks ahead… Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.  

107 responses

  1. I think it is significant that the General Election is to be on 12 December, which is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, who is often portrayed as a patroness of the unborn at pro-life events.

    I found the EWTN voting guide really useful, especially the page on abortion. That was really helpful.

    Saying that, though, my vote will go to a pro-Brexit candidate.

    I wanted originally to vote for the Brexit Party candidate but I’m now a bit worried that this will lead to a split in the Leave vote and one of the other “remain” candidates will get in.

    If anyone else is focused on Brexit, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

  2. MIchaela, I’m a fervent brexit supporter and, like you, I’ve worried about what party to vote for. I’ve decided to go with my heart and vote for the Brexit Party. What will be will be and surely the Lord is looking down on all this.

  3. I am also keen to get Brexit done but I’m wondering about whether to vote Conservative or Brexit Party to get that done. I will wait until I see the list of candidates but nobody who is for stopping Brexit will stand a chance of getting my vote.

  4. I’m voting Labour as I always do. I for one am heartbroken to read stories about disabled peopled having to pay the bedroom tax, the millions of children and pensioners living in poverty, millions on zero hours contracts, millions using food banks, huge cuts to legal aid which adversely affects the poor, and the government’s opposition to rent caps and voting against a Labour amendment to make private rented properties fit for human habitation (with 72 Tory MPs voting against). Also, I’m deeply worried to hear news from headteachers and teachers about budget cuts, with teachers having to buy food, clothes, shoes and equipment for children and support staff/ cleaners being laid off, and teachers having to take up the latter duties.

    • I will be voting Conservative. I support the Brexit Party but I can’t see them winning any seats. The best way to get Brexit done is a Conservative majority.

      • I can’t see the Brexit Party getting any seats, as UKIP obtained over 4 million votes in 2015, but that didn’t translate into seats. We live in unusual times, and I may be proved wrong, but I can’t see it. Brexit is one thing, but when it comes to the Tories, I cannot vote for them due to the policies which I described above. My conscience would not allow it. I am inclined to think that it will be a hung parliament again. I would be interested to see what turnout will be. The government should declare a public holiday.

    • Catholic Convert 1,

      I agree abut the terrible Tory policies, such as the bedroom tax etc. but I have to believe that when we get free of the EU life in the UK will improve so that such policies are no longer in place. I think the two child benefit rule is a disgrace as well, it is a form of population control, shockingly supported by the so-called Catholic Tories like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Ian Duncan Smith. I do wonder how your conscience would be at ease voting Labour with them pushing for abortion up to and including birth, killing babies even as they are born. The women Labour MPs are working hard to get that into law. As Pope John Paul II said, what use are other rights (housing, jobs etc) if we do not have the most basic right of all, the right to life. Labour is “pro-choice”, not pro-life.

      So, I will be holding my nose as I vote Conservative, just this once, in the hope of getting Brexit delivered.

      • Josephine,

        I agree with most of what you say. Just a point of clarification – there is no “two child benefit rule”. You are entitled to child benefit for every child you have – I receive it for 6 children!

        Tax credits, which means you can claim tax back, is limited to two children. This isn’t a benefit and never was. In terms of benefits, there’s no limit on the amount of children you can claim for.

      • Josephine,

        I agree with what you say about abortion, but do you think the Tories or Lib Dems etc would try to restrict abortion. I voted for Brexit and would do so again, but I’ve got to look at the bigger picture and try to end the horrendous policies of the Tories. Hence, I will be holding my nose and voting Labour.

      • And to add one more thing Josephine, I do not think that life would improve after Brexit under a Tory Government. Boris Johnson removed worker’s rights from the legislation. Every piece of worker’s rights legislation was opposed by the Tories, such as the minimum wage.

        • CC,

          If Boris Johnson fails to keep workers’ rights legislation as now enjoyed, or by improving them (as I believe is the promise – EU standards on everything are always the minimum – the UK will rise above those minimum standards after Brexit) the unions would have their workforces out on the streets before you could say “I should’ve voted Labour!” 😀

          I honestly fail to see how any Catholic can square voting Labour with a truly Catholic conscience, given that its female MPs are working hard to decriminalise abortion: voting them into power will mean, for sure, that babies are even more at risk of being murdered – not just within the womb but once born. Don’t be fooled by the euphemism “decriminalisation” – that’s a cover to extend the “woman’s right to choose” until AFTER her baby has been born. Infanticide, in other words, as is now available in the USA. We’re never too far behind them in most things, and this will be no different.
          http://jostevens.co.uk/decriminalising-abortion/

          No worker’s right is more important than the right to life of every child.

          For the record, I was brought up in the [best !] city on the west coast of Scotland where it was unthinkable to vote for any party EXCEPT Labour. Now, I wouldn’t vote for them if Nigel Farage & Boris Johnson, along with Papa Francis, came to my home to accompany me to the polling booth. Especially not then! 😀

          • Editor,

            A fantastically clear post from you!

            Of COURSE we must be attentive to the needs of the poor. That goes without saying. It’s our Catholic duty to do what we can to support those in need. However, the fundamental right to life overrides all over issues. Most parties are pro-death these days, but there seems to be a real bloodthirst for abortion in the Labour Party.

            • Of course, as a certain former SSPX Priest informed me, we have a right NOT to vote or spoil our ballots. If it’s wrong to vote Labour because of their abortion policy, then surely it’s wrong to vote Tory due to their policies that unjustly target the poor. Isn’t that one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

              • CC,

                That’s a false dichotomy. There is no comparison between being poor and being murdered.

                None of the political parties are perfect – I would say – in fact – that none of them are any good, but we do have to recognise that there are different ideas about how best to run the welfare state, how best to help the poor. It’s not black and white. The Church requires the State to provide a safety net for the poor, but none of the parties can guarantee that the system won’t be abused. So, there is something to be said for parties with policies to encourage people to get work always providing that safety net for those who are poor or the less well off in need of some financial help.

                Refusing to pay the labourer his just wages, is the sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance to which you refer, and I would hope that the unions are keeping an eye on employers up and down the land to make sure they don’t get away with such injustice.

            • Petrus, You are absolutely spot on about the right to life,, so how can you vote for the party that (with the support of others) forced abortion legislation on Northern Ireland?

              • It’s a good question, Eileenanne. I am voting for the party that will get Brexit done and there’s more chance of a Conservative MP being slightly more pro life than others.

          • Interesting take on the “empty promises” (like Satan?) Of politicians before elections and then compare them to what happens once they obtain power. Whilst I agree 100% that no Catholic could possibly countenance voting for any of the parties of death (Labour, Liberal, SNP or Green)
            there is a large segment of society, mainly the young, who are prepared to ignore their stance on abortion and still vote for them.

            This is obviously why [Nicola Sturgeon] is keen to grant the vote to 16 year olds, and why not? After all supposedly grown up legislators around the world are taking scientific advise from the New Joan of Ark a 16 year old child.

            If no one could vote for a pro abortion party, then how could anyone with half a brain vote for a party which wants to return us to the stone age by abolishing grown up energy and relying on bird mincers and reflective mirrors on our roofs to keep us warm and the lights on?

            Sadly there is not one party which calls the great global warming fraud for what it is. All are quite happy to see the aging population die of hypothermia due to exorbitant energy prices to pay for the useless renewable (unreliable) energy.

            Just last week 11000 so called experts asked for a “sustainable” world population to “prevent catrostopic global warming” So ALL our politicians are keen to kill the unborn and the old to “save the world”

            Am I mad or am I delusional?
            Don’t answer that!

            Ed: not mad or delusional, Patrick, but falling foul of our House Rules by some of your descriptions. Apart from the fact that overseas readers will not recognise Nicola Sturgeon by your description (which I’ve now amended) and it may be that your opinion of Greta Thunberg is correct, we do try to maintain some basic level of Christian charity on this blog, tempting as it is oftentimes to engage in a bit of name-calling. Also, we need to remember that there will be bloggers and readers who vote for particular parties and it is not right to – albeit inadvertently – offend them in the way we refer to the various party leaders. As I’m sure you know, we stick to the issues here, and avoid making personal remarks. So, I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve made some small adjustments to your post to keep you on the right side of the CT “law” 😀

    • Catholic Convert,

      I had an email from a reader expressing amazement and shock that anyone on this blog would even think of voting Labour, given their viciously anti-life policies. I replied that I couldn’t recall reading anyone saying they’d vote Labour but now, on a scroll, I remember replying to this below. I repeat my comment here, and add to it as follows:

      I honestly fail to see how any Catholic can square voting Labour with a truly Catholic conscience, given that its female MPs are working hard to decriminalise abortion: voting them into power will mean, for sure, that babies are even more at risk of being murdered – not just within the womb but once born. Don’t be fooled by the euphemism “decriminalisation” – that’s a cover to extend the “woman’s right to choose” until AFTER her baby has been born. Infanticide, in other words, as is now available in the USA. We’re never too far behind them in most things, and this will be no different.
      http://jostevens.co.uk/decriminalising-abortion/

      No worker’s right is more important than the right to life of every child.

      I would urge you – and the others here – to contact your MP to let him/her know that no matter what else they are promising, there’s no point, if we do not first have the absolute right to protection in the womb and the right to life.

      I have just written to my own MP (SNP) as follows, dated today, 27/11/19…

      Dear [Name],

      I know I’ve written to you before in an effort to persuade you of the immorality of abortion, but without success.

      I am writing now to let you know that the SNP policy on abortion will, in itself, prevent me from considering voting for you, despite – and I thank you for this – your helpful action on a local matter about which I contacted you some months ago.

      In her presentation of the SNP Manifesto this morning, I heard Nicola Sturgeon boast about the Party’s policy on “baby boxes”…

      From the Party website: The SNP is determined that every child, regardless of their circumstances, should get the best start in life, which is why we introduced Scotland’s Baby Box. Based on the Finnish model, which has a proven record of decreasing infant mortality, the box includes essential items for a baby’s first weeks and months and it will also provide a safe space for babies to sleep near their parents.

      However, in her enthusiasm to praise the policy and use it as a reason to vote SNP, Nicola appeared to overlook the fact that to be eligible for a “baby box” the child must first be born. She has, perhaps, not seen images of babies killed in the womb on the basis that the mother “chooses” to do so, nor has she heard tales from previous abortionists of babies kicking back, fighting to remain in the womb, during that horrendous “procedure”.

      My purpose in writing now, prior to the election, is to urge you to rethink your position on this crucial issue. Those who think that climate change is the defining issue of our times have failed to understand the lessons of history. We have, at least, 500 scientists writing to the UN recently saying there IS no climate emergency, whereas I cannot find a single scientist who claims that the child in the womb is not a human being. History will judge politicians severely for their failure to right this terrible injustice against the most vulnerable people in our society, since 1967.

      Please use your influence within the Party to bring about a change of heart and policy towards the unborn children at risk in their mother’s womb. That mother has no right to choose to kill anyone else – why should your Party contribute to the deadening of her conscience so that she believes it is acceptable to kill her own baby?

      Kind regards

    • Dear C C
      I sincerley hope yo u will change your mind regarding voting or consider spoiling your vote because can your conscience allow you to condone mass slaughter of pre born babies because without being born then obviously nothing in life is possible I am not insulting you but begging you really to re consider

  5. I found something very interesting in that EWTN article, under the heading of “A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters.” Here is the author’s response to the question (#5), “If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?”

    It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.

    Good thing this answer wasn’t submitted to Pope Francis for review before publication….

    • RCA Victor,

      We don’t have capital punishment over here any more, so that wouldn’t be an issue at our election.

      Whether it should be, is another matter. I went to look for the murder stats just now and couldn’t believe it when I got the government site up and found “hate crime” top of the list! In fact, murders must be hidden in one of the other links because it’s all “crimes against businesses”, drug misuse and such like, no mention of knife assaults or murders.

      The penalty for murdering someone here is a few years in jail, half time for good behaviour. Yesterday in the news it was reported that a boy who cold-bloodedly murdered his ex-girlfriend because she broke up with him to concentrate on her school studies, got a mere 12 years. She was 17 so I guess he is around 18. It’s unbelievable. We used to hang murderers like him, now we send them off for a few years in jail where they seem to be able to get phones, drugs, TVs and visits from family and friends. It really is ridiculous. Then, when he gets out, I suppose his next girlfriend won’t be any the wiser due to the data protection laws. Everything seems set up to make life as easy as possible for those who break the law – unless it’s a stupid law like saying the wrong thing, annoying someone, offending someone – and then they throw the book at you!

      • Josephine,

        Thank you for that information. I’m beginning to think that the UK is possibly in the most advanced state of degeneracy and anarchy on the entire planet – with the possible exception of Sweden.

        • RCA Victor,

          I’m very interested in this subject and it’s something I’ve often meant to ask you – we see the USA courts handing out sentences of 160 years and similar; does that really happen, or do these criminals get out on appeal.

          I ask because I once read that such sentences mean what they say and that once convicted in the USA (of a crime like murder) it’s almost impossible to get released on appeal. Is that true?

          • Editor,

            I can’t claim to know much, or anything at all, about prison sentences here, other than they tend to be more severe in parts of the country that are “conservative,” and more lax in parts of the country that are “liberal” (for example, the Eastern seaboard cities and the Left Coast).

            But one of the reasons a second Trump term is so necessary is that he is appointing so many good judges. I just saw an article today that he as already appointed 25% of Circuit Court judges. Not to mention two Supreme Court judges.

            • RCA Victor,

              I’m very pleased that you know little about prison sentences. Quite a relief!

              As for Trump’s new judges – I hope they have more sense than this one…

  6. At the risk of being cheeky and getting my knuckles rapped by our wonderful underpaid editor, I offer the following on the upcoming election.
    Many years ago (during Harold Wilson’s time in power) I watched a pompous BBC type asking a lovely old country gent who he was going to vote for.
    The wise man replied ‘I am not going to vote’
    The rather shocked reporter asked him why not.
    The wise man replied ‘Look son – no matter who I vote for the government gets in’

  7. I’m also having a dilemma regarding what party to vote for. I feel a duty to vote but what a bunch! My heart says vote for the Brexit party and perhaps I will. If we keep thinking that it will split the vote, they will never succeed. On the whole, our politicians are a reflection of society, amoral and gutless. As far as I can glean, there are not many of them that show any integrity. How sad. St. Thomas More, pray for us!!

    • Helen,

      The polls are putting the Conservatives ahead right now so if they look likely to get a majority, I’d vote for them to get Brexit over the line. I would prefer the “clean break” Brexit Party but if it means getting out quicker, even if it will take a few more years to properly break free, then I think Conservative is the way to go.

  8. I’ve just been on the SNP website to see if I could find some answers to questions I never hear mentioned in any discussions. I was unable to find a section on independence listed, and it was only when I put “independence” into the site search engine that I got up a page, but even then, none of my questions are mentioned. In case anyone here has the answers, my questions are:

    In an independent Scotland –

    1) would there be a physical border between England and Scotland? I ask that because the worry over Northern Ireland being a way of getting EU goods into the UK illegally, would apply if Scotland were independent but re-joined the EU. How would we stop EU goods trickling into England? Also how would we stop illegal immigration into England without a physical border?

    2) would we have Scottish passports?

    3) would we keep the Queen, as was the case in the 2014 referendum?

    4) even if we voted for independence in indyref2, would we have to wait for the Westminster Parliament to agree a treaty before we could leave (as is the case with the EU & UK right now) or would we leave “deal or no deal”?

    5) in 2014, we were to keep the pound sterling. Will that still be the case if we come out after indyref2? Or will Scotland join the Euro, or have its own currency?

    • Scotsgirl,

      I’d like those answers myself. As far as I know, we will be keeping the Queen although I think there’s now talk of our own currency, but I’m not sure.

      When I’ve asked SNP friends about a border, they scoff as if that would be ridiculous but how else would we be able to monitor trade and people going to and from England and Wales?

      I’ve no idea about the rest but I will be interested if anyone else has the answers.

    • Doesn’t really matter what the SNP says about Independence. Catholics cannot vote, surely, for a party whose leader, Nicola Sturgeon, invited women from Northern Ireland to come here to abort their babies, and then ignored the rights of another devolved administration, the NI Assembly by voting to impose abortion on the province.

  9. Scotsgirl,

    I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

    1. There is already a physical border between Scotland and England and has been for hundreds of years. If you mean a manned border, then we only have to look to Norway and Sweden to see how a border operates between an EU country (Sweden) and a non EU country (Norway). Most borders throughout the world have many, sometimes hundreds, of crossings, and while the main crossings are manned the smaller ones are not. The Norway/Sweden border is like this. People pass over the border every day and even at the manned crossings most pass without having to show passports or go through customs. The only time people are stopped is if there is suspicion of smuggling. I suspect that illegal immigrants is something that wouldn’t be a great problem as they usually always arrive in the UK via England which is only 20 miles from mainland Europe. They are not going to risk sailing up the North Sea to reach Scotland.

    2. Like all independent countries Scotland would have it’s own passports. It is interesting to note that the Irish Passport Office is working overtime processing applications from people in Northern Ireland who have now decided they want an Irish passport rather than a British one.

    3. The SNP is not, and never has been a republican party. They have always said they would maintain the monarchy if Scotland became independent. After all, it was a Scots monarch who took over the English throne and not the other way round. Also, Scotland is the oldest monarchy in Europe so why change that?

    4. There would have to be an agreement, but given Westminster’s track record on agreements, who knows how long that would take.

    5. SNP plans have always been to retain the pound. In the run up to the last independence referendum Westminster spat the dummy out the pram and proclaimed that they wouldn’t let Scotland keep the pound. This is despite the fact that Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Jamaica and almost every country in the Commonwealth kept it after independence. Even Ireland used it, and it can hardly be said that it was an amicable divorce when it left the union. It would be nothing short of hypocrisy, and also childish, to say that those countries could use it but not Scotland. Also, England doesn’t own the pound, It was Scotland’s currency before the union so nobody has the right to say we can’t use it.

    • Vianney,

      Thank you for your answers.

      They do make me wonder though what kind of independence we would have, keeping the Queen and pound, no manned border – I take your point about Scotland having been a monarchy but the Queen is not Scots she is the English queen and again, about Scotland having the pound first etc but that was centuries ago and if we are to start over as an independent nation, I would expect us to have our own currency and manned borders – plus I wouldn’t want to be taking rules from a foreign country like Brussels. More than anything else, it is the re-joining of the EU that puts me off voting SNP. It just doesn’t make sense to break with England and then re-join the EU.

      I’ve felt all along that we can’t really be independent given our history and geography whch I don’t think can be compared to other small nations overseas. Having said that, it’s puzzling that the SNP (and other opposition parties) make such a fuss about the Irish border when, as you say, unmanned borders are shown to have worked fine in Norway and Sweden. When that example is given in the Irish context, the SNP and others say it doesn’t apply. So, that is confusing. If it doesn’t apply in Ireland, why would it apply in Scotland?

      Thanks again for your answers, but I’m afraid they just raise more questions.

      • Scotsgirl,

        Don’t be so dismissive – they could make ME Queen (Patricia The First) and we could set up a very good business creating Scottish passports…

        It will be interesting to see how the voting goes up here in Scotland – I’m a Brexiteer, as the bloggers here know well – and it is a fact that more Scots voted to leave the EU than voted for the SNP in the last election, so we may get a surprise on December 12 if that translates into votes for Brexit-supporting parties.

        However, the pro-remain brigade have worked hard to wear us all down so who knows… Whatever, my offer to be Queen Patricia The First of Scotland is there, if any SNP voters wish to consider it, seriously

        • Well, I’ve always called you Your Majesty (or Madge if I’m being naughty!), but if they make it official, then the power will make your head swell.

      • I don’t mean to be pedantic, but she is NOT the English Queen. She is the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She is half Scottish and through the House of Hanover and the Electress Sophia is descended from the House of Stuart. Sophia’s mother was Elizabeth Stuart, James VI and I’s daughter. I would never dream to referring to James VI and I and his descendants as the Scottish Kings. They were Kings of England. Elizabeth II is Scottish and English.

      • Scotsgirl,

        The Queen is not just the English Queen. Apart from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, she is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Island, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. None of those countries is any less independent because they share a monarch. Also, the Queen doesn’t have a drop of English blood in her veins.

        Before the introduction of the Euro, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco all used the Franc and even now, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland all use the same currency, and again, none of them was any less independent because they use the same currency.

        I fail to see why our history and geography would mean we couldn’t be independent. Historically, we were independent far longer than we have been in the union and there is no reason why we can’t be compared to countries of a similar size.

        • Vianney,

          I’m enjoying the discussion about independence, but although I take all your points on board, I have to admit that I find it hard to understand what would be the difference. If we share the monarch and the currency and don’t need a manned border, and are a member of the EU, what form would our independence take? We can’t say “control of our money and our borders” (we already have our own court system/laws) so what precisely would be the difference in an independent Scotland from now?

      • I would say you have to vote for or against Independence on principle, not on details. A vote for Independence is not a vote for SNP. Although they would likely form an interim government, there would very soon be a opportunity to vote for whatever kind of government we wanted.

    • But could Scotland use the English Pound? The Scottish currency in an independent Scotland could not be set by the Bank of England. The Australians and all those other places did have the pound, but they controlled the currency and minted it themselves. Scotland would have to do the same.

      Independence always puzzled me. The SNP doesn’t want England to control Scotland, but they would be happy for the EU to do so. The Scots have controlled England just as much with the House of Stuart plus nine Scottish Prime Ministers.

      • CC.

        Let’s not prevent independence out of concern about who controls the money. I can do that… I love mint… Especially covered in chocolate 😀

    • 1. Most immigrants come to stay in England. Reasonable to say England might want some say in having a border with Scotland lest Scotland become a backdoor into their country.

      2. Are they, aye?

      3. The SNP has been all things at all times. It has been anti-EU and pro-Nazi – two positions I assume it no longer holds.

      4. Yes, and the SNP have honoured the Edinburgh Agreement – signed by Sturgeon and Salmond (whatever happened to him?) – to have a once-in-a-generation referendum and to regard the 2014 result as ‘decisive’.

      5. An ‘independent’ Scotland could use whatever currency it liked – US dollar, Euro, UK sterling, seashells. The question is how much control of monetary policy an ‘independent’ Scotland would have with using a ‘foreign’ currency. The answer was ‘none’.

      The SNP’s currency position is expertly explained by Joanna Cherry QC –

      • William, the SNP has never been pro Nazi. It is true that one of their leaders, Arthur Donaldson, did support Hitler and he conspired to set up a Vichy-style regime with himself as a “Scottish Quisling” in the wake of Hitler’s widely-anticipated invasion. But this was when he was a member of the Scottish Neutrality League and after that organisation disbanded he joined the SNP and eventually became leader in 1960. After joining the SNP he never again mentioned Nazism, presumably seeing the error of his ways. During the 70s the SNP were gaining ground in the opinion polls and wining seats, and it was at this time that Westminster started it’s dirty tricks campaign claiming that the SNP had supported Hitler. In it’s warped mind, if one of the leaders had supported him then the party had also done so. Sadly, many believed this and the SNP lost ground. This wouldn’t happen today as most Scots, of all parties, don’t believe anything Westminster says.

        • Vianney,

          Apologies for your latest post going into moderation – I can’t see any reason for it.

          I wonder if it’s because it’s a “block” comment, without any paragraphing? It’s not that there is anything grammatically wrong with the comment (it’s short enough to be one paragraph, of course) but I think (and it’s just a hunch) that if we make a break in our comments, at least once, that may get through the “spam” filter.

          Might be worth a try.

  10. Scotsgirl, I’m with you on the “re-join the EU” comment. When I listened to Boris Johnston’s dismissive attitude towards Scotland I was sorely tempted to vote for independence but, the re-joining bit has put me clear off the idea. Why on earth would one want to be free from “the English” only to hand one’s sovereignty over to Brussels? Madness. When did the SNP become pro Europe, does anyone know?

    • Olaf,

      I don’t believe Boris “dismissed” Scotland – the SNP MPs repeatedly say the same things, chiefly “Scotland voted to remain!” And it does get to be predictable. When I watch PMQs and the [now retired, widely acknowledged to be biased] Speaker (good riddance) calls Ian Blackford, I groan and tell my TV to please NOT say the same-old same-old, but it/he does.

      Personally, I firmly believe that if indyref2 comes about and is won by the LEAVE (the UK) camp it will be no time at all until a campaign is launched to re-join the UK. Not that anyone ever listens to me…

      • I’m a brexiteer and I dislike all that the SNP stand for. Also, I do not wish another referendum here in Scotland. However, when in Scotland recently, Boris said he was determined not to allow another referendum COME WHAT MAY and irrespective of the wishes (if shown in an electoral result) of the Scottish people. That is being dismissive. Also, he cannot get the SNP name right and calls them “the Scottish nationalists”. Also, remember he didn’t know whether or not the Isle of Man was in the EU!! It seems to me that all he cares about is the Westminster bubble.

        Having said all that, I would still vote Tory to keep the others out!

    • Olaf,

      Politics in general but especially in the UK is extremely adversarial. The SNP will always say the complete opposite of what the sitting government in Westminster decides due to this. ‘We’re different from England’ is the SNPs only play and is used almost exclusively. This has practically forced the SNP to move further left across the political spectrum and is, for my money, why they lost so many seats to the Tories at the last General Election. Some people were speculating that the loss was purely down to Yes/No divide in Scotland so soon after Indyref but this fails to explain why they SNP didn’t lose anywhere near the amount of seats to Labour or the LibDems as they did to the Tories – despite all being Unionist parties. They have left many in the centre/centre-right behind and with little other option. The SNP seemed to have learnt their lesson a wee bit which can be evidenced in their U-turn on the recent trans nonsense.

      I genuinely don’t believe that many within the SNP are ardently pro-EU. I think that the EU is being used as a kind of political tooI to further enhance the case for independence. Moreover, I don’t, for one minute, envisage an independent Scotland, now acceded from the UK, would re-apply for EU membership. Then again, I can’t foresee another indyref anytime soon anyhow.

      Marc

  11. The Liberal Democrats have sacked a candidate Rob Flello, a practicing Catholic, for his views on abortion and “gay marriage”.

    Mr Flello was previously a Labour MP and voted against gay marriage in parliament.

    In a statement he says that he went through a selection process for the lib dems and they have suddenly went back on assurances they gave him, as well as breached their own party constitution and procedures.

    This smacks of the LGBT lobby yanking the lib dems’ chain.

    As she is a local Glasgow-area MP, maybe Catholic Truth and/or readers could contact leader Jo Swinson to highlight their disgust at this purge from her party?

    I don’t know if her parliament email will work at this time, (as parliament is dissolved), but otherwise:

    https://www.joswinson.org.uk/contact

    Ms Swinson previously lost her seat as an MP for a time – what a shame if she lost it again, thanks to disaffected Catholic voters.

    I wonder if it would be worth alerting local Catholic clergy?

      • Gabriel Syme,

        I’m afraid I am going to have to give some thought to this, because my first reaction is NOT to support this MP.

        Rob Flello MP was the subject of one of our blog discussions back in 2013
        https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/07/13/catholic-mps-lack-of-conscience/

        He wrote the most ridiculous letter to me, attacking our call for dissenting (from Catholic moral teaching on abortion etc) MPs to be refused Holy Communion as instructed in Canon Law, #915. He had the temerity to demand an apology and a retraction from me. He is still waiting.

        Unfortunately, the links on the above blog are not working, although I do have the correspondence on file. I’ve been trying to work out how to reinstate it online but so far, no luck. It’s been a hectic day, so it will be a while before I can get back to it, but I will try asap. Essentially, Rob Flello wrote that while he, personally, voted against same-sex “marriage” etc., he respected the right of other Catholic MPs to vote differently, claiming that the Church demanded such freedom of conscience. I replied to correct him and enjoyed every minute of it. 😀

        Suffice to say, in summary, that Mr Flello is not my favourite MP and now that he has made a point of joining the one Party which is determined to stop Brexit, I’m even less inclined to support him.

        And, given that Tim Farron, leader of the misnamed Liberal Democrats between 2015 and 2017, was forced to resign because, he said, as a Christian he could not support “gay” marriage (in fact he tried every trick in the book to avoid saying that but they got rid of him anyway because of something he’d said in the far distant past about homosexuality which didn’t fit in with the current PC “pride” message) – so, knowing what happened to Tim Farron, Mr Flello should have had an idea that his dissent from the prevailing PC acceptance of same-sex “marriage” would have come to haunt him in the end.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          I have recovered the links which are broken in the blog post which I linked above, so I have now restored them. For ease of reference, however, the correspondence is as follows:

          Rob Flello’s letter to me…
          http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/LETTERFROMMPCatholicTruth%20July2013ONLINEPETITION.pdf

          My reply…
          http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/LETTERROBFLELLOMPJULY13.pdf
          (Note: the postal address on this letter for Catholic Truth is out of date.)

          As you will see, Mr Flello totally misrepresents Catholic teaching on conscience to excuse his Catholic colleagues who vote(d) in support of abortion and same-sex “marriage”. So, while he may have voted correctly, this is purely because, happily for the unborn, his “conscience” on this subject at this time, coincides with the Church’s teaching. It is not, in other words, a truly conscientious decision – as St Thomas Aquinas put it (although I paraphrase), his opinion on this matter happens to agree with Catholic teaching. We do not, therefore, have another St Thomas More on our hands 😀

          I have tried to find an email address for him but there is nothing available. Since he lost his seat in the 2017 election and was re-entering the election race as a candidate for the Lib Dems, there is nothing listed for him on the Parliament site.

          Had there been a way of contacting him, I would have written to say that I do not feel able to support him, since – by his own rationale – conscience is supreme and we must therefore “respect” Jo Swinson’s conscientious (we presume) decision to drop him from standing as a candidate for her party.

          As St Ireneus once said: Truth is always simple, it is error which is immense. In other words, mess around with Catholic teaching on conscience and one ends up saying and doing the daftest things! For, if it is OK for Flello’s Catholic colleagues to pick and choose their decisions arguing “good conscience”, why not Jo Swinson?

        • Editor,

          Quite right – I had not realised Mr Flello was known to the blog! Apologies!

          It is ironic that he called for tolerance for dissenters, but has himself now fallen foul of people who have no tolerance for dissenters.

          Ultimately I was concerned by political parties driving out people of faith, rather than Mr Flello as an individual but I completely understand your reaction to his name being raised here!

          • Gabriel Syme,

            I’m actually grateful to you for raising his name here – I’d forgotten all about him and his shenanigans, and it was only your comment which jogged my memory. I had to go and Google his name + Catholic Truth in order to re-acquaint myself with the correspondence!

            So, thank you!

  12. Has anyone else consider the Scottish Family Party? I attended their first annual conference today to listen and learn. They only have two candidates for the UK General Election, but might be a realistic option as potential List Members at Holyrood.

    I have read some of their literature and so far the only disagreement I have is with the statement that “Except in extreme circumstance we oppose abortion.” Obviously as a Catholic I oppose abortion in ALL circumstances.

    The Policy Booklet goes on to say:

    “We affirm the value of human life in the womb. Abortion as a means of birth control is morally unjustifiable. Ultimately, we would like to see the law reflect this, but immediate steps could include offering independent counselling to those considering an abortion, reducing the current 24 week limit for abortions, and preventing abortion on grounds of disability after 24 weeks. We would ensure that young people are presented with the facts about abortion and the possible emotional consequences when the subject is discussed in schools. No organisation which provides abortions should be entitled to charitable status.”

    It’s not everything we would want as Catholics, but it’s much more than any other party is offering. I would be Interested in what others think. Thanks.

    https://scottishfamily.org/policies/

    • Editor, can you please remove the rogue apostrophe in the second last line? I can’t bear to have my name attached to such a thing. 😟

    • Eileenanne

      I liked the way the Scottish Family Party man dealt with John Swinney in the video that was posted here on this blog somewhere a while back, talking about the LGBT teaching in schools.

      However, I can’t understand why they won’t just go the whole hog and say they are against abortion because the pro-abortionists won’t vote for them if they have a limit on their support for abortion but Catholics would vote for a clearly pro-life party. I can’t understand why they don’t realise that.

      I suppose we would be allowed to vote for them, given that at least that would reduce the number of abortions if their policy was in force, but personally I wouldn’t feel right about it.

  13. Well I’d vote for them although I accept your reservations.

    Does anybody know in what 2 constituencies they are standing candidates?

    • East Dunbartonshire and Skye and Lochaber. Both places have high profile sitting members, Ian Blackford and Jo Swinson.

      • Thank you Eileenanne, not our neck of the woods unfortunately. I wonder why they can’t field more candidates?

        • Helen,

          The Christian Peoples Alliance are contesting a seat in my constituency, Dundee West. Really hoping we get rid of Chris Law – what a useless coof he is. Although he has a fairly sizable majority, word on the street is that Labour may re-claim the seat.

          Also, Donald Boyd has put himself forward in the Ross, Skye & Lochaber constituency, also. I’d personally plump for him over Richard Lucas. Although, it appears that the Tories and Labour are doing their best to help the LibDem candidate ensure success to get rid of Ian Blackford.

          There are also some sitting MPs who are Christian (Catholic, or otherwise) who are not completely set on furthering ‘progressive’ issues like GRA and abortion and whatnot. If you’re unsure of their policies, you could always email and ask them. They’re likely to reply, particularly in the lead-up to an election. Best of luck in finding someone decent.

          Marc

    • I accept your reservations about being “allowed” to vote for a party that isn’t pro life. For that reason I have been unable to vote for any of the major parties for some years. We are sometimes told we should join a party and work to change it from the inside, but given the makeup of the current crop of parties, I think that would be a task for Archangels, and one I would not set out on with any hope of success. The SFP seems to be in tune with Catholic thinking on almost every issue as far as I can see, and on this not quite wholehearted rejection of abortion, there might be hope of having some influence if Catholics became involved. Realistically, Catholics, and maybe other people too, are unlikely to find a candidate or party with whom they agree on every issue. Even though abortion is the biggie for us, I think the SFP is so nearly there it is a party we could go with.

      • Eileenanne,

        I am so grateful for your comments here. I wanted to write on the blog about the SFP and now you have done it. Everyone I know personally in the party is 100% pro life. That’s a great consolation. The SFP may never be perfect (how could it be?) but it is a light in the dark, barren moral landscape of post modernist Scotland.

  14. I honestly can’t see how any Catholic can vote for Labour in this election. They are going all out to decriminalise abortion, which means infanticide is coming. They’re careful not to spell that out, of course. If they did, that just might be seen as a step too far by the majority of the population but, even then, I’m not sure, things are so bad and consciences are so dead.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-abortion-rights-reproductive-corbyn-women-a9212481.html

      • I would normally agree, but I think it is exceptional, this “Brexit election”, and once we are out of the EU we can take back control including over moral laws. I would feel OK (not happy, but OK) voting Conservative just this once, to get Brexit done, as the saying goes!

        • You say, Josephine “…we can take back control including over moral laws…”
          You would trust the Tories exercise that control for the next four years? A party led by a man whose personal morals are highly questionable? The party of government that, with the support of others, forced abortion on Northern Ireland? Not only was that action grossly immoral, it was an abuse of power, completely ignoring the rights of a devolved administration. (Apart altogether from the moral issue here, that alone makes the SNP’s support of that move quite insupportable. They of all people should respect the rights of the people of NI.) I was a remain voter, but even if I had voted to leave the EU, I don’t think I would see “getting Brexit done” as overriding the right to life and the need to uphold the democratic process. I don’t want to get into a pro or anti Brexit debate – regrettably I accept that argument has been won and lost – but I don’t think we can blame the EU for the lack of morality in our British legislators.

          • Eileenanne, I agree but for which party would you vote? The Brexit Party? As citizens and Catholics, I think we do have a duty to vote as the next government will control so much of, not only our lives, but the lives of our children.

            • In recent years I have been spoiling my paper by writing at the bottom my reasons for not endorsing any of them. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for any of the major parties for the reasons I have already described. That action could be described as a cop out, and to some extent I would agree, but if enough of us did it, the fact would be noted. I will almost certainly give my second vote at the Holyrood election to the Scottish Family Party.

              • Eileenanne,

                You dismiss the idea of voting Conservative on the grounds of they being best placed to get Brexit done, because you say you can’t vote for them due to their pro-abortion stance, but then you say you would give your second Holyrood vote to the SFP which is only partially opposed to abortion. I can’t see the difference. to be honest.

                I am thinking again about the problem ( and it is a problem) of voting for any party which is so obviously pro-abortion, because I am very keen to give my vote to a pro-Brexit candidate, so I may switch to the Brexit Party, although they are not likely to win the seat. It’s not easy to vote with a clear Catholic conscience on this. I do wish the pro-life organisations would make more effort to get the Abortion Act of 1967 repealed. They really don’t make waves, do they.

                • My not voting Conservative is totally unrelated to Brexit. Sorry if that was not clear. I was a remain voter, but accept that Brexit will probably happen some time, so for me, now, it’s a non issue.

                  The Conservatives, and all the other main parties are staunchly and aggressively pro abortion. The Scottish Family Party is about 99% pro life, and may be open to persuasion to go the whole hog if pro lifers get involved.

                  I am astounded at your last two sentences which pass the buck to other people as if you had no responsibility to make waves yourself. How will the political parties know we despise aspects of their policies if we continue to vote for them?

                  • Eileenanne,

                    I don’t think it’s fair to interpret my comments about the pro-life groups as meaning I don’t think I have any responsibility, but I’m not being paid a salary to fight the pro-life cause and they do – SPUC definitely. SPUC seems to have no end of cash to spend on offices and glossy brochures and yet they are not having any impact on the abortion law. That point has been made on this blog many times and it’s stuck with me as ringing true.

                    That doesn’t mean I think I have no responsibility myself. I support pro-life events when I can (e.g. 40 days for life) and I’ve written to politicians who support abortion to try to change their minds. The only one to reply was my own SNP MP and that was to say the usual respect for my views but he will always vote pro-choice.

                    I’m not disagreeing with you – I normally wouldn’t dream of voting Conservative anyway, given their terrible anti-poor policies, and you have made me think again, so that I’ll probably vote Brexit Party if we have a candidate, just to keep my conscience clear.

                    • Josephine, thanks for the clarification. Maybe we will run into each other at 40 Days for Life. Can’t believe we are so nearly at that time of year again!

  15. The police have been called in to deal with the “anti-abortion” groups targeting Stella Creasey, who is a “pro-choice” MP, who wants to see decriminalisation of abortion totally
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/23/stella-creasy-anti-abortion-groups-launch-fresh-attack-on-pregnant-labour-mp

    I didn’t know you had to be registered as a political campaigning group to send out leaflets about any of the candidates. That seems very restrictive.

    • Margaret Mary,

      Stella Creasey is one of those snowflakes who can’t take the heat so she would be better out of the kitchen. I hope she loses her seat on 12 December. She lies through her teeth as this short video shows:

  16. dear All ……..
    This Election will be unbelievably hard to predict …I urge people to contact their Candidates and ask for their views on Abortion ,Euthanasia RSE etc ……..Right to Life has produced a very easy to use model IT IS SO IMPORTANT WE DO THIS obviously a vote for Laybore is a vote for more mass child destruction and total debauchery ……..and believe me if they get in pro life people will be hounded and hunted it is such a really important question to ask all of them ?..Everyone to their own but I am a more than a bit shocked ,saddened and disturbed to read some comments on here …….I beg of you contact these people standing AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and when you get an answer alert all your friends ,Family ,Church Group etc…… a pro death so called charity has launched a campaign to GET PRO DEATH CANDIDATES VOTED IN if we are complacent then that will happen no use crying then for the little ones who never got to live let alone vote they depend on us thank you

    • Wendy Walker 95,

      I suppose my comments about voting Brexit are what have shocked you but the fact is that voting for pro-life candidates doesn’t make any difference. Unless the policy of the Party changes, it doesn’t matter if there are a few pro-lifers, because they can’t change the policy.

      For most of my life I’ve voted on the pro-life ticket, whatever the Party, but it hasn’t changed anything.

      Also, I know that my MP is not going to pay any attention to my “threat” not to vote for him, because I’ve already written to him about abortion and he has said flatly that he disagrees with me and won’t be voting pro-life. So, he knows he’s not going to get my vote anyway – and he also knows that I’m in a minority here (probably of one!) so he doesn’t need to worry.

      The pro-life organisations like SPUC are not threat to the politicians and if they are no threat, individuals like me won’t change anything. I do think getting out of the EU just might make a difference, because they won’t have that to hide behind and the European Court can’t interfere, so I tend to think there’s more hope of getting rid of bad moral laws like the Abortion Act if we vote Brexit. Obviously, if I had a strongly pro-life candidate as an option, I would quite likely vote for him or her but that’s not the case. I am sorry I shocked you but I am trying to work out the best thing to do in these circumstances.

  17. Dear Josephine
    Actually it wasnt you I was talking about I am not here to name and shame BUT I cannot understand anyone voting laybore and claiming to be pro life I have just had a laybore leaflet well tome of a rabid far left Cllr now standing as a far left MP I told the man posting to stop posting poison in peoples doors …………

    • Wendy,

      I suspect it is Catholic Convert to whom you refer. I did challenge him at the time, but I’ve done so again, and added to my original comment. I am copying my most recent reply to him here, to makes sure it’s not missed…

      REPLY TO CATHOLIC CONVERT…

      Catholic Convert,

      I had an email from a reader expressing amazement and shock that anyone on this blog would even think of voting Labour, given their viciously anti-life policies. I replied that I couldn’t recall reading anyone saying they’d vote Labour but now, on a scroll, I remember replying to this below. I repeat my comment here, and add to it as follows:

      I honestly fail to see how any Catholic can square voting Labour with a truly Catholic conscience, given that its female MPs are working hard to decriminalise abortion: voting them into power will mean, for sure, that babies are even more at risk of being murdered – not just within the womb but once born. Don’t be fooled by the euphemism “decriminalisation” – that’s a cover to extend the “woman’s right to choose” until AFTER her baby has been born. Infanticide, in other words, as is now available in the USA. We’re never too far behind them in most things, and this will be no different.
      http://jostevens.co.uk/decriminalising-abortion/

      No worker’s right is more important than the right to life of every child.
      I would urge you – and the others here – to contact your MP to let him/her know that no matter what else they are promising, there’s no point, if we do not first have the absolute right to protection in the womb and the right to life.

      I have just written to my own MP (SNP) as follows, dated today, 27/11/19…

      Dear [Name],

      I know I’ve written to you before in an effort to persuade you of the immorality of abortion, but without success.

      I am writing now to let you know that the SNP policy on abortion will, in itself, prevent me from considering voting for you, despite – and I thank you for this – your helpful action on a local matter about which I contacted you some months ago.

      In her presentation of the SNP Manifesto this morning, I heard Nicola Sturgeon boast about the Party’s policy on “baby boxes”…

      From the Party website: The SNP is determined that every child, regardless of their circumstances, should get the best start in life, which is why we introduced Scotland’s Baby Box. Based on the Finnish model, which has a proven record of decreasing infant mortality, the box includes essential items for a baby’s first weeks and months and it will also provide a safe space for babies to sleep near their parents.

      However, in her enthusiasm to praise the policy and use it as a reason to vote SNP, Nicola appeared to overlook the fact that to be eligible for a “baby box” the child must first be born. She has, perhaps, not seen images of babies killed in the womb on the basis that the mother “chooses” to do so, nor has she heard tales from previous abortionists of babies kicking back, fighting to remain in the womb, during that horrendous “procedure”.

      My purpose in writing now, prior to the election, is to urge you to rethink your position on this crucial issue. Those who think that climate change is the defining issue of our times have failed to understand the lessons of history. We have, at least, 500 scientists writing to the UN recently saying there IS no climate emergency, whereas I cannot find a single scientist who claims that the child in the womb is not a human being. History will judge politicians severely for their failure to right this terrible injustice against the most vulnerable people in our society, since 1967.

      Please use your influence within the Party to bring about a change of heart and policy towards the unborn children at risk in their mother’s womb. That mother has no right to choose to kill anyone else – why should your Party contribute to the deadening of her conscience so that she believes it is acceptable to kill her own baby?

      Kind regards

  18. Has anybody heard or seen this pastoral election letter from the Scottish bishops issued today? Unbelievable, in my opinion. It starts off quite well, although it could have elaborated on the section “Marriage and the family”, and then it deterioated into eco babble. Shocking. A real missed opportunity. Read here:

    https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/38334

    • It’s a pointless document anyway. For most of us voting for Catholic values is impossible. I only have the four main parties to choose from. My conscience would not allow me to support any of them. I expect most Catholics are in the same position.

  19. In that link above posted by crofterlady did anyone think the bishops were getting a dig at the Conservatives? None of the parties are perfect by any means but, I think the bishops should have been having a go at the SNP with their anti family policies, as well as Labour and their pro abortion stance!

    • Helen,

      Peter Kearney, who is the Bishops’ official spokesman, made his support for the SNP very publicly known quite a while ago, before the 2017 election, I think I’m right in saying. So, he couldn’t have done that without their say-so.

      The Bishops are definitely left-leaning so they won’t like the Conservatives at all. I’m not a Conservative either, but really they are all left-leaning now. The Tories’ reputation to be right wing went out of the window when they introduced same-sex marriage and they are as keen on abortion as the rest. ALL the parties are pro-abortion and pro gay rights, so there isn’t any choice for a Catholic, that’s for sure. The Bishops should be saying that and urging us to spoil our votes IMHO.

      The only fly in the ointment is Brexit – and some of us want to make sure we get that.

  20. I’ve just voted (postal vote) for the Brexit Party as the others are blatantly anti life. Any port in a storm!

  21. I’ve been watching the ITV election debate but switched off half an hour before the end. They are SUCH liars, the lot of them – except, I can honestly say, Nigel Farage. He was the only one not to make ad hominem attacks, even when he was insulted himself, he just said it was not true.

    The rest of them descended very quickly into ad hominem attacks and were particularly vicious on Donald Trump, dredging up the uncouth stuff he’s said about women etc. I wonder at the way people say they are shocked at that sort of thing, when they will watch sheer filth in the movies and never complain.

    The other thing that sickened me was watching the women on the panel (Nicolas Sturgeon, SNP Jo Swinson Lib Dems and Sian Berry, Greens) talking about “child poverty” and the way Donald Trump took children away from their parents at the Mexican border, all the usual propaganda, yet each of them 100% supports the murder of babies in the womb. Such hypocrites.

    What always strikes me about these debates, though, is the, frankly, unintelligent, audiences. None of them seem to notice the hypocrisy.

    If anyone else watched that joke of a debate, I’d be interested to know what you thought of it.

  22. I had to laugh watching Donald Trump in the live press conference when he arrived in London for the Nato meeting, saying he wouldn’t want the NHS if the UK served it to him on a silver platter! LOL!

    It has been ridiculous seeing the “NHS Not for Sale” slogan of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems saying the same thing, that voting Tory means the NHS will be on the table in a trade deal with the USA, because in my own experience of the NHS recently, it’s completely chaotic. Who on earth would want to buy it!

    Getting an appointment with a doctor is almost impossible, you have to see the nurse first and if the nurse thinks you need the doctor, then she will arrange it! Not only that, but when you ring for an appointment, you hear a message from the receptionist saying that they are held to the same confidentiality as the doctors, so you have to answer their questions and give as much information as possible, so they can direct your appointment to the right place. It’s just dreadful. What if the receptionist is a neighbour or someone I know? I gave up trying to get an appointment just a couple of weeks ago. Good on Trump, though, for making it clear that he knows the NHS wouldn’t be any kind of good investment. He should know, he’s a very experienced business man!

  23. LGBT lobby group, Stonewall have written a comprehensive election manifesto demonstrating how they want to effect policy and decision-making across all areas of government.

    Many of our existing freedoms are already under threat, Stonewall aim to further erode fundamental human rights.

    Sign our petition asking your local candidates to explicity reject Stonewall’s manifesto.
    SIGN
    Dear wendy,

    A few days ago, I wrote to you about Stonewall’s demands that LGBT education be embedded into every single section of the primary school curriculum and how the Department of Education have changed their website, which will make it almost impossible for primary schools to opt out of teaching LGBT issues to children as young as five.

    You’re probably wondering how this has been allowed to happen and how, in the space of a few short years, LGBT ideology has become official government policy and a so-called “British value”.

    Much of this success can be attributed to the influence of the lobbying efforts of Stonewall who are extending their reach across every area of public life. If you want to know why the Department for Education sneakily introduced the crucial change to their website guidance, then perhaps you need to look no further than the fact that the permanent secretary for the department for education, has been named a Stonewall Senior Champion of the Year!

    Not content with capturing the civil service, the police force, education authorities and other public bodies across the country, Stonewall seek to embed and enmesh their ideology into every single area of public life.

    This is why we must ask candidates in the General Election to say “NO” to Stonewall, reject their election manifesto and instead uphold a set of 4 key principles.
    Sign our petition asking your local candidates to say no to Stonewall, to reject their manifesto and to uphold the impartiality of our public institutions.
    It is not unreasonable for lobby groups to publish election literature which is part of a healthy democracy but most other lobby groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Citizens Advice Bureau or the Royal College of GPs have restricted their election manifestos to 1-2 pages, whereas Stonewall’s manifesto, which they are asking candidates to support, runs to a full 18 pages.

    Other lobby groups only want to influence one particular area, whereas Stonewall want to extend their influence across every aspect of government.

    Stonewall’s demands clash with many of our fundamental freedoms and important aspects of dignity and welfare. Their support for gender ideology and desire to impose it upon the whole of society has even caused some prominent former members and supporters to split off, a few months ago, to found a new movement, the LGB Alliance.

    When members of the LGBT community are themselves denouncing Stonewall as too extreme, it is time to sit up and take notice.

    We cannot allow this institutional capture of our publicly-funded state institutions by Stonewall to continue. Please sign our petition today, asking candidates to stand up to this lobby group and reject their influence, should they be elected.

    Stonewall spends so much money on their electoral campaigning, that they are one of a group of 5 organisations who have been legally compelled under the Lobbying Act, to formally register themselves with the Electoral Commission.

    The Leftists don’t like this act and have pledged to repeal it, because it demonstrates how much money ideological lobby groups are pouring into the election in an attempt to influence the outcome and direct the future government.

    Stonewall has had a strong influence upon the Labour party in previous years, for example in the 2017 general election, Stonewall’s demand for a gender identity law, was also found later in the Labour party manifesto using not only identical wording but also identical punctuation.

    Stonewall’s aim is to transform our understanding of human reality on an official level, with a government stamp of approval. Here are some of the things which they want to impose:

    Self-identification – so that anyone can change their gender by filling in a form online, removing all medical and social safeguards
    Obliterate single-sex sports as a grassroots and professional level
    LGBT indoctrination in schools and clamping down on free speech in universities
    Gender-neutral passports, which pose a risk to national security
    Removal of women’s rights to female-only public lavatories, changing rooms, rape shelters, prisons and other facilities
    Candidates in this general election need to be challenged to uphold the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by all of us. Stonewall’s plans pose a real threat to public health and safety. Their one-sided approach to rights and freedoms removes rights and freedoms from other members of society and will eradicate the rights of those from other minority communities to fully participate in public life.

    Candidates are feeling the pressure of LGBT lobby and are pushed to sign the manifesto and then, if elected, boost its agenda. We have to make them feel that there are also thousands of voters who are asking them to stand firm against LGBTI totalitarianism and will vote accordingly.

    Please sign our petition, urging your local candidate to reject Stonewall’s manifesto and make a valuable stand for freedom.

    If this information becomes available, just before the election, I will share with you the list of those candidates who have given in to LGBT lobby and have signed the Stonewall manifesto, sorted by district. In that way you will be informed before voting.

    With thanks for all that you do,

    Caroline and the entire team at CitizenGO

    PS – we only have just over a week to the election – it is not too late, please sign the petition and circulate to all of your friends, family and anyone who you know to be frustrated by this constant encroachment of Stonewall into our everydayevery day life.

    Sources:
    Tell election candidates to resist Stonewall’s demands (Christian Concern):

    https://christianconcern.com/action/tell-election-candidates-to-resist-stonewall-demands/

    • Wendy,

      I put that on the Guadalupe voting thread this morning. Just so you know – doesn’t matter as I really should have closed this thread when we opened the other one. My fault!

%d bloggers like this: