Tory MP attacks anti-gay marriage campaigners as they threaten to unseat her

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...unseat-dozens/

Tory MP Attacks Anti-Gay Marriage ‘Bigots’ As They Pledge To Unseat Dozens of MPs

A re-standing Tory MP has branded the Coalition For Marriage (CFM) “bigots” after they posted leaflets in her constituency telling voters she supported gay marriage and encouraging people to vote for her opponents. The group are now mounting a national campaign and they claim to have enough members to unseat “dozens” of pro-gay marriage Tory MPs.

Dr Sarah Wollaston was unrepentant when leaflets were put out in her constituency of Totnes. She posted it on Twitter with the message “Coalition for marriage are stuffing these through letter boxes in my area. Thanks bigots, I’m proud of that vote!”

Although the CFM was beaten in last year’s when gay marriage was passed in parliament, they have always pledged to use their members to unseat the MPs who voted for it. Officials at the CFM have told Breitbart London a “good number” of their 690,000 members had voted Conservative but were likely to switch this time.

A total of 117 Tory MPs voted in favour of gay marriage, whilst 128 voted against. Campaigners say they have identified dozens of seats where the CFM have a membership that is larger than the majority held by the pro-gay marriage MPs including several Tory seats. While polling by ComRes found the issue could be catastrophic for David Cameron, costing him more than a million votes, including in key marginal.

If their members did vote Conservative last time the loss of them could prove catastrohpic for David Cameron in key marginals. Legally the CFM cannot tell members which way to vote but can remind them that the local candidate voted for gay marriage, whilst their opponents opposed it.

This will be one i'll be drinking to if she loses her seat. It's one thing for her to disagree and say "Sorry to social conservatives in my area, I respect your opinion but I feel different" but for her to turn around and hurl abuse at her own core vote is another. Arrogance of the highest order in that she expects tribal blues to stick by her no matter what she does. That said, there's many more and bigger reasons not to vote Conservative other than gay 'marriage' but as far as I am concerned every MP the useless Tories lose the better. I'm literally praying they come behind Labour in terms of seat numbers.

Well done C4M, and judging by her small majority this could well see Sarah packing her bags.

bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun:a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Oh dear, so no upside for the pro gay tories, where is the poll bounce from all those metropolitan gays and lesbians who were supposed to be flocking to the once-conservative party's standard? What's that you say? They still despise them and will continue voting Labour? Nooooo it can't be.

Guess that's the price you pay for spitting in the face of your core vote. Did they really think it would be consequence free? Besides, what does Wollaston care, if the voters tell her where to go she'll go back to being a GP, get a nice pay off from the HoC, a pay rise and still be gouging the tax payer for it all. Bless 'er.

Thoughts?

[AgnesIO]

Laughable that they think that they could unseat dozens of Tories. Holds less substance than Farage claims of doing he same thing months ago.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Laughable that they think that they could unseat dozens of Tories. Holds less substance than Farage claims of doing he same thing months ago.

Oh we'll see, for both claims.

The truth is that you need all the votes you can get as you failed even in 2010 with all the printed press on your side and no competition to win against a tired government of 13 years and a hated Prime Minister. The people Cameron insulted, he's now appealing to with only two weeks to go. Desperate stuff.

Even if C4M succeed in unseating one Tory MP, that's still one less Tory MP. Job done in my eyes.

[FlyingJesus]

What where's she attacking her core it looks like she's attacking her opponents to me

[-:Undertaker:-]

What where's she attacking her core it looks like she's attacking her opponents to me

Social conservatives aren't part of the core of the Tory Party?

A total of 117 Tory MPs voted in favour of gay marriage, whilst 128 voted against.

Technically though you are right. But only because she's made them into her opponents.

[FlyingJesus]

They made themselves into her opponents by opposing things that she stands for there's really nothing that malicious going on here and she's not changed her mind on anything, it's just a group of people using one single policy to dictate voting behaviour as always happens with everything ever at all levels

[-:Undertaker:-]

They made themselves into her opponents by opposing things that she stands for there's really nothing that malicious going on here and she's not changed her mind on anything, it's just a group of people using one single policy to dictate voting behaviour as always happens with everything ever at all levels

Erm what? A candidate is supposed to represent the views of their constituency party members, not the other way around.

And i'm not saying there's anything malicious going on here, just that she's made a big gamble and that her attitude is multiplying that risk.

[FlyingJesus]

Pretty sure you don't vote for a random name and then force that person to campaign for your ideals, you choose someone who promises from the outset to promote the things you like (or as close to as possible)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pretty sure you don't vote for a random name and then force that person to campaign for your ideals, you choose someone who promises from the outset to promote the things you like (or as close to as possible)

Indeed, and Dr Wollaston has clearly annoyed many of the Tory faithful by voting for SSM.

Her choice, and many of them are going to make her pay for what they see as unconservative voting from a Conservative MP.

[FlyingJesus]

Which is their choice, no problem, but the point is she can't be expected to go against her own ideals (especially those that she's actively worked towards) just because some people are annoyed by inconsequential changes to the name of a legal document. She'd be a far more deplorable politician if she flip-flopped on issues depending on the zeitgeist of the over 70 vote rather than standing up for her choices