Tuesday, 14 December 2010

Thanks Mr Miliband But... No Deal

Ed Miliband, realising what an authoritarian tribe he now leads, has called for Liberal Democrats to assist with his policy review. Perhaps we might even join the party, given how our Ministers have "betrayed" us.

Well Mr Miliband, I'm afraid that if we are going to start pointing fingers over betrayal, let's take a look at the past betrayals of Labour Ministers. They colluded with and allowed torture, which I'd say is a betrayal of human rights. They joined a war in Iraq based on false premises which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, which I'd say is a betrayal of life itself. You don't get to say "Sorry" and make it alright there. They betrayed electoral reformers by ignoring a report they commissioned suggesting AV+ be used. They betrayed the LGBT community:

"Mr. Chope: Will the Minister answer the question about why the Government are not legislating for homosexual marriage? If they did that, the problems that I have described would not exist.

Jacqui Smith: As we said on Second Reading, our approach to the legal situation is to say, ''Let us devise a 21st century way, a new legal relationship, which recognises the legal difficulties and sensitivities that perhaps not everybody in this Committee may share but certainly many people with religious views would share, about the particular historical traditions of marriage that might make it inappropriate for there to be same-sex marriages.'' We have identified where the mischief stands, as the lawyers describe it, and that is the legal invisibility of people in same-sex couples. We are attempting to remedy that through the Bill, and our approach received widespread support throughout the consultation period. Stonewall, for example, recognises it as the 21st century, modern way to deal with that particular problem.

The second reason for the Government's approach is our view that for opposite-sex couples marriage is the best framework for stable family relationships. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. The irony of his position is that he would want the state to sanction another form of legal relationship for opposite-sex couples that could be seen only as being in direct competition with marriage. It is a deep irony that those people who hold marriage so dear and consider it to be so important at the same time argue for a legally recognised, state sanctioned relationship in direct competition with it. The Government do not want to do that." Source

So excuse me if I laugh, guffaw and perhaps shed a tear at the sheer disgusting audacity of what Mr Miliband has suggested. Given his party had a majority when it helped kill, maim, torture and betray civilians in several countries, I think I can deal with (even if I'm not happy about it) the compromises of the Liberal Democrats in Government.

What I want to know is why more Labour party members haven't resigned in disgust at all the blood on the hands of those still in the Parliamentary party. I suspect they'll say "We're staying inside to help change it" which actually translates into human as "We're don't really give a shit about some foreigners who died, we just hate the Tories and their collaborators!"

Such is the state of the Labour party.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

1 comment:

Duncan said...

Wow. Jacqui Smith's reply is the craziest thing I've read today. Let's think about it shall we:

'We (the state) believe that opposite-sex (what?) relationships are the stablest foundations for a marriage so it would be wrong for the state to endorse same-sex marriages (which, presumably, are slightly less stable then).'

This would make sense only if people who were considering 'opposite marriage' would see the state 'endorsing' same-sex marriage and say "wait! I want to have me one of those! They're just as good, did you say?"

I've often speculated as to the source of my 'opposite sex' attraction. I thought it was because I find only female sexual characteristics arousing, but here apparently it was because I believed that opposite-sex relationships were a stable foundation for child-rearing. Lucky I was (built) right because otherwise I'd be denied the right for state recognition of my relationship in case it sent out a 'message' that people like me were okay and normal.

How stable is Jacqui Smith's marriage again?